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 statements (IDS) submitted on 2/3/2025 and 9/4/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasa et al. (US 2021/0129568 A1) in view of Kuwahara (US 2002/0054196 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Miyasa et al. disclose an image forming method comprising:
applying a pretreatment liquid (“pretreatment agent”) to a first area (paragraphs 54-55) on an object (textile 4) having permeability (paragraph 34); and
applying ink (the “white ink” and/or “non-white ink”) to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form an image in the first area (paragraphs 35, 52), the ink containing an organic solvent (TABLES 1-2).
Miyasa et al. do not expressly disclose that the ink containing an organic solvent seeps into a second area around a circumference of the image in the first area, or the application of a colorless liquid to the second area.
However, Kuwahara disclose an image forming method that reduces image graininess (paragraph 11) by comprising the steps of applying an ink to a first area (“very small region”: paragraphs 40, 53 & Fig. 8b), the ink seeping into a second area (“regions other than the very small region”) around a circumference of the image in the first area (paragraphs 40, 53 & Figs. 7-11), and applying a colorless liquid (colorless “diffusion liquid”) containing water (paragraph 35) to the second area (paragraph ) to diffuse the organic solvent in the second area (paragraph 40 & Figs. 7-11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyasa et al.’s image forming method to include Kuwahara’s application of a colorless liquid, so as to reduce image graininess.
Regarding claim 2:
Miyasa et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Miyasa et al. also disclose a step of heating the object to evaporate and remove moisture from the object to fixt eh ink to the object (paragraphs 36-38).
Regarding claim 3:
Miyasa et al.’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Miyasa et al. also disclose that the ink applying step:
applies a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52); and
applies 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).
Regarding claim 4:
Miyasa et al. disclose an image forming apparatus comprising:
a pretreatment liquid applier (paragraph 55) to apply a pretreatment liquid (“pretreatment agent”) to a first area (paragraphs 54-55) on an object (textile 4) having permeability (paragraph 34);
an ink applier (paragraph 167) to apply ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form an image in the first area (paragraphs 35, 52), the ink containing an organic solvent (TABLES 1-2).
Miyasa et al. do not expressly disclose that the ink containing an organic solvent seeps into a second area around a circumference of the image in the first area, or the application of a colorless liquid to the second area.
However, Kuwahara disclose an image forming apparatus that reduces image graininess (paragraph 11) by applying an ink applier to apply ink to a first area (“very small region”: paragraphs 40, 53 & Fig. 8b), the ink seeping into a second area (“regions other than the very small region”) around a circumference of the image in the first area (paragraphs 40, 53 & Figs. 7-11), and a colorless liquid applier to apply a colorless liquid (colorless “diffusion liquid”) containing water (paragraph 35) to the second area (paragraph ) to diffuse the organic solvent in the second area (paragraph 40 & Figs. 7-11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyasa et al.’s image forming apparatus to include Kuwahara’s colorless-liquid applier, so as to reduce image graininess through application of the colorless liquid.
Regarding claim 5:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Miyasa et al. also disclose that the apparatus further comprises a heater (e.g. “infrared lamp”) to heat the object to evaporate and remove moisture of the object to fix the ink to the object (paragraphs 36-37).
Regarding claim 6:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Miyasa et al. also disclose that the ink applier applies:
applies a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52); and
applies 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).
Regarding claim 9:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Kuwahara also discloses that the colorless liquid applier includes a sprayer including a nozzle (“diffusion liquid discharging nozzle”) from which the colorless liquid is discharged (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 10:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 9, and Miyasa et al. also disclose that the ink applier:
applies a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52); and
applies 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).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasa et al. as modified by Kuwahara, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2024/0173978 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, but does not expressly disclose first and second carriage devices.
However, Matsumoto discloses an image forming apparatus that prevents deterioration of pretreatment liquid performance (paragraph 56) by providing a first carriage (32) mounting a pretreatment liquid applier (head 9c), and movable in a scanning direction (paragraph 40 & Fig. 3); and a second carriage (31) mounting an ink applier (heads 9a, 9b) and movable in the scanning direction parallel to the first carriage (paragraph 21 & Fig. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyasa et al.’s apparatus to include first and second carriages, such as taught by Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 8:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 7, and Miyasa et al. also disclose that the ink applier:
applies a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52); and
applies 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).
Regarding claim 11:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, but does not expressly disclose first, second, and third carriages.
However, Matsumoto discloses an image forming apparatus that comprises a first carriage (32) mounting a pretreatment liquid applier (head 9c), and movable in a scanning direction (paragraph 40 & Fig. 3); and a second carriage (31) mounting an ink applier (heads 9a, 9b) and movable in the scanning direction parallel to the first carriage (paragraph 21 & Fig. 3). Matsumoto generally teaches that, by using separate carriages for each applier, the influence on ink nozzles is reduced (paragraphs 56, 74).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyasa et al.’s apparatus to include a first carriage for the pretreatment liquid applier, a second carriage for the ink applier, and a third carriage for the colorless liquid applier, as suggested by Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 12:
Miyasa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 11, and Miyasa et al. also disclose that the ink applier:
applies a white ink to the first area applied with the pretreatment liquid to form a base with the white ink (paragraphs 35, 52); and
applies 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of copending Application No. 19/017856 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims anticipate the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sugimoto et al. (US 2024/0263032 A1) disclose relative a fabric image forming apparatus comprising a pretreatment applier (1), an ink applier (2), and a post-treatment applier (not shown).
Lim et al. (KR20050049648A) disclose a relative colorless liquid applier, the colorless liquid comprising solvent/water and being applied over flushed maintenance dots so as to dilute the flushed dots making them invisible.
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