DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 16-22 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (2004/0021753) in view of De Mondt (2016/0222233).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshihiro teaches a free radical curable inkjet ink containing a mixture of colour pigments and a polymerizable composition, wherein
the mixture of colour pigments includes at least one colour pigment selected from a quinacridone pigment ([0047]), a diketopyrrolo pyrrole pigment, and a mixed crystal thereof;
the average particle size of the colour pigment is between 80 nm and 240 nm ([0015]) as determined by a dynamic light scattering technique using a laser ([0015]) having an emission wavelength of 635 nm (note that an average particle size does not change depending on a wavelength of laser light used to measure the particle size);
the polymerizable composition contains 95.0 to 99.5 wt% of monofunctional polymerizable compounds ([0023], Table 1, Example 2, Note that acryloyl morpholine/ACMO meets the limitation); and
the polymerizable composition has a double bond density (DBD) of at least 5.40 with the double bond density (DBD) being calculated by the formula:
DBD = …
with:
n representing the number of polymerizable compounds in the free radical curable inkjet ink;
F(i) representing the functionality of the polymerizable compound i;
MW(i) representing the molecular weight of the polymerizable compound i; and
wt%(i) being the weight percentage of the polymerizable compound i based on the total weight of the polymerizable composition ([0023], Note that acryloyl morpholine is disclosed in the current specification as one of the polymerizable compositions usable in the invention and thus must meet the limitation).
Yoshihiro does not teach wherein the mixture of pigments comprises at least two different colour pigments including at least one of the above named pigments. De Mondt teaches this (De Mondt, [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one of the claimed pigments among other colored pigments in a pigment mixture, as disclosed by De Mondt, in the mixture of Yoshihiro because doing so would allow for the formulation of a brown ink without the use of a brown pigment.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches the free radical curable inkjet ink of claim 16, containing a beta copper phthalocyanine pigment and/or a C.I. Pigment Yellow 150 pigment (Yoshihiro, [0013]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches the free radical curable inkjet ink of claim 16, containing at least 5.0 wt% of an acylphosphine oxide photoinitiator (Yoshihiro, [0065], Table 1, Example 2, TPO) based on the total weight of the free radical curable inkjet ink (Yoshihiro, Table 1, Example 2, TPO). Yoshihiro does not teach wherein the photoinitiator is contained in an amount of 7% or more. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, Yoshihiro teaches a photoinitiator in an amount of 5% while the claim requires 7%. Examiner maintains that this is a routine optimization that is not inventive given that all other conditions are present in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches the free radical curable inkjet ink of claim 16, wherein the at least one color pigment selected from a quinacridone pigment, a diketopyrrolo pyrrole pigment, and a mixed crystal thereof is present in an amount of at least 9 wt% based on the total weight of the mixture of colour pigments (Yoshihiro, [0014], Table 1, Example 2, Note that the only pigment in the at least one color pigment is the quinacridone pigment at 100% of the pigment).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches the free radical curable inkjet ink of claim 16, wherein the polymerizable composition contains 0 to 18.0 wt% of isobornyl acrylate and/or at least 13.0 wt% of a non-aromatic heterocyclic monofunctional monomer (Note that, according to the specification of the immediate application at [0057]-[0060], acryloyl morpholine, as disclosed by Yoshohiro above, meets the specification).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches a free radical curable inkjet ink set including a plurality of free radical curable inkjet inks according to claim 16 (Yoshihiro, Table 1).
Regarding claim 22, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches the free radical curable inkjet ink set of claim 21, wherein the plurality of free radical curable inkjet inks contains at least one free radical curable inkjet ink selected from the group consisting of a blue ink (Yoshihiro, [0013]), a red ink, and a brown ink.
Regarding claims 31-34, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches free radical curable inkjet ink sets including a plurality of free radical curable inkjet inks according to claims 17-20, respectively (see claim 16 rejection).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sasa (2004/0167315).
Regarding claim 23, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt teaches the free radical curable inkjet ink set of claim 22 including:
a) a blue free radical curable inkjet ink containing a beta-copper phthalocyanine pigment ([0031]),
b) a red free radical curable inkjet ink containing a mixture of colour pigments selected from a quinacridone pigment ([0047]), a diketopyrrolo pyrrole pigment, and a mixed crystal thereof;
c) a yellow free radical curable inkjet ink containing a C.I. Pigment Yellow 150 pigment ([0013]);
d) a black free radical curable inkjet ink containing a carbon black pigment ([0051]);
e) a brown free radical curable inkjet ink containing a beta-copper phthalocyanine pigment ([0031]); and
f) a green free radical curable inkjet ink ([0013]).
Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt does not teach wherein the blue and brown inks contain one of a quinacridone pigment, a diketopyrrolo pyrrole pigment, and a mixed crystal thereof. Sasa teaches this (Sasa, [0170], Note that any combination of pigments is contemplated in the “organic pigments and/or inorganic pigments”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both of beta-copper phthalocyanine and a quinacridone in blue and brown inks, as disclosed by Sasa, because doing so would amount to applying two known pigment mixtures to a known ink set to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt and Sasa teaches the free radical curable inkjet ink set of claim 23, wherein the yellow and/or the black free radical curable (Sasa, [0170]) inkjet ink contains at least one colour pigment selected from a quinacridone pigment (Sasa, [0170]), a diketopyrrolo pyrrole pigment, and a mixed crystal thereof;
and/or the green and/or the brown free radical curable inkjet ink contains a C.I. Pigment Yellow 150 pigment (Sasa, [0170], Note that any combination of pigments is contemplated in the “organic pigments and/or inorganic pigments”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a quinacridone in a black ink, as disclosed by Sasa, because doing so would amount to applying two known pigment mixtures to a known ink set to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro in view of De Mondt and official notice.
Regarding claim 25, Yoshihiro teaches a cured layer of a free radical curable inkjet ink according to claim 16. Yoshihiro does not teach a sign with a layer of ink, wherein the term "sign" refers to a stand-alone article that conveys information by means of alphanumeric characters, symbols and/or graphics, and that in use is mounted to an object such as a post, bracket or wall. Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to print a sign with the free radical curable ink of claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights