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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 requires that the first solution forms an adhesive layer with a higher adhesion than the second solution, however, the claim as recited mixes the first and second solution into the adhesive layer. It is unclear how the combined solution can have a higher adhesion than itself.
Claim 13 includes the limitations of claim 12.
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.
Claim 1-4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takazawa (US PG Pub 2011/0142463).
For claim 1: Takazawa teaches an aqueous adhesive composition that forms an adhesive layer on a belt of an ink jet printing apparatus (see paragraph 60, ink jet printer) comprising an acrylic resin (see paragraph 42, poly acrylic coat). Takazawa is silent as to the adhesive layer having an adhesive of 0.1 N/25mm to 10 N/25mm. However, this range can be arrived at through routine experimentation with the exact constitution of the acrylic resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the adhesive resin layer to arrive at an adhesion of 0.1 N/25mm to 10 N/25mm to prevent slipping of carried substrates while resisting adhesion of ink to the non-substrate surface.
For claim 2: Takazawa teaches the aqueous composition of claim 1 and teaches, in one embodiment, that the ion conductive agent can be ammonium (see paragraph 44, in one arrangement, the base can be substantially ammonium salt rather than the other alternatives). Consequently, the composition would have ammonium ions and be absent sodium and potassium ions.
For claim 3: Takazawa teaches the aqueous composition of claim 1 and, in one embodiment, the conductive agent is ammonium salt (see paragraph 44, in one arrangement, the base can be substantially ammonium salt rather than the other alternatives), so the ratio of ammonium to the sum of sodium and potassium is larger than 100, and is in fact arbitrarily large since there is a little or no sodium and potassium.
For claim 4: Takazawa teaches the aqueous adhesive composition according to claim 1 wherein the belt contains urethane resin (see paragraph 42).
For claim 9: Takazawa teaches the adhesive composition of claim 1. The composition of the belt does not distinguish the composition of the prior art of record.
For claim 10: Takazawa teaches the belt in an ink jet printer comprising the layer as recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, and paragraph 60, ink jet printer).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takazawa (US PG Pub 2011/0142463) in view of Ito (US PG Pub 2009/0074492).
For claim 5: Takazawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except that the adhesive layer has a pencil hardness of HB or more. However, Ito teaches a belt having a surface with a pencil hardness of HB (see paragraph 105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface of the belt to have a pencil hardness of HB as taught by Ito for the purpose of maintaining its durability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takazawa (US PG Pub 2011/0142463) in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0122997).
For claim 6: Takazawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 except that the adhesive layer has a Mohs hardness of 2 or more. However, Lee et al. teaches a belt for an image forming apparatus having a surface coating with a Mohs hardness of 5 or greater (see paragraph 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Takazawa to provide a coating with a Mohs hardness of 5 or greater as taught by Lee et al. to prevent scratching in routine utilization of the belt.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takazawa (US PG Pub 2011/0142463) in view of Abe et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0387098).
For claim 7: Takazawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 except the adhesive comprising a surfactant containing ammonium alkyl sulfate. However, Abe et al. teaches a belt of a printing system comprising ammonium and alkyl sulfate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ate the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Takazawa to provide the belt with ammonium alkyl sulfate for the purpose of facilitating distribution of its coating layer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takazawa (US PG Pub 2011/0142463) in view of Iwano et al. (US PG Pub 2013/0231207).
For claim 8: Takazawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 except a pH adjuster comprising ammonia. However, Iwano et al. teaches a coating to comprise a pH adjuster which is ammonium (see paragraph 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Takazawa to provide a pH adjuster to the coating as taught by Iwano et al. to prevent the coated surface from interacting severely with carried substrates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches an ink jet textile printing device having an adhesive layer on a cloth transport belt, the adhesive layer being of an acrylic as recited in claim 1, having further a transport mechanism to transport a cloth stuck to the adhesive layer, a printing section and a cleaning section as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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 (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853