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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-10 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.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
4. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 10/30/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 2, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Kunimine et al. (US Pub. Nº 2008/0134935).
8. Regarding independent claim 2: Kunimine et al. disclosed an inkjet treatment liquid ([0016], line 1), comprising:
emulsified particles containing a silicone oil ([0097], lines 1-5; the specifications disclosed that specific examples of the silicone oil include dimethylpolysiloxane); and
an aqueous medium ([0097], line 3),
wherein an average particle size of the emulsified particles is 100 nm or more and 250 nm or less ([0079], lines 1-7).
9. Regarding claim 3: Kunimine et al. disclosed the inkjet treatment liquid according to claim 2, wherein the average particle size of the emulsified particles is 100 nm or more and 160 nm or less ([0079], lines 1-7).
10. Regarding claim 7: Kunimine et al. disclosed the inkjet treatment liquid according to claim 2, wherein the silicone oil includes at least an ionic functional group-containing silicone oil ([0097], lines 1-5; the specifications disclosed that specific examples of the silicone oil include dimethylpolysiloxane).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 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.
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunimine et al. (US Pub. Nº 2008/0134935).
14. Regarding claim 4: Kunimine et al. disclosed the inkjet treatment liquid according to claim 2.
Kunimine et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein the emulsified particles include first emulsified particles and second emulsified particles having an average particle size different from an average particle size of the first emulsified particles, the average particle size of the first emulsified particles is 100 nm or more and 250 nm or less, and the average particle size of the second emulsified particles is 100 nm or more and 250 nm or less.
However, Kunimine et al. disclosed a whole list of monomer particles that can be used ([0094], lines 1-12) as long as a cumulative average particle size of the dimethylpolysiloxane modified resin is more than 0 nm and less than 300 nm ([0079], lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kunimine et al. by using more than one size particles, as long as the particle diameters are within the prescribed range, in order to order to reduce production costs and achieve the desired benefits as disclosed by Kunimine et al. in paragraphs [0079] and [0080].
15. Regarding claim 5: Kunimine et al. disclosed the inkjet treatment liquid according to claim 4, wherein the average particle size of the first emulsified particles is 100 nm or more and 160 nm or less ([0079], lines 1-7; also see the rejection of claim 4), and the average particle size of the second emulsified particles is 100 nm or more and 160 nm or less ([0079], lines 1-7; also see the rejection of claim 4).
16. Regarding claim 6: Kunimine et al. disclosed the inkjet treatment liquid according to claim 4, wherein a difference between the average particle size of the first emulsified particles and the average particle size of the second emulsified particles is 0 nm or more and 30 nm or less ([0079], lines 1-7; also see the rejection of claim 3. Even if the average particle size difference between the first particles and the second particles is 30 nm, the average particle size of the first particles and that of the second particles would still be within the disclosed range of 0 nm or more and 300 nm or less).
17. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunimine et al. (US Pub. Nº 2008/0134935), in view of Takekoshi et al. (US Pub. Nº 2009/0160885).
18. Regarding claim 8: Kunimine et al. disclosed the inkjet treatment liquid according to claim 2.
Kunimine et al. are silent about wherein the silicone oil is configured for textile printing.
Takekoshi et al. disclosed an inkjet ([0053], lines 2-3) treatment liquid ([0130], line 1), comprising resin particles ([0130], line 1) and a silicone oil ([0130], lines 2-3), wherein the silicone oil is configured for textile printing ([0176], lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takekoshi et al. with those of Kunimine et al. by using the treatment liquid of Kunimine et al. in textile printing in order to improve the effect of scratch resistance of image printed on textile as disclosed by Takekoshi et al. in paragraph [0168].
19. Regarding claim 9: Kunimine et al. disclosed an inkjet printing apparatus according to claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2).
Kunimine et al. are silent about the inkjet printing apparatus being an inkjet textile printing apparatus comprising: a recording head configured to eject ink onto an image forming region of a textile printing target; and a processing head configured to eject a treatment liquid onto at least the image forming region of the textile printing target.
Takekoshi et al. disclosed an inkjet ([0053], lines 2-3) textile printing apparatus ([0176], lines 1-2), comprising a recording head configured to eject ink onto an image forming region of a textile printing target ([0053], lines 2-3); and a processing head configured to eject a treatment liquid onto at least the image forming region of the textile printing target ([0053], line 3), wherein the treatment liquid ([0130], line 1), comprises resin particles ([0130], line 1) and a silicone oil ([0130], lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takekoshi et al. with those of Kunimine et al. by using the treatment liquid of Kunimine et al. in a textile inkjet printing apparatus, in order to support printing on textile and to improve the effect of scratch resistance of image printed on textile as disclosed by Takekoshi et al. in paragraph [0168].
20. Regarding claim 10: Kunimine et al. disclosed an inkjet printing method using a treatment liquid according to claim 2 ([0002], lines 1-2; also see the rejection of claim 2).
Kunimine et al. are silent about the inkjet printing method being an inkjet textile printing method comprising ejecting ink from a recording head onto an image forming region of a textile printing target; and ejecting a treatment liquid from a processing head onto at least the image forming region of the textile printing target.
Takekoshi et al. disclosed an inkjet ([0053], lines 2-3) textile printing method ([0002], line 1 and [0176], lines 1-2), comprising ejecting ink from a recording head onto an image forming region of a textile printing target ([0053], lines 2-3); and ejecting a treatment liquid from a processing head onto at least the image forming region of the textile printing target ([0053], line 3), wherein the treatment liquid ([0130], line 1), comprises resin particles ([0130], line 1) and a silicone oil ([0130], lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takekoshi et al. with those of Kunimine et al. by using the treatment liquid of Kunimine et al. in a textile inkjet printing method, in order to support printing on textile and to improve the effect of scratch resistance of image printed on textile as disclosed by Takekoshi et al. in paragraph [0168].
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights