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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 10, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-3, 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa et al. (US 2018/0043691 A1), hereinafter Udagawa, in view of Grosser et al. (US 2021/0189161 A1), hereinafter Grosser.
Regarding claim 1, Udagawa teaches an ink jet recording method of ejecting an aqueous ink from a plurality of ejection orifices to record an image on a unit area of a recording medium, the ink jet recording method comprising: performing a plurality of times of reciprocal scanning of a recording head on the unit area while performing reciprocal scanning in a direction intersecting a conveyance direction of the recording medium (figs. 3-4; carriage 32, medium S; ¶[0041]-[0044]), wherein the recording head includes: the plurality of ejection orifices for ejecting the aqueous ink (fig. 5; nozzles 36; ¶[0043]), a pressure chamber that communicates with the plurality of ejection orifices (fig.5; common liquid chamber 95; ¶[0075]), an ejection unit that includes an ejection element disposed in the pressure chamber and generating energy for ejecting the aqueous ink from the plurality of ejection orifices (fig. 5; actuator 94; ¶[0076]), a circulation unit that includes a supply channel for supplying the aqueous ink to the pressure chamber of the ejection unit (fig. 5; liquid supply channel 37; ¶[0044]), a collecting channel for collecting the aqueous ink from the pressure chamber of the ejection unit (fig. 5; return channel 97; ¶[0078]).
However, Udagawa fails to teach or fairly suggest the aqueous ink contains a particle having a specific gravity of 3.8 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) or more.
Grosser teaches an aqueous ink comprising titanium dioxide particles (¶[0081]-[0091]). Titanium dioxide inherently possesses a specific gravity of between 3.9 and 4.3 grams per cubic centimeter (see attached non-patent literature “KRONOS-2300-TDS-c2022”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aqueous ink of Grosser into the ink jet recording method of Udagawa in order to provide a white inkjet ink with improved ability to prevent sedimentation.
Regarding claim 2, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1. Grosser further teaches the particle having an average particle size (d50) of 200 nm to 400 nm (¶[0042]). Grosser identifies the particle size as a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size of Grosser to possess a volume-based cumulative 50% particle diameter of 200 nm or more to 300 nm or less, as recited in the claim, in order to balance the light scattering effect of the particle against the propensity of the particle to clog the nozzles of a printhead. One would have chosen the particle size through routine experimentation in order to sufficiently scatter light while avoiding extremely large particles that clog nozzles in inkjet printheads (¶[0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1. Grosser further teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, wherein the particle is a titanium oxide particle having a surface at least partially coated with silica, and the titanium oxide particle is dispersed at least by an action of silica (¶[0010], [0015]-[0021], [0081]).
Regarding claim 7, Udagawa further teaches the recording head further includes a circulation pump that makes the aqueous ink in the collecting channel flow into the supply channel (fig. 5; circulation pump 98; ¶[0078]).
Regarding claim 8, Udagawa further teaches the circulation unit includes a first pressure adjustment unit that adjusts a pressure of the supply channel, wherein the first pressure adjustment unit includes a first valve chamber, a first pressure control chamber, and a first opening that makes the first valve chamber and the first pressure control chamber communicate with each other, and wherein the first valve chamber includes a first valve that opens and closes the first opening according to a change in pressure of the first pressure control chamber (fig. 5; pressure regulating mechanism 70, supply chamber 71, communication hole 72, pressure chamber 73, valve body 74; ¶[0064]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 9, Udagawa teaches the ink jet recording method according claim 8, including a pressure adjustment unit that adjusts a pressure of the supply channel, wherein the pressure adjustment unit includes a valve chamber, a pressure control chamber, and an opening that makes the valve chamber and the pressure control chamber communicate with each other, and wherein the valve chamber includes a valve that opens and closes the opening according to a change in pressure of the pressure control chamber (fig. 5; pressure regulating mechanism 70, supply chamber 71, communication hole 72, pressure chamber 73, valve body 74; ¶[0064]-[0071]).
Merely duplicating the pressure adjustment unit in the collecting channel, as recited in the claim, would not produce new or unexpected results, therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pressure adjustment unit of Udagawa into the collecting channel in order to control a pressure of ink returning to the circulation pump. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 11, Udagawa teaches an ink jet recording device to eject an aqueous ink from a plurality of ejection orifices to record an image on a unit area of a recording medium, the ink jet recording device comprising: a recording head configured to perform a plurality of times of reciprocal scanning on the unit area while performing reciprocal scanning in a direction intersecting a conveyance direction of the recording medium (figs. 3-4; carriage 32, medium S; ¶[0041]-[0044]), wherein the recording head includes: the plurality of ejection orifices for ejecting the aqueous ink (fig. 5; nozzles 36; ¶[0043]), a pressure chamber that communicates with the plurality of ejection orifices (fig.5; common liquid chamber 95; ¶[0075]), an ejection unit that includes an ejection element disposed in the pressure chamber and generating energy for ejecting the aqueous ink from the plurality of ejection orifices (fig. 5; actuator 94; ¶[0076]), a circulation unit that includes a supply channel for supplying the aqueous ink to the pressure chamber of the ejection unit (fig. 5; liquid supply channel 37; ¶[0044]), a collecting channel for collecting the aqueous ink from the pressure chamber of the ejection unit (fig. 5; return channel 97; ¶[0078]).
However, Udagawa fails to teach or fairly suggest the aqueous ink contains a particle having a specific gravity of 3.8 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) or more.
Grosser teaches an aqueous ink comprising titanium dioxide particles (¶[0015]-[0021]). Titanium dioxide inherently possesses a specific gravity of between 3.9 and 4.3 grams per cubic centimeter (see attached non-patent literature, alternatively see ¶[0010] of Kabalnov et al. (US 2014/0123874 A1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aqueous ink of Grosser into the ink jet recording device of Udagawa in order to provide a white inkjet ink with improved ability to prevent sedimentation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa as modified by Grosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (WO 2022/180955 A1), hereinafter Maeda. Textual references to Maeda are drawn from the previously attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 4, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, however neither Udagawa nor Grosser teach or fairly suggest a content (% by mass) of the particle in the aqueous ink is 0.5% by mass or more to 20.0% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the aqueous ink.
Maeda teaches a white ink composition wherein a content (% by mass) of the particle in the aqueous ink is 0.5% by mass or more to 20.0% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the aqueous ink (¶[0005], [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Udagawa as modified by Grosser with the ink properties of Maeda in order to provide an ink pigment that is easily re-dispersible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa as modified by Grosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasai et al. (US 2022/0088934 A1), hereinafter Kasai.
Regarding claim 5, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, however Udagawa as modified by Grosser fails to teach or fairly suggest the aqueous ink in a circulation path has a flow rate (mm/s) of 10 mm/s or more to 30 mm/s or less.
Kasai teaches an inkjet printing apparatus wherein the aqueous ink in a circulation path has a flow rate (mm/s) of 10 mm/s or more to 30 mm/s or less (fig. 5; bubbling chamber 23; ¶[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flow rate of Kasai into the ink jet recording method of Udagawa as modified by Grosser in order to provide for stable ink circulation while preventing erroneous ejection from the printhead nozzles.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa as modified by Grosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muto et al. (US 2013/0050336 A1), hereinafter Muto.
Regarding claim 6, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, however Udagawa as modified by Grosser fails to teach or fairly suggest a movement speed (inch/s) of the recording head in the reciprocal scanning is 20 inch/s or more.
Muto teaches an inkjet recording apparatus capable of performing inkjet printing with a carriage speed of 33 inch/s or more (fig. 1; carriage 3; ¶[0013], [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recording head of the ink jet recording method as taught by Udagawa in view of Grosser to operate at the carriage speed taught by Muto in order to provide for high throughput printing with high image quality.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udagawa as modified by Grosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2013/0265355 A1), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claim 10, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, however Udagawa as modified by Grosser fails to teach or fairly suggest a water absorption amount of the recording medium from a start of contact to 30 msec1/2 in a Bristow method is 10 mL/m2 or less.
However, Sato teaches a printing apparatus and printing method for printing on plastic film (fig. 2A; printer 1; ¶[0032]). As recited in ¶[00174] of the instant specification, plastic film is an example of low to non-absorbing recording media that meet the physical properties of the claimed recording medium. Because the water absorptivity of plastic film is an inherent property of the material, despite the fact that Sato fails to teach the plastic film’s water absorptivity being quantified or otherwise evaluated using a Bristow method, the plastic film as taught by Sato would inherently possess such a water absorptivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method as taught by Udagawa in view of Grosser to print on plastic film as taught by Sato in order to produce images for use in product packaging, for example.
Regarding claim 12, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, however Udagawa as modified by Grosser fails to teach or fairly suggest the recording medium comprises a plastic film.
Sato teaches Sato teaches a printing apparatus and printing method for printing on plastic film (fig. 2A; printer 1; ¶[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method as taught by Udagawa in view of Grosser to print on plastic film as taught by Sato in order to produce images for use in product packaging, for example.
Regarding claim 13, Udagawa as modified by Grosser teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1. Udagawa as modified by Grosser fails to teach or fairly suggest the aqueous ink further comprises a wax particle.
However, Sato teaches a printing apparatus and printing method for printing on plastic film (fig. 2A; printer 1; ¶[0032]), wherein the printing ink comprises a polyolefin wax (¶[0054]-[0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method as taught by Udagawa in view of Grosser to print using an ink comprising a wax particle as taught by Sato in order to provide an ink with excellent adhesion characteristics for printing on plastic films (see ¶[0060]).
Regarding claim 14, Udagawa as modified by Grosser and Sato teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 13. Sato further teaches the wax particle is formed of at least one wax selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline wax, Fischer-Tropsch wax, polyolefin wax, paraffin wax, and a modified substance or mixture thereof (polyolefin wax recited in ¶[0060]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant alleges that Udagawa fails to teach a supply channel and collecting channel located within a recording head, wherein the two channels are positioned across an ejection orifice. Specifically, Applicant alleges that the liquid supply channel 37 and the return channel 97 of Udagawa are located outside the liquid discharge unit 33 and do not supply ink to the pressure chamber which applicant indicates is the liquid chamber 91. However, as depicted in Fig. 5 of Udagawa, the return channel 97 and an unlabeled supply channel are depicted as extending into the common liquid chamber 95 (see annotated Image 1 below). Udagawa defines the liquid ejecting unit 33 to include the common liquid chamber 95 (see ¶[0075]). Further, the recitation in claim 1 regarding the pressure chamber, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, claims a single pressure chamber that communicates with the plurality of ejection orifices. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the liquid chamber 95 and the plurality of orifices 36 are in fluid communication with each other in such a manner that liquid would flow from the liquid chamber 95, through the vibration plate 92, into the liquid chamber 91, and out of the orifices 36. Therefore, in light of these facts, Udagawa teaches a circulation unit that includes a supply channel for supplying the aqueous ink to the pressure chamber of the ejection unit, and a collecting channel for collecting the aqueous ink from the pressure chamber of the ejection unit, wherein the pressure chamber communicates with the plurality of ejection orifices, as recited in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Second, Applicant alleges that Grosser fails to teach a particle with a specific gravity of 3.8 grams per cubic centimeter or greater. Applicant cites the results of a particle size test acquired from a centrifuge described in ¶[0092] of Grosser that uses a calibration standard particle density of 1.385 g/mL. In rebuttal, the Examiner argues that, regardless of the calibration setting used to evaluate the particle size present in the test mixture described ¶[0092], Grosser teaches preparing an aqueous printing ink comprising dried coated titanium dioxide pigment particles in ¶[0081]-[0091]. Grosser specifically teaches combining titanium dioxide pigment particles “K2300” commercially available from KRONOS Titan GmbH with water in ¶[0081]. Applicant will find attached the technical data sheet for K2300 titanium dioxide pigment (circa 2022). The datasheet teaches the density of the titanium dioxide particles to be 4.1 grams per cubic centimeter. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this density to be an intrinsic property of the particles, and neither the suspending of the particles in a solution, nor the agglomerating of the particles with other substances that may possess lower densities, changes the density possessed by the titanium dioxide particles. The claim language of claim 1 recites, “wherein the aqueous ink contains a particle having a specific gravity of 3.8 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) or more (emphasis added).” Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, art that teaches an aqueous ink comprising even a single particle with a specific gravity of 3.8 grams per cubic centimeter or more would read on this recitation from the claim. Thus, the teachings of Grosser read on the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights