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 .
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 11/05/2025 and 11/08/2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi (JP 2017109485 A) in view of Ooishi et al. (US20130222467A1), Hongo (US 20200216700 A1), and Kinu et al. (JP2003-160751A).
Regarding claim 1, Hitoshi teaches an image recording method (The first two lines within the description of page 1 describes how the invention relates to an ink jet recording method.) comprising:
recording an image by sequentially applying a first ink and a second ink (The first paragraph on page 2 describes how the invention contains a “first ink composition” and a “second ink composition”.),
which have hues different from each other (Page 5 describes how the “first ink” is a white ink composition. While page 15 describes how the “second ink” contains a non-white coloring material.),
onto a recording medium that is transported (The fourth paragraph on page 21 describes an inkjet recording apparatus that includes a “transporting means for transporting a recording medium”.)
heating and drying the applied first ink and second ink (The fourth paragraph on page 21 describes an inkjet recording apparatus that includes an “entire drying means for heating and blowing the recording surface”.),
each of the first ink and the second ink contains
water (Page 6, under section “1.2.1. Water”, describes how the “first ink composition” contains water. While the “second ink composition” is described to also contain water on page 15 under section “3.1.1. Water”.),
an organic solvent (Page 6, under section “1.2.2. Water-Soluble Organic Solvent”, describes how the “first ink composition” contains a “water-soluble organic solvent”. While the “second ink composition” is described to also contain a “water-soluble organic solvent” on page 15 under section “3.1.2. Water-Soluble Organic Solvent”.),
a surfactant (Page 12, in the first paragraph under the ⟨Surfactant⟩, describes how the “first ink composition” may contain a “surfactant”. While the “second ink composition” described may also contain a “surfactant” on page 16 under section “3.1.5. Other Components”.), and
wax particles (Page 11, under section “1.2.5. Other Components”, describes how the “first ink composition” may contain “wax”. While the “second ink composition” described may contain “wax” on page 16 under section “3.1.5. Other Components”.),
the surfactant includes
an acetylene-based surfactant (A) (Page 12, in the first paragraph under the ⟨Surfactant⟩, describes an example of the “surfactant” would an “acetylene glycol surfactant”.),
a polyether-modified silicone-based surfactant (C) (Page 12, in the first paragraph under the ⟨Surfactant⟩, describes another example of the “surfactant” to be a “silicone surfactant”. The last paragraph on page 12 further explains how the “silicone surfactant” is not limited and can be a “polyether-modified oragansiloxane”.),
Hitoshi fails to teach the recording medium transported at a transportation speed of 40 m/min or greater and 300 m/min or less respectively under a condition that a resolution in a direction orthogonal to a transport direction of the recording medium by an ink jet method is 1200 dpi or greater.
However, Ooishi teaches the recording medium transported at a transportation speed of 40 m/min or greater and 300 m/min or less respectively under a condition that (Paragraph [0115] speed range overlaps with preferred range of 250 mm/sec to 2500 mm/sec which can converted into a range of 15 m/min to 150 m/min which is within the given claimed range.) a resolution in a direction orthogonal to a transport direction of the recording medium by an ink jet method is 1200 dpi or greater (Paragraph [0354] describes how the resolution of the inks are 1200 dpi x 1200 dpi.).
Hitoshi and Ooishi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming method. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply the recording medium transported at a transportation speed of 40 m/min or greater and 300 m/min or less respectively under a condition that a resolution in a direction orthogonal to a transport direction of the recording medium by an ink jet method is 1200 dpi or greater taught by Ooishi. This would have been done for the purpose of setting a specific landing interval range between the first and second ink (Ooishi, paragraph [0116]).
Hitoshi fails to teach wherein in the recording an image, in a case where a difference in landing time between the first ink and the second ink is defined as T1 seconds and, T1 is 0.020 or longer and 1.2 or shorter a time from a time point at which a last liquid droplet of the second ink lands to a time point at which the liquid droplet is heated and dried is defined as T2 seconds, and T2 is 2.0 or shorter.
However, Ooishi teaches wherein in the recording an image, in a case where a difference in landing time between the first ink and the second ink is defined as T1 seconds and, T1 is 0.020 or longer and 1.2 or shorter (Paragraph [0013] an interval from a landing time point of the first ink composition to a landing time point of the second ink composition is 200 msec or less which overlaps the given claimed range.) a time from a time point at which a last liquid droplet of the second ink lands to a time point at which the liquid droplet is heated and dried is defined as T2 seconds, and T2 is 2.0 or shorter (Paragraph [0130] within 5 seconds from the time at which the landing of the ink droplets is complete which encompasses the given claimed range.).
Hitoshi and Ooishi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming method. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply wherein in the recording an image, in a case where a difference in landing time between the first ink and the second ink is defined as T1 seconds and, T1 is 0.020 or longer and 1.2 or shorter a time from a time point at which a last liquid droplet of the second ink lands to a time point at which the liquid droplet is heated and dried is defined as T2 seconds, and T2 is 2.0 or shorter taught by Ooishi. This would have been done for the purpose of drying the droplet of the ink compositions on the recording medium as soon as the ink application is completed (Ooishi, paragraph [0130]).
Hitoshi fails to teach the organic solvent includes a solvent species A represented by Formula (1) or Formula (2) and having a ClogP value of -0.60 or greater and 2.70 or less, and in Formula (1), R1 represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group, R2 represents a chain-like hydrocarbon group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and n represents an integer of 1 to 3, in Formula (2), R3 represents a chain-like hydrocarbon group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms.
However, Hongo teaches the organic solvent includes a solvent species A represented by Formula (1) or Formula (2) and having a ClogP value of -0.60 or greater and 2.70 or less (Paragraph [0010] describe how the “organic solvent” is represented as either the “General Formula (1)” or “General Formula (2)” and has a ClogP value of 0.5 to 2.7 which is within the given claimed range.), and in Formula (1), R1 represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group (Paragraph [0013] describes how the “R1” of the “General Formula (1)” represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group.), R2 represents a chain-like hydrocarbon group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (Paragraph [0013] describes how the “R2” of the “General Formula (1)” represents a “linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 4 to 9 carbon atoms which overlaps with the given claimed range of atoms.), and n represents an integer of 1 to 3 (Paragraph [0013] describes how the “n” of the “General Formula (1)” represents a “an integer of 1 to 3” which is identical to the given claimed range.), in Formula (2), R3 represents a chain-like hydrocarbon group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (Paragraph [0014] describes how the “R3” of the “General Formula (2)” represents a “linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 4 to 9 carbon atoms” which overlaps the given claimed range.).
Hitoshi and Hongo are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink jet recording method. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply the organic solvent includes a solvent species A represented by Formula (1) or Formula (2) and having a ClogP value of -0.60 or greater and 2.70 or less, and in Formula (1), R1 represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group, R2 represents a chain-like hydrocarbon group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and n represents an integer of 1 to 3, in Formula (2), R3 represents a chain-like hydrocarbon group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms taught by Hongo. This would have been done for the purpose of achieving the objective of recording an image having excellent jetting reliability and good granularity (Hongo, paragraphs [0009] and [0011]).
Hitoshi fails to teach the surfactant includes a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether-based surfactant (B) having an HLB value of 4.0 or greater and 18.0 or less.
However, Kinu teaches the surfactant includes a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether-based surfactant (B) having an HLB value of 4.0 or greater and 18.0 or less (Paragraph [0056] describes one of the preferred surfactants to be a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether that has a preferrable HLB of “15 or more” which overlaps the given claimed range. For the purpose of improving the ejection sustainability).
Hitoshi and Kinu are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink jet recording method. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply the surfactant including a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether-based surfactant (B) having an HLB value of 4.0 or greater and 18.0 or less taught by Kinu. This would have been done for the purpose of improving discharge sustainability (Kinu, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1.
Modified Hitoshi fails to teach wherein in each of the first ink and the second ink, in a case where a sum of products of the ClogP value of the solvent species A and a content of the solvent species A with respect to a total amount of the inks in units of % by mass is calculated, the sum of products is -10.00 or greater and 10.00 or less.
However, Hongo teaches wherein in each of the first ink and the second ink, in a case where a sum of products of the ClogP value of the solvent species A and a content of the solvent species A with respect to a total amount of the inks in units of % by mass is calculated, the sum of products is -10.00 or greater and 10.00 or less. (Paragraph [0011] describes how the content of the organic solvent is within the range of 1.0 mass % to 5.0 mass% with respect to a total mass of a composition. With the obviousness of using a first and second ink composition taught by Hitoshi, this range of mass taught by Hongo would be applied to each ink composition and have a calculated summation range of 2.0 mass % to 10.0 mass % which is within the given claimed range.)
Modified Hitoshi and Hongo are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink jet recording method. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply wherein in each of the first ink and the second ink, in a case where a sum of products of the ClogP value of the solvent species A and a content of the solvent species A with respect to a total amount of the inks in units of % by mass is calculated, the sum of products is -10.00 or greater and 10.00 or less taught by Hongo. This would have been done for the purpose of achieving the objective of recording an image having excellent jetting reliability and good granularity (Hongo, paragraphs [0009] and [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1,
Modified Hitoshi fails to teach wherein the transportation speed of the recording medium is 60 m/min or greater and 200 m/min or less.
However, Ooishi teaches wherein the transportation speed of the recording medium is 60 m/min or greater and 200 m/min or less (Paragraph [0115] speed range overlaps with preferred range of 250 mm/sec to 2500 mm/sec which can converted into a range of 15 m/min to 150 m/min which is within the given claimed range.).
Modified Hitoshi and Ooishi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming method. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply wherein the transportation speed of the recording medium is 60 m/min or greater and 200 m/min or less taught by Ooishi. This would have been done for the purpose of setting a specific landing interval range between the first and second ink (Ooishi, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, Hitoshi further explains wherein each of the first ink and the second ink has a dynamic surface tension of 29.0 mN/m or greater and 38.0 mN/m or less (The last paragraph on page 21 describes how the “first ink composition, the second ink composition, and the clear ink composition” have a “surface tension” preferably at 20mN/m or more and 40mN/m or less which encompasses the given claimed range.).
Hitoshi does not disclose the claimed invention the dynamic surface tension at 10 milliseconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the dynamic surface tension at 10 milliseconds, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, Hitoshi further explains wherein each of the first ink and the second ink contains resin particles (Page 8, under section “1.2.4. Resin Particle”, describes how the “first ink composition” may include “resin particles”. While page 16, under section “3.1.4.”, describes how the “second ink composition” may include resin particles.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, Hitoshi further explains wherein the solvent species A includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol monohexyl ether, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, diethylene glycol monoisopropyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, diethylene glycol monoisobutyl ether, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol monoethyl ether, propylene glycol monopropyl ether, propylene glycol monobutyl ether, 1,2-butanediol, 1,2-pentanediol, and 1,2-hexanediol (Page 6, the second paragraph through the fourth paragraph under section 1.2.2., describes examples of the “water-soluble organic solvent” including ethylene glycol monohexyl ether, tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol monopropyl ether, propylene glycol monobutyl ether, 1,2-butanediol, 1,2-pentanediol, and 1,2-hexanediol.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1,
Modified Hitoshi fails to teach wherein a total content of the acetylene-based surfactant (A) and the polyoxyethylene alkyl ether-based surfactant (B) having an HLB value of 4.0 or greater and 18.0 or less in each of the first ink and the second ink is in a range of 1.0% by mass to 3.0% by mass with respect to a total amount of the inks
However, Kinu teaches wherein a total content of the acetylene-based surfactant (A) and the polyoxyethylene alkyl ether-based surfactant (B) having an HLB value of 4.0 or greater and 18.0 or less in each of the first ink and the second ink is in a range of 1.0% by mass to 3.0% by mass with respect to a total amount of the inks (describes one of the preferred surfactants to be a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether that has a preferrable HLB of “15 or more” which overlaps the given claimed range. For the purpose of improving the ejection sustainability. Furthermore, the preferred range of the “surface active agent” is preferably “0.8% or more” with respect to the total mass of the ink which overlaps the given claimed range.).
Modified Hitoshi and Kinu are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink jet recording method. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply the surfactant including a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether-based surfactant (B) having an HLB value of 4.0 or greater and 18.0 or less taught by Kinu. This would have been done for the purpose of improving discharge sustainability effect (Kinu, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, Hitoshi further explains wherein the wax particles in each of the first ink and the second ink include at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene wax and carnauba wax (Page 11, the second paragraph under section 1.2.5., describes examples of the “wax” including “carnauba wax” and “polyethylene wax”.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi (JP 2017109485 A) in view of Ooishi et al. (US20130222467A1), Hongo (US 20200216700 A1), and Kinu et al. (JP2003-160751A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 20210395546 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hitoshi, Hongo, Ooishi, and Kinu teaches the image recording method according to claim 1,
Modified Hitoshi fails to teach wherein the acetylene-based surfactant (A) in each of the first ink and the second ink includes an acetylene-based surfactant having an HLB value of 3.5 or greater and 9.0 or less.
However, Fukui teaches wherein the acetylene-based surfactant (A) in each of the first ink and the second ink includes an acetylene-based surfactant having an HLB value of 3.5 or greater and 9.0 or less (Paragraph [0017] describes the most preferrable HLB range of an “acetylene-based surfactant (A)” being from 3 to 6 which is within the given claimed range.).
Modified Hitoshi and Fukui are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink jet method of printing. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink jet recording method taught by Hitoshi to also apply wherein the acetylene-based surfactant (A) in each of the first ink and the second ink includes an acetylene-based surfactant having an HLB value of 3.5 or greater and 9.0 or less taught by Fukui. This would have been done for the purpose of preventing the acetylene-based surfactant from being precipitated in the ink, impart good leveling properties to the ink, reduce mottling, to easily “wet-spread” the ink, and to prevent the occurrence of a streak on the printed material. (Fukui, paragraph [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 (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 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.
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853