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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/22/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of application number 19/017856 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 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. Please see the newly applied prior art rejection(s) in view of the disclosures provided by Yamanobe and Wyble. Specifically, both Yamanobe and Wyble teach application of a colorless liquid after the application of ink.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 9, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanobe (US 2011/0193902 A1) in view of Wyble (US 6322187 B1).
Regarding claim 1:
Yamanobe disclose an image forming method comprising:
applying a pretreatment liquid (“treatment liquid”) to a first area on an object (P) having permeability (paragraph 118);
applying ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form an image in the first area (paragraph 120), the ink containing an organic solvent (paragraph 28) seeping into a second area around a circumference of the image in the first area (at least some amount of seepage/bleeding is inherent to the described permeation: paragraphs 4, 17, 130); and
applying a colorless liquid (“transparent liquid”) containing water (paragraphs 29, 162) to the second area after the ink is applied (paragraph 120).
Yamanobe do not expressly disclose that the colorless liquid serves to diffuse the ink solvent seeped into the second area.
However, Wyble disclose an image forming method in which a colorless liquid (wetting drops 31) is applied to a second area around a circumference of an image (ink drops 32: col. 8, lines 44-52 & Fig. 5a), the colorless liquid serving to diffuse the ink seeped into the second area and blend the ink into the image background (col. 5, lines 29-58 & col. 9, lines 1-10).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Yamanobe’s method such that the ink solvent is diffused so as to be blended into the image background.
Regarding claim 2:
Yamanobe’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanobe also discloses the step of heating the object applied with the colorless liquid to evaporate and remove moisture from the object to fix the ink to the object (paragraph 121 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Yamanobe discloses an image forming apparatus comprising:
a pretreatment liquid applier (treatment liquid deposition apparatus 32) to apply a pretreatment liquid to a first area (paragraph 120) on an object (P) having permeability (paragraph 118);
an ink applier (heads 44) to apply ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form an image in the first area (paragraph 120), the ink containing an organic solvent (paragraph 28) seeping into a second area around a circumference of the image in the first area (at least some amount of seepage/bleeding is inherent to the described permeation: paragraphs 4, 17, 130);
a colorless-liquid applier (head 45) to apply a colorless liquid containing water (paragraphs 29, 162) to the second area after the ink is applied (paragraph 120).
Yamanobe do not expressly disclose that the colorless liquid serves to diffuse the ink solvent seeped into the second area.
However, Wyble disclose an image forming method in which a colorless liquid (wetting drops 31) is applied to a second area around a circumference of an image (ink drops 32: col. 8, lines 44-52 & Fig. 5a), the colorless liquid serving to diffuse the ink seeped into the second area and blend the ink into the image background (col. 5, lines 29-58 & col. 9, lines 1-10).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Yamanobe’s method such that the ink solvent is diffused so as to be blended into the image background.
Examiner notes that, in an apparatus claim, the limitation that the colorless liquid is applied “to diffuse the organic solvent in the second area” is not due any patentable weight beyond the requiring that the recited structure is capable of enabling such diffusion. In this case, the limitation serves to indicate that the colorless-liquid applier is able to apply a colorless liquid in a manner that would enable such a diffusion.
Regarding claim 5:
Yamanobe’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanobe also discloses a heater (ink drying unit 50) to heat the object applied with the colorless liquid to evaporate and remove moisture from the object to fix the ink to the object (paragraph 121 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Yamanobe’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Yamanobe also discloses that the colorless-liquid applier includes a sprayer including a nozzle (head 45) from which the colorless liquid is discharged (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 16:
Yamanobe’s modified method/apparatus comprises all the limitations of claims 1/4, and Yamanobe also discloses that the organic solvent is a wetting agent (paragraph 28), and the step of applying the ink includes the ink containing the wetting agent seeping into the second area around the circumference of the image in the first area (paragraphs 4, 17, 130).
Regarding claims 14 and 17:
Yamanobe’s modified method/apparatus comprises all the limitations of claims 13/16, and Yamanobe also discloses that the step of applying the colorless liquid includes applying the colorless liquid to a colorless liquid application area (“background”) having a width that is twice or greater than a width of a trace of the wetting agent that has seeped into the second area (inherent to deposition in the background portions to equalize moisture: paragraph 120); and
Wyble also disclose that the colorless liquid is applied to a colorless liquid application area that is twice or greater than a width of a trace of a wetting agent (up to about 4x the area: col. 8, lines 53-67).
Regarding claims 15 and 18:
Yamanobe’s modified method/apparatus comprises all the limitations of claims 1/4, and Yamanobe also discloses that the colorless liquid is an aqueous solution (paragraph 28); and Wyble also disclose that the colorless liquid may contain a medicinal component for disinfection (“biocides”: col. 6, lines 3-9).
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanobe as modified by Wyble, as applied to claims 1/4, and further in view of Miyasa et al. (US 2021/0129568 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Yamanobe’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanobe also discloses that the step of applying the ink includes:
applying a color ink in the first area to form a color image (paragraphs 119-120).
Yamanobe’s modified method does not expressly disclose that the step of applying ink includes applying a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with white ink, and applying a color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base.
However, Miyasa et al. disclose an image forming method comprising the steps of applying a white ink to a first area applied with a pretreatment liquid to forma base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52), and applying a color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base (paragraphs 35, 52). Miyasa et al. teach that such a process enables formation of a color image on a white background (paragraph 35).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Yamanobe’s method by while applying ink in the manner taught by Miyasa et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 10:
Yamanobe’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claims 4/9, and Yamanobe also discloses that the ink applier applies a color ink in the first area to form a color image (paragraphs 119-120).
Yamanobe’s modified apparatus does not expressly disclose that the ink applier applies a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with white ink, and applying a color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base.
However, Miyasa et al. disclose an image forming apparatus comprising an ink applier that applies a white ink to a first area applied with a pretreatment liquid to forma base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52), and applying a color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base (paragraphs 35, 52). Miyasa et al. teach that such a configuration enables formation of a color image on a white background (paragraph 35).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Yamanobe’s apparatus to applying ink in the manner taught by Miyasa et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 20:
Yamanobe disclose an image forming method comprising:
applying a pretreatment liquid (“treatment liquid”) to a first area on an object (P) having permeability (paragraph 118);
applying ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form an image in the first area (paragraph 120), the step of applying ink including:
applying a color ink in the first area to form a color image (paragraphs 119-120), the ink containing a wetting agent (paragraph 28) seeping into a second area around a circumference of the image in the first area (at least some amount of seepage/bleeding is inherent to the described permeation: paragraphs 4, 17, 130)
after the ink is applied, applying a colorless liquid (“transparent liquid”) containing water (paragraphs 29, 162) in a colorless liquid application area in the second area (paragraph 120),
wherein the colorless liquid application area has a width that is twice or greater than a width of a trace of the wetting agent that has seeped into the second area (inherent to deposition in the background portions to equalize moisture: paragraph 120).
Yamanobe do not expressly disclose that the colorless liquid serves to diffuse the ink solvent seeped into the second area, or that the step of applying ink includes applying a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with white ink, and applying the color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base.
However, Wyble disclose an image forming method in which a colorless liquid (wetting drops 31) is applied to a second area around a circumference of an image (ink drops 32: col. 8, lines 44-52 & Fig. 5a) such that the colorless liquid application area has a width that is twice or greater than a width of a trace of a wetting agent that has seeped into the second area (up to about 4x the area: col. 8, lines 53-67), the colorless liquid serving to diffuse the ink seeped into the second area and blend the ink into the image background (col. 5, lines 29-58 & col. 9, lines 1-10), and wherein the colorless liquid may contain a medicinal component for disinfection (“biocides”: col. 6, lines 3-9).
Further, Miyasa et al. disclose an image forming method of applying a white ink to a first area applied with a pretreatment liquid to forma base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52), and applying a color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base (paragraphs 35, 52). Miyasa et al. teach that such a configuration enables formation of a color image on a white background (paragraph 35).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Yamanobe’s method such that the ink solvent is diffused so as to be blended into the image background, as taught by Wyble. It would have been further obvious to configure Yamanobe’s apparatus to applying ink in the manner taught by Miyasa et al., so as to enable color image formation on a white background.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanobe as modified by Wyble, as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Arakane (US 2013/0257937 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Yamanobe et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Yamanobe also disclose that the ink applier and is mounted parallel to the pretreatment-liquid applier (Fig. 1).
Yamanobe et al. do not expressly disclose a first carriage mounting the pretreatment-liquid applier and a second carriage device mounting the ink applier.
However, Arakane teach the equivalence between line heads and scanning carriage devices (carriage 11), wherein the carriage devices mount an applier (inkjet head 12) and move in a scanning direction (paragraph 34 & Fig. 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Yamanobe’s line heads with respective first and second parallel carriage devices, such as suggested by Arakane, so as to provide the desired and predictable result of performing printing on the object.
Regarding claim 11:
Yamanobe’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, but does not expressly disclose first, second, and third carriages.
Yamanobe et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Yamanobe also disclose that the ink applier is mounted parallel to the pretreatment-liquid applier, and the colorless-liquid applier is mounted parallel to the ink applier and the pretreatment-liquid applier (Fig. 1).
Yamanobe et al. do not expressly disclose a first carriage mounting the pretreatment-liquid applier, a second carriage device mounting the ink applier, and a third carriage device mounting the colorless-liquid applier.
However, Arakane teach the equivalence between line heads and scanning carriage devices (carriage 11), wherein the carriage devices mount an applier (inkjet head 12) and move in a scanning direction (paragraph 34 & Fig. 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Yamanobe’s line heads with respective first, second, and third parallel carriage devices, such as suggested by Arakane, so as to provide the desired and predictable result of performing printing on the object.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanobe as modified by Wyble and Arakane, as applied to claims 7/11, and further in view of Miyasa et al. (US 2021/0129568 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 12:
Yamanobe’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claims 7/11, and Yamanobe also discloses that the ink applier applies a color ink in the first area to form a color image (paragraphs 119-120).
Yamanobe’s modified apparatus does not expressly disclose that the ink applier applies a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with white ink, and applying a color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base.
However, Miyasa et al. disclose an image forming apparatus comprising an ink applier that applies a white ink to a first area applied with a pretreatment liquid to forma base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52), and applying a color ink onto the base with the white ink in the first area to form a color image on the base (paragraphs 35, 52). Miyasa et al. teach that such a configuration enables formation of a color image on a white background (paragraph 35).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Yamanobe’s apparatus to applying ink in the manner taught by Miyasa et al.
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 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
Prosecution Insights