DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 13, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-8 have been withdrawn. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly found prior art references (see rejections of Claims 1 & 3-8 below).
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant has amended Claim 1 so as to incorporate the limitation presented in Claim 2 and has simultaneously withdrawn Claim 2. The Examiner further acknowledges other amendments serve to ensure consistency with the newly amended Claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a radiation-curable ink composition according to claim 1”, wherein the “a” should be corrected to a “the” so as to communicate proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Breton et al. (US 20110196057 A1; herein referred to as “Breton”).
With respect to Claim 1, Breton teaches a radiation-curable ink composition (¶0001), wherein the radiation-curable ink composition comprises
at least one radiation-curable component (i.e., “radically curable monomer compounds, such as…methacrylate monomer compounds”; ¶0017).
and a gelling agent (i.e., “pentaerythritol tetrastearate”; ¶0050). Note that Applicant has disclosed that the compound “pentaerythritol tetrastearate” in a list of compounds which may be used as the gelling agent (Applicant’s disclosure: p. 6, l. 3-9).
the at least one radiation-curable component being present in an amount of 55 wt% or more, based on the total weight of the radiation-curable ink composition (i.e., “the monomer…may be present in any suitable amount” with examples including 30-70% based on total ink weight; ¶0021). The range taught by Breton overlaps with the claimed range limitation and therefore teaches this limitation.
wherein the radiation-curable ink composition further comprises a polyalkylene wax, wherein the polyalkylene wax has a molecular weight of 1000 g/mole or less (i.e., “hydroxyl-terminated polyethylene waxes”, such as “UNILIN 350” which has a molecular weight “approximately equal to 375 g/mol”; ¶0024-0025). Note that Applicant acknowledges that a “polyethylene wax” is a type of “polyalkylene wax” (Applicant’s disclosure: p.4, l. 21). The example polyalkylene wax taught by Breton falls within the claimed range limitation and therefore teaches this limitation.
and wherein the gelling agent is a fatty acid ester (i.e., “pentaerythritol tetrastearate”; ¶0050). Note that Applicant has disclosed that the compound “pentaerythritol tetrastearate” in a list of compounds which may be used as the fatty acid ester (Applicant’s disclosure: p. 6, l. 3-9).
With respect to Claim 3, Breton teaches The radiation-curable ink composition (¶0001) according to claim 2, wherein the gelling agent is a fatty acid ester of pentaerythritol (i.e., “pentaerythritol tetrastearate”; ¶0050). Note that Applicant has disclosed that the compound “pentaerythritol tetrastearate” in a list of compounds which may be used as the fatty acid ester of pentaerythritol (Applicant’s disclosure: p. 6, l. 3-9).
With respect to Claim 4, Breton teaches the radiation-curable ink composition (¶0001) according to claim 1, wherein the gelling agent is present in an amount of from 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% based on the total amount of the radiation-curable ink composition (i.e., “pentaerythritol tetrastearate” in the range of 0.25-10% based on total ink weight; ¶0050). The range taught by Breton falls within the claimed range limitation and therefore teaches this limitation (see MPEP 2131.03).
With respect to Claim 6, Breton teaches a method ( ¶0061) for preparing a radiation-curable ink composition (¶0001) according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
providing at least one radiation curable component (i.e., “radically curable monomer compounds, such as…methacrylate monomer compounds”; ¶0017),
the at least one radiation-curable component being present in an amount of 55 wt% or more, based on the total weight of the radiation-curable ink composition (i.e., “the monomer…may be present in any suitable amount” with examples including 30-70% based on total ink weight; ¶0021);
providing a gelling agent wherein the gelling agent is a fatty acid ester (i.e., “pentaerythritol tetrastearate”; ¶0050). Note that Applicant has disclosed that the compound “pentaerythritol tetrastearate” in a list of compounds which may be used as the fatty acid ester (Applicant’s disclosure: p. 6, l. 3-9).
providing a polyalkylene wax, the polyalkylene wax having a molecular weight of 1000 g/mole or less (i.e., “hydroxyl-terminated polyethylene waxes”, such as “UNILIN 350” which has a molecular weight “approximately equal to 375 g/mol”; ¶0024-0025);
mixing the radiation curable component, the gelling agent and the polyalkylene wax (¶0061).
With respect to Claim 7, Breton teaches a method for applying an image onto a recording medium, the method comprising the steps of:
jetting droplets of a radiation-curable ink composition (¶0001) according to claim 1 onto the recording medium (¶0057-0058 & ¶0016);
curing the radiation-curable ink composition by irradiating the ink composition using UV radiation (i.e., “these inks are independently controlled by photochemically curing them with efficiency”…”a curing process where the photoinitiator triggers a nearly instantaneous curing reaction upon exposure to the UV light”; ¶0016).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breton in view of Iftime et al. (US 20120235077 A1; herein referred to as “Iftime”).
With respect to Claim 5, Breton teaches the radiation-curable ink composition according (Breton: ¶0001) to claim 1, wherein the polyalkylene wax is present (i.e., “hydroxyl-terminated polyethylene waxes”, such as “UNILIN 350” which has a molecular weight “approximately equal to 375 g/mol”; Breton: ¶0024-0025).
Breton is silent on wherein the polyalkylene wax is present in an amount of from 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total amount of the radiation-curable ink composition.
Iftime teaches wherein the polyalkylene wax is present in an amount of from 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total amount of the radiation-curable ink composition (i.e., “polyethylene wax” present from 1-6% based on total radiation-curable ink weight; Iftime: ¶0068; Abstract). The range taught by Breton overlaps with the claimed range limitation and therefore teaches this limitation (see MPEP 2131.03).
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 radiation-curable ink composition taught by Breton (Breton: ¶0001) by having the polyalkylene wax (Breton: ¶0024-0025) present in a range of 0.01-5 wt% as taught by Iftime (Iftime: ¶0068; Abstract). This is beneficial because Iftime teaches polyalkylene wax, within this claimed range, is a “suitable additive” which can be added to the ink “for their known purposes” [as would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art] (Iftime: ¶0065-0068).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breton in view of Makuta et al. (US 20070076042 A1; herein referred to as “Makuta”).
With respect to Claim 8, Breton teaches the method (¶0057-0058 & ¶0016) according to claim 7.
Breton is silent on wherein a time interval between jetting droplets of the radiation-curable ink composition and curing the radiation-curable ink composition is at least 30 seconds.
Makuta teaches wherein a time interval between jetting droplets of the radiation-curable ink composition and curing the radiation-curable ink composition is at least 30 seconds (i.e., “time interval from the end of ejection to the start of UV irradiation” of 30 seconds to 2 minutes; Makuta: ¶0195 & Table 2A).
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 method taught by Breton to cure the radiation-curable ink composition taught by Breton after a time of interval of at least 30 seconds, because, as taught by Makuta, this is a standard and effective time interval range utilized in a method for curing a radiation-curable ink after it has been jetted onto a recording medium (Makuta: ¶0195 & Table 2A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights