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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the recitations of “ink jet ink head” (lines 13-14, 19) to “ink jet head” to correct a minor antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awakawa et al. (US 2020/0039232 A1) in view of Seguchi et al. (US 2021/0129567 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not necessarily indicate allowable subject matter over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
Asakawa et al. disclose a recording method which uses a water-based ink composition (“inks”) and a treatment liquid (“treatment liquid”) containing an aggregating agent (“flocculant”: paragraph 142), the recording method comprising:
a main scanning to eject the ink composition and the treatment liquid from an ink jet head (2) so as to be adhered to a recording medium (10) while the ink jet head is transferred with respect to the recording medium (paragraph 37);
a sub-scanning to transport the recording medium in a sub-scanning direction (SS) which intersects a direction of the main scanning (MS: paragraph 37 & Fig. 2); and
a ventilation step of sending a wind to the recording medium (paragraph 44),
wherein, in the main scanning, by a portion of the ink jet head to eject the ink composition and the treatment liquid located upstream in the sub-scanning direction, the ink composition and the treatment liquid are overlapped and adhered to the same main scanning region of the recording medium by the same main scanning (paragraphs 51-52 & Fig. 4),
wherein, by a portion of the ink jet head to eject the ink composition and the treatment liquid located downstream in the sub-scanning direction, the ink composition is adhered to the recording medium, and when the ink composition is adhered thereto, the treatment liquid is not overlapped and adhered to the same main scanning region of the recording medium by the same main scanning (paragraphs 51-52 & Fig. 4), and
when the main scanning is performed, the recording medium to which the ink composition and the treatment liquid are adhered has a surface temperature of 33° or less (paragraph 41).
Asakawa et al. do not expressly disclose that the ventilation step sending a wind to the recording medium in the main scanning.
However, Seguchi et al. disclose a recording method that is able to suppress generation of white haze due to crystal growth of aggregating agents (paragraphs 33, 116) by sending a wind to a recording medium in a main scanning (paragraph 33 & Fig. 2).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Seguchi et al.’s white haze suppression techniques in Asawaka et al.’s recording method.
Regarding claim 5:
Asakawa et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Asakawa et al. also disclose that the recording method performs recording continuously for one hour or more (paragraphs 223-224).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2022/0203698 A1) in view of Seguchi et al. (US 2021/0129567 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Watanabe et al. disclose a recording method which uses a water-based ink composition (the white, non-white, and clear “inks”: paragraphs 57, 87, 104) and a treatment liquid (“processing liquid”) containing an aggregating agent (paragraphs 35-41), the recording method comprising:
a main scanning to eject the ink composition and the treatment liquid from an ink jet head (recording head 2) so as to be adhered to a recording medium (M) while the ink jet head is transferred with respect to the recording medium (paragraph 123);
a sub-scanning to transport the recording medium in a sub-scanning direction (SS) which intersects a direction of the main scanning (MS: paragraph 123 & Fig. 2);
wherein, in the main scanning, by a portion of the ink jet head to eject the ink composition and the treatment liquid located upstream in the sub-scanning direction, the ink composition and the treatment liquid are overlapped and adhered to the same main scanning region of the recording medium by the same main scanning (Example 4: paragraph 141 & Figs. 3, 5),
wherein, by a portion of the ink jet head to eject the ink composition and the treatment liquid located downstream in the sub-scanning direction, the ink composition is adhered to the recording medium, and when the ink composition is adhered thereto, the treatment liquid is not overlapped and adhered to the same main scanning region of the recording medium by the same main scanning (Example 4: paragraph 141 & Figs. 3, 5), and
when the main scanning is performed, the recording medium to which the ink composition and the treatment liquid are adhered has a surface temperature (paragraph 142).
Watanabe et al. do not expressly disclose a ventilation step of sending a wind to the recording medium in the main scanning, or that the recording medium has a surface temperature of 33° or less.
However, Seguchi et al. disclose a recording method that is able to suppress generation of white haze due to crystal growth of aggregating agents (paragraphs 33, 116) by sending a wind to a recording medium in a main scanning (paragraph 33 & Fig. 2) and by heating the recording medium to a temperature of 33°C or less when the main scanning is performed (paragraphs 115-116 & Fig. 2).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Seguchi et al.’s white haze suppression techniques in Watanabe et al.’s recording method.
Regarding claim 2:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that, by a portion of the ink jet head to eject the ink composition and the treatment liquid, the portion being in an area of one-eighth to one-half of the ink jet head located upstream in the sub-scanning direction (Figs. 3, 5), the ink composition and the treatment liquid are overlapped and adhered to the same main scanning region of the recording medium by the same scanning (Example 4: paragraph 141 & Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 3:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Seguchi et al. also disclose that the ventilation step is performed at a wind velocity of 1.5 m/s or more (paragraph 124).
Regarding claim 4:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that, when the ink composition and the treatment liquid are mixed at a mass ratio of 10:1, the ink composition has a viscosity increase rate of 2.5 times or more (at least the non-white ink: Tables 1-2).
Regarding claim 6:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that the number of main scannings performed on the same main scanning region of the recording medium is 10 times or less (Example 4: Table 2).
Regarding claim 7:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that the ink jet head has no nozzle line to eject the treatment liquid at a position located upstream than a nozzle line to eject the ink composition in the sub-scanning direction (Example 4: Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 8:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that the aggregating agent includes a polyvalent metal salt (paragraph 36 & Table 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that the recording medium is a low-absorbing recording medium or a non-absorbing recording medium (paragraph 110).
Regarding claim 10:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that the ink jet head includes a nozzle line to eject the treatment liquid at a nozzle use rate of 70% or less (at least the unused nozzle lines in block B2 for Example 4: Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 11:
Watanabe et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Watanabe et al. also disclose that the method is performed by a recording apparatus (Fig. 1) that comprises the ink jet head (2); and Seguchi et al. also disclose that recording medium is performed by a recording apparatus (Fig. 1) having an ink jet head (2) and a ventilation mechanism (8) to perform the ventilation step (paragraph 33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Each of US 2021/0276334 A1, US 2022/0410590 A1, and US 2019/0217615 A1 disclose relative recording methods in which portions of an ink jet head overlap treatment liquid and ink on an upstream side, and do not overlap treatment liquid and ink on a downstream side.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Douglas 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853