DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2020084026 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as YAMADA.
Regarding claim 1, YAMADA teaches a condensed polycyclic organic pigment having excellent dispersibility and dispersion stability (see YAMADA at paragraph [9]). YAMADA also teaches that the examples of the condensed polycyclic organic pigments include quinacridone pigments including C.I. Pigment Violet 19 and C.I. Pigment Red 122 (see YAMADA at paragraph [15]).
It is noted that according to MPEP § 2111, the proper claim interpretation includes giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Therefore, for the purpose of the claim interpretation, the Examiner treats the limitation “a quinacridone pigment” according to the Specification, including disclosed synthetic procedure and properties.
YAMADA fails to explicitly teach the quinacridone pigment having a specific surface area ratio between water vapor and nitrogen of 0.270 or more and less than 0.430. However, YAMADA, similarly to the Applicant (see originally filed disclosure, Specification, paragraph [0022]), discloses that the condensed polycyclic organic pigment as the raw material may be an untreated condensed polycyclic organic pigment, or may be a condensed polycyclic organic pigment sulfonic acid derivative, an amino group-containing condensed polycyclic organic pigment derivative, or a phthalimidomethyl group; it may be a condensed polycyclic organic pigment in which the surface of the pigment particle is treated with a pigment derivative such as a condensed polycyclic organic pigment derivative contained therein, a polymer such as a dispersant, a surfactant, or rosin (see YAMADA at paragraph [36]). Additionally, YAMADA teaches a synthetic procedure to obtain the quinacridone pigment, which is almost identical to the synthetic procedure disclosed by Applicant (see originally filed disclosure, Specification, paragraph [0056]): C.I. Pigment Red 122 (manufactured by DIC Corporation) wet cake 184.2 parts (pigment content 60 parts) and ion exchanged water 815.8 parts are put in a 2 L stainless steel cup, product was stirred; C. I. Pigment Red 122 slurry was transferred to a 5 L stainless steel cup, and 2.75 parts of iron(II) sulfate heptahydrate (manufactured by FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd.) was added and dissolved; subsequently, 50 parts of 30% hydrogen peroxide solution (manufactured by FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd.) was added and stirred; next, the slurry was Nutsche-filtered, washed with hot water at 70° C, and then the filter cake was blow-dried; obtained pigment mass was pulverized to obtain quinacridone pigment (see YAMADA at paragraph [85]). Furthermore, YAMADA teaches that the specific surface area by the method is preferably in the range of 50 to 100 m2/g, by the nitrogen adsorption method (see YAMADA at paragraphs [16] and [25]), which is within the range of the nitrogen specific surface area of 30 to 120 m2/g disclosed by the Applicant (see originally filed disclosure, Specification, paragraph [0016]).
While YAMADA is silent with respect to the quinacridone pigment having a specific surface area ratio between water vapor and nitrogen of 0.270 or more and less than 0.430, YAMADA teaches the quinacridone pigment obtained by almost identical method and having the nitrogen specific surface area of 50 to 100 m2/g. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated that the quinacridone pigment of YAMADA would have a specific surface area ratio between water vapor and nitrogen of 0.270 or more and less than 0.430, as set forth in claim 1. See MPEP §2112.01(I): “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best”.
Regarding claim 2, YAMADA teaches the quinacridone pigment according to claim 1, wherein the quinacridone pigment is C.I. Pigment Red 122, C.I. Pigment Violet 19, or a solid solution of C.I. Pigment red 122 and C.I. Pigment Violet 19 (see YAMADA at paragraph [15]).
Regarding claim 3, YAMADA teaches a pigment dispersion comprising the quinacridone pigment according to claim 1 and a solvent (see YAMADA at paragraph [57]: the aqueous pigment dispersion is prepared by preparing a high-concentration aqueous dispersion (pigment paste) of the condensed polycyclic organic pigment of the present invention, diluting it with a water-soluble solvent and/or water).
Regarding claim 4, YAMADA teaches an aqueous inkjet ink comprising the pigment dispersion according to claim 3 (see YAMADA at paragraph [57]: the condensed polycyclic organic pigment of the present invention can be suitably used for an inkjet ink, and particularly preferably used as an aqueous pigment dispersion liquid dispersed by using a pigment dispersant or the like for an aqueous inkjet ink).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights