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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS’s) submitted on 21 August 2024 and 08 September 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, & 7-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by SASADA et al. (US 2014/0287206 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, SASADA et al. teaches an inkjet ink comprising: a white pigment (SASADA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3 & 13); a block polymer type resin dispersing agent (SASADA et al. – Page 3, Paragraph 54); an organic solvent (SASADA et al. – Page 15, Paragraph 217 – Page 16, Paragraph 230); and water (SASADA et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 38), wherein the white pigment is at least one type of titanium oxide particles selected from the group consisting of titanium oxide particles having surfaces treated with alumina [i.e. aluminum oxide], provided that titanium oxide particles having surfaces treated with an organic compound, silica, zirconia, zinc oxide, or magnesium oxide are excluded, and titanium oxide particles having surfaces treated with alumina and an organic compound (SASADA et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 38).
As related to dependent claim 3, SASADA et al. teaches the inkjet ink comprises particles of the white pigment having surfaces having with at least a portion thereof coated with the block polymer type resin dispersing agent, and wherein the particles have an average particle size of 200 to 400 nm (SASADA et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 31-34 and Page 3, Paragraphs 53-54).
As related to dependent claim 4, SASADA et al. teaches an inkjet recording method comprising recording by ejecting droplets of the inkjet ink from an inkjet printer and adhering the droplets to a recording medium (SASADA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3-9).
As related to further dependent claim 5, SASADA et al. teaches the recording medium is a less ink-absorbent or non-ink-absorbent recording medium (SASADA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 10-11 and Page 12, Paragraph 187).
As related to dependent claim 7, SASADA et al. teaches a recorded medium on which the inkjet ink has been adhered (SASADA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3-11).
As related to dependent claim 8, SASADA et al. teaches an inkjet printer comprising a container [i.e. inherent characteristic of an inkjet system with an inkjet head] containing the inkjet ink (SASADA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3-9).
As related to further dependent claim 9, SASADA et al. teaches the method comprising coating at least the portion of the surface of the white pigment with the block polymer type resin dispersing agent (SASADA et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 31-34 and Page 3, Paragraphs 53-54).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASADA et al. (US 2014/0287206 A1) in view of Elwakil et al. (US 2007/0259986 A1).
As related to dependent claim 2, SASADA et al. teaches the block polymer type resin dispersing agent has a weigh average molecular weight of 10,000 or more [i.e. 11,500] (SASADA et al. – Page 12, Paragraph 188 and Table 1, Name A20), but does not specifically limit it to 30,000 or less. However, Elwakil et al. teaches an inkjet ink comprising a white pigment and a block polymer type resin dispersing agent (Elwakil et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 2-3 & 11, Page 2, Paragraphs 29 & 33; and Page 4, Paragraphs 46, 49, & 51-53) and specifically teaches the block polymer type dispersing agent has a weight average molecular weight of 10000 to 30000 [i.e. 15,500 & 27,500] (Elwakil et al. – Page 9, Paragraph 129 and Page 10, Paragraph 187). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the range of the block polymer type dispersing agent of SASADA et al. to be limited as taught by Elwakil et al. in an effort to provide white inks with improved characteristics such as image durability which area suitable for use on a broad range of substrate types (Elwakil et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 10).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of SASADA et al. and Elwakil et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the recording medium is subjected to at least one surface modification treatment selected from the group consisting of a corona discharge treatment, a plasma treatment, and a flame treatment (Elwakil et al. – Page 7, Paragraph 103).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nigam (US 2009/0009577 A1) teaches an aqueous inkjet ink comprising a white pigment and resin dispersing agent. Sato et al. (US 2014/0002556 A1) teaches an inkjet ink composition comprising a white pigment and a block polymer type resin dispersing agent. Roberts et al. (US 9,062,228 B2) teaches an aqueous inkjet ink comprising a white titanium oxide pigment with an average particle size of less than 300nm. Loccufier et al. (US 2015/0218398 A1) teaches an inkjet ink with a white pigment and a block polymer type resin dispersing agent. STEERT et al. (US 2016/0083604 A1) teaches a white inkjet ink comprising titanium oxide which is alumina treated and block polymeric dispersants. LOCCUFIER et al. (US 2017/0029639 A1) teaches an aqueous inkjet ink comprising a white pigment, water, organic solvents and a block polymer type resin dispersing agent. LOCCUFIER (US 2017/0218565 A1) teaches an aqueous inkjet ink comprising a white pigment and a block polymer type resin dispersing agent. OKAMOTO et al. (US 2018/0079921 A1) teaches a white pigment ink with an average particle size of 50nm to 500nm and a block polymer type resin dispersing agent. Loccufier (US 2023/0416547 A1) teaches an inkjet ink comprising a white pigment having an average particle size of 150nm to 400nm and a block polymer type resin dispersing agent.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights