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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that “The chemical structural differences between polyacrylic-based dispersants and polycaprolactone-based polymer dispersants are substantial and would not be considered equivalent by one of ordinary skill in the art. These distinct chemical structures lead to different interactions with pigment surfaces, different solubility characteristics in organic solvents, and different stabilization mechanisms. One of ordinary skill in the art would not consider these dispersant types to be interchangeable or to provide equivalent performance, particularly with challenging pigments such as diketopyrrolopyrrole pigments that have a high tendency to aggregate”, please note that paragraph 0075 of Sugita et al. (US 2009/0235843), cited in the rejection below, teaches “Referring now to the dispersant, it is preferable to use a high-molecular dispersant. The high-molecular dispersant, for instance, includes a main chain comprising a polyester, polyacrylic, polyurethane, polyamine or polycaprolactone”. The Sugita invention is drawn to an ink composition comprising: a diketopyrrolopyrrole pigment (i.e. Red 254) [paragraph 0060], a pigment dispersant that includes a main chain comprising a polyacrylic or a polycaprolactone [paragraph 0075], and a solvent [paragraph 0088], wherein the content of the pigment dispersant is smaller than a content of the pigment [paragraphs 0075 and 0108-0110], which shows that including either pigment dispersant in an ink composition comprising a diketopyrrolopyrrole pigment is well-known in the prior art and expected to provide equivalent performance.
Also, in response to applicant's argument that “Zheng provides no teaching or suggestion that dispersant type has any particular relationship to the dispersion or performance characteristics of diketopyrrolopyrrole pigments. The primary objective of Zheng, as stated in paragraph [0007], is to improve adhesion to reflective films through the use of specific chlioroacetate resins and solvent mixtures, with the resulting ink layers exhibiting excellent chemical resistance (resistance to nitric acid and hydrochloric acid) and alcohol resistance suitable for outdoor traffic signage applications”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ58,60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 113337157 – hereinafter Zheng) in view of Sugita et al. (US 2009/0235843 – hereinafter Sugita.)
Regarding claim 1,
Zheng discloses a non-aqueous ink composition to be ejected by an inkjet method [paragraph 0001], the composition comprising: a pigment [“2-5 parts organic pigment”], a pigment dispersant [“1-3 parts dispersant”], and an organic solvent [“5-20 parts (…) solvent”; claims 1 and 3-4; paragraphs 0005, 0050-0052; Table 5], wherein
the pigment comprises a pigment A represented by Formula (1) [e.g. pigment red 254, among others, has a chemical formula that corresponds to formula (1)], and
a content of the pigment dispersant is smaller than a content of the pigment [see Table 5, reproduced below; e.g., 1.6 ˂ 2.8 (Group A)];
[Formula (1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
185
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in Formula (1), X1 to X10 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, an optionally branched alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, or an aromatic hydrocarbon group in which a hydrogen atom may be substituted, a cyano group, a nitro group, an amino group, -OH, -COOH, -COO-M+, -SO3H, -SO3 ˉM+, a phthalimido group in which a hydrogen atom may be substituted, a phthalimidomethyl group, or a heterocyclic compound, and M+ represents a cation.
[Table 5, reproduced and translated:]
PNG
media_image2.png
234
987
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zheng fails to expressly disclose wherein the pigment dispersant comprises a polycaprolactone-based polymer dispersant.
However, Sugita discloses an oil-based inkjet ink [Ink 5] containing 3.0 mass% of pigment [red 254, which is a diketopyrrolopyrrole pigment corresponding to Formula (1) above], 2.0 mass% of a dispersant, 5.0 mass% of a binder resin, and an organic solvent [paragraphs 0108-0110], wherein the pigment dispersant may comprise a polyacrylic dispersant [as the one taught in the Zheng reference] or a polycaprolactone-based polymer dispersant [paragraph 0075.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zheng invention to include a pigment dispersant that comprises a polycaprolactone-based polymer dispersant (instead of a polyacrylic dispersant) as taught by Sugita for the purpose of improving color reproducibility/saturation and quality of print [paragraph 0007.]
Regarding claim 2,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein a content of a resin is larger than a content of the pigment [e.g., 7 ˃ 2.8 (Group A); see Table 5, reproduced above.]
Regarding claims 3 and 16,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein the content of the pigment is 1.0 mass% or more [e.g., 2.8 ˃ 1.0 (Group A); see Table 5, reproduced above.]
Regarding claims 4 and 17,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein the content of a resin is larger than a content of the pigment dispersant [e.g., 7 ˃ 1.6 (Group A); see Table 5, reproduced above.]
Regarding claims 5 and 18,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein
(content of the pigment dispersant)/(content of a resin) is less than 0.8 [e.g., 0.03 ˂ 0.8 (Group A); see Table 5, reproduced above.]
Regarding claims 6 and 19,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein the content of a resin is larger than a total content of the pigment and the pigment dispersant [e.g., 7 ˃ 4.4 (Group A); see Table 5, reproduced above.]
Regarding claims 7 and 20,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein the content of a resin is larger than a total content of the pigment, the pigment dispersant, and a surfactant [claims 1 and 3-4, paragraphs 0005 and 0050-0052, and Table 5, reproduced above.]
Regarding claim 9,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein the content of the pigment A is 0.1 mass% or more and 8.0 mass% or less of a total mass of the non-aqueous ink composition [see Table 5, reproduced above.]
Regarding claim 10,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses wherein a content of water in the non-aqueous ink composition is 0.5 mass% or less [implicit from claims 1 and 3-4, paragraphs 0005, 0050-0052, and Table 5, reproduced above, that the content/mass of water is negligible.]
Regarding claim 11,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses a recording method, comprising ejecting the non- aqueous ink composition according to claim 1 [see rejection above] onto a surface of a base material using an inkjet method [paragraphs 0001 and 0007.]
Regarding claim 12,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses a method of producing a recorded matter, comprising ejecting the non-aqueous ink composition according to claim 1 [see rejection above] onto a surface of a base material using an inkjet method [paragraphs 0001 and 0007.]
Regarding claim 13,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses an ink set comprising at least the non-aqueous ink composition according to claim 1 [see rejection above.]
Regarding claim 14,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses a recorded matter comprising a print layer of the non- aqueous ink composition according to claim 1 formed on a surface of a base material [paragraph 0007; also note that the recorded matter that is printed on the medium has no functional or structural relationship with the medium/base material, and since it is not functionally or structurally related to the associated physical medium, the recorded matter is owed no patentable weight, and cannot distinguish the claims over any particular piece of prior art.]
Regarding claim 15,
In the obvious combination, Zheng further discloses an inkjet recording device comprising a storage container filled with the non-aqueous ink composition according claim 1 [it is implicit and well-known that the ink needs to be stored and supplied for it to be discharged during a printing operation.]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as modified by Sugita.
Regarding claim 8,
Zheng as modified by Sugita discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to expressly disclose wherein (total content of the pigment dispersant and the surfactant)/(content of the resin) is 0.3 or more and less than 1.0.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a (total content of the pigment dispersant and the surfactant)/(content of the resin) that is 0.3 or more and less than 1.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize the content of these components in order to have optimal viscosity and flow, optimizing ink performance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights