DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 2021/0301167 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches a liquid treatment composition containing an aliphatic diisocyanate, a compound selected from the group consisting of multivalent metal salts and cationic polymers, and water (Abstract). This liquid treatment composition may further comprise resin particles ([0048]) and is applied to a cloth prior to an inkjet ink composition ([0007]), wherein the inkjet ink may contain water ([0123]). Together, the liquid treatment composition and the inkjet ink read on the claimed “ink fluid set,” wherein the liquid treatment composition reads on the claimed “2-part aqueous primer coating fluid” and the inkjet ink reads on the claimed “aqueous inkjet ink.”
The instant Specification specifically states that multivalent metal salts fall within the category of “aggregating agent” compounds (c.f. instant Specification at p. 7, lines 2-3); therefore, the multivalent metal salts of Okada read on the claimed “aggregating agent.” Furthermore, the aliphatic diisocyanate of Okada reads on the claimed “water dispersible co-reactant” because it is a polyisocyanate, which reads on the claimed listing of “water dispersible co-reactant” compounds. Finally, the resin particles of Okada read on the claimed “water insoluble polymer binder” because Okada states that they may be in the form of an emulsion (as opposed to a solution), and they may optionally include urethane and acrylic resins ([0049]) which read on the claimed listing of polymer binders.
Regarding the limitation that the claimed “aqueous primer coating fluid” is a “2-part” product, which is mixed together in a claimed ratio range of “from 100:1 to 100:20,” Okada teaches that the pretreatment liquid is formed by mixing the constituents one after another and stirring ([0134]). Furthermore, it is prima facie obvious to select any order of mixing (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mix the multivalent metal salt/cationic polymer and resin particles together with water, followed by the subsequent addition and mixing of the diisocyanate component to form the inventive pretreatment liquid. In so doing, the composition of Okada also reads on the limitations requiring parts A and B (which are arbitrarily assigned given that prima facie the order of mixing is rendered obvious). Okada teaches that the aggregating agent may specifically be incorporated in amounts ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 wt% of the treatment liquid ([0043]), the resin particles may specifically be included in amounts ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 wt% of the treatment liquid ([0058]), and the diisocyanate may specifically be included in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 wt% of the treatment liquid ([0021]). In total the combined parts of the resin particles and aggregator (which read on the claimed part “A”) therefore constitute 2.5 to 5.5 wt% of the treatment liquid while the diisocyanate (which reads on the claimed part “B”) constitutes 0.5 to 2.0 wt% of the treatment liquid. The ratio of these two ranges therefore spans from 5.5:0.5 to 2.5:2.0, equivalent to a ratio range of 100:9.1 to 100:80. This range overlaps the claimed range of “from 100:1 to 100:20,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
As described above, Okada also teaches an inkjet ink ([0007]). The inkjet ink includes a pigment ([0105]) and a polymer which may be any of the same polymers used in the treatment composition described above ([0121]), which includes polyurethanes and acrylates ([0049]). As described above, the inkjet ink may contain water ([0123]). The inkjet ink may also include a water-soluble organic solvent ([0123]), and the inkjet ink therefore contains on the claimed “aqueous vehicle” because the instant Specification states that an “aqueous vehicle” refers to a water or a mixture of water and at least one water-soluble organic solvent (c.f. instant Specification at p. 5, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 2, as described above, Okada teaches that the resin particles, which read on the claimed “water insoluble polymer binder in part A” may be urethane resin, which reads on a “polyurethane polymer” ([0049]).
Regarding claim 3, as described above, Okada teaches the specific incorporation of an aliphatic diisocyanate (Abstract), which reads on the claimed “polyisocyanate.”
Regarding claim 4, as described above, Okada teaches that the resin particles within the inkjet ink may be the same particles as those of the treatment liquid ([0121]), and said resin particles may be urethane resin, which reads on a “polyurethane polymer” ([0049]).
Regarding claim 5, as described above, Okada teaches that the resin particles within the inkjet ink may be the same particles as those of the treatment liquid ([0121]), and said resin particles may be acrylic resin ([0049]), which reads on the claimed “acrylic polymer.”
Regarding claim 6, as described above, the resin particles within the treatment liquid may be acrylic resin ([0049]), which reads on the claimed “acrylic polymer.”
Regarding claim 7, as described above, Okada teaches the specific incorporation of an aliphatic diisocyanate (Abstract), which reads on the claimed “polyisocyanate.”
Regarding claim 8, as described above, Okada teaches that the resin particles within the inkjet ink may be the same particles as those of the treatment liquid ([0121]), and said resin particles may be urethane resin, which reads on a “polyurethane polymer” ([0049]).
Regarding claim 9, as described above, Okada teaches that the resin particles within the inkjet ink may be the same particles as those of the treatment liquid ([0121]), and said resin particles may be acrylic resin ([0049]), which reads on the claimed “acrylic polymer.”
Regarding claim 10, Okada additionally teaches that the resin particles within the treatment liquid may be ethylene vinyl acetate resin ([0049]), which reads on the claimed “polyvinyl acetate copolymer.”
Regarding claim 11, as described above, Okada teaches the specific incorporation of an aliphatic diisocyanate (Abstract), which reads on the claimed “polyisocyanate.”
Regarding claim 12, as described above, Okada teaches that the resin particles within the inkjet ink may be the same particles as those of the treatment liquid ([0121]), and said resin particles may be urethane resin, which reads on a “polyurethane polymer” ([0049]).
Regarding claim 13, as described above, Okada teaches that the resin particles within the inkjet ink may be the same particles as those of the treatment liquid ([0121]), and said resin particles may be acrylic resin ([0049]), which reads on the claimed “acrylic polymer.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
