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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a content of the resin particles in the first treatment liquid composition is 80% by mass or more based on a total amount of nonvolatile components in the first treatment liquid composition”. Claim 3 recites “a content of the softening agent in the second treatment liquid composition is 60% by mass or more based on a total amount of nonvolatile components in the second treatment liquid composition”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “nonvolatile components” in claims 2 and 3 appears to be used by the claims to mean something different from the accepted meaning. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term as it only uses the same language as the claims (see para. 00104, 00138). The inconsistency with the accepted meaning comes from viewing the examples from the tables for the compositions of the first treatment liquid and second treatment liquid.
The resin (SUPERFLEX 500M) and softeners (Hisofter K-45 and EX-200A) are nonvolatile as would be clear from the claim language and specification. Glycerin, however, is known as a nonvolatile substance. Therefore, in the examples provided, the content by mass of resin particles in the first treatment liquid would be 60% (ex. 1-10, 13-17), 36% (ex. 11), and 63% (ex. 12) based on a total amount of nonvolatile components (resin and glycerin); and the content by mass of softening agent in the second treatment liquid would be 57% (ex. 1-4, 8-17), 50% (ex. 5), 41% (ex. 6) and 66% (ex. 7) based on a total amount of nonvolatile components (softener and glycerin). Of the examples, none of them satisfy claim 2 (80% or more), and only one satisfies claim 3. Even in the example that satisfies claim 3, the specification notes that example is not desired (sliminess occurred; at para. 0236).
As best understood by the examiner, in order to properly satisfy the for the “nonvolatile components” in claims 2 and 3, the “nonvolatile components” would need to exclude glycerin, and therefore the only nonvolatile component present in each treatment liquid would be the resin particles or softening agent.
For examination purposes, the claims will be examined such that the “nonvolatile components” exclude glycerin (and related solvents), and will include resin particles, softening agents, and various components (such as solids).
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) 1-7, 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 20190061382 A1), hereinafter referred to as Okuda.
Regarding claim 1, Okuda teaches a recording method (at para. 0086) comprising:
a color ink deposition step (non-white-ink adhering step; at para. 0175) of depositing an ink composition (non-white ink) containing a pigment (at para. 0178), resin particles (resin; at para. 0188; example resin: SUPERFLEX 460; at para. 0150), and water (solvent; at para. 0188; solvent may be water; at para. 0156) onto a recording medium (recording medium P; Fig. 1, 2) by an ink jet method (at para. 0023) to form an image region (image region C with first region A and second region B; Fig. 1, 2);
a first treatment liquid deposition step (white-ink adhering step; at para. 0134) of depositing a first treatment liquid composition (white ink) containing resin particles (may contain white hollow resin particles; at para. 0137; resin; at para. 0144; example resin: SUPERFLEX 460 at para. 0150) and water (solvent may be water; at para. 0156) onto the recording medium by an ink jet method (at para. 0023); and
a second treatment liquid deposition step (treatment-solution adhering step; at para. 0128) of depositing a second treatment liquid composition (treatment solution) containing a softening agent (surfactant; at para. 0114; silicone surfactants; at para. 0117; amphoteric surfactant; at para. 0122) onto the recording medium by an ink jet method (at para. 0128), wherein
the image region has regions with different ink deposition amounts per unit area (in image region C, non-white ink may be adhered to image region A and not image region B; at para. 0134; non-white ink layer 30; Fig. 1, 2), and
the first treatment liquid deposition step and the second treatment liquid deposition step are carried out for at least an entire image region (white ink layer 30 and treatment solution layer 10 cover entire image region C; Fig. 1, 2).
Okuda does not explicitly teach a deposition amount of the first treatment liquid composition is 12 ml/m2 or more. However, Okuda teaches wherein the deposition amount of the first treatment liquid composition is 8 to 25 mg/in2 (in region A; at para. 0163) and 9 to 36 mg/in2 (in region B; at para. 0165). Because the majority of the first treatment liquid composition is water (at para. 0158) with a density of 1 g/mL and may include some additional solvents (see Table 1) having densities just above 1 g/mL (1.12 g/mL for 2-pyrrolidone and 1.04 g/mL for propylene glycol), the density of the first treatment liquid may be around 1 g/mL. Therefore, the deposition amount taught by Okuda may be 12.4 to 38.8 mL/m2 (in region A) and 14.0 to 55.8 mL/m2 (in region B) ([mL/m2] = 1.55*[mg/in2]* 1 g/mL). Therefore, Okuda does teach wherein a deposition amount of the first treatment liquid composition is 12 mL/m2 or more for the purpose of at least forming an image with sufficient background concealment and good coloring of the ink composition (at para. 0164, 0166).
Regarding claim 2, Okuda further teaches wherein a content of the resin particles in the first treatment liquid composition is 80% by mass or more based on a total amount of nonvolatile components in the first treatment liquid composition (nonvolatile components understood as color material and resin; color material may be white hollow resin particle; at para. 0137; therefore, in a case that the color material is white hollow resin particle, the content of resin particles (white hollow resin particle + resin) based on a total amount of nonvolatile component (color material + resin) would be 100%).
Regarding claim 3, Okuda further teaches wherein a content of the softening agent in the second treatment liquid composition is 0.01 to 77 mass % based on a total amount of nonvolatile components in the second treatment liquid composition (nonvolatile components understood as coagulant (at para. 0091) and surfactant; coagulant content may be 3 to 10 mass % with respect to total mass of treatment solution; at para. 0101; surfactant content may be 0.1 to 10 mass %; at para. 0123; therefore, a range for surfactant may be 0.01 to 77 mass %).
MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The claimed range of 60% by mass or more overlaps with the range of 0.01 to 77 mass % taught by Okuda.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a content of the softening agent in the second treatment liquid composition of 60% by mass or more based on a total amount of nonvolatile components in the second treatment liquid composition, such as 77%, for the purpose of reducing surface tension of the second treatment liquid and improving wettability into the recording medium, as taught by Okuda (at para. 0114).
Regarding claim 4, Okuda further teaches wherein a difference in a sum of a deposition amount of the ink composition and a deposition amount of the first treatment liquid composition per unit area between a region where the sum is maximum and a region where the sum is minimum in the image region ranges from 0 mL/m2 (total adhesion amount may be equal in the two regions, therefore 0 mL/m2 difference; at para. 0040, 0202) to 45 mL/m2 (in a case white ink adhesion amount in region A is less than white ink adhesion amount to region B, a difference between adhesion amount of white ink may be 1 to 18 mg/in2; at para. 0041-0042; non-white ink: 5 to 30 mg/in2 in region A and 0 mg/in2 in region B (not adhered); at para. 0190, 0084; therefore, a total difference may be 0 to 29 mg/in2, i.e. 0 to 45 mL/m2 as done for claim 1).
MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The claimed range of 10 mL/m2 or less overlaps with the range of 0 to 45 mL/m2 taught by Okuda.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a difference in sums of deposition amounts such as 10 mL/m2 or less for the purpose of at least consideration of design and concealment of colors, as taught by Okuda (at para. 0044).
Regarding claim 5, Okuda further teaches wherein a deposition amount of the second treatment liquid composition may be 0.06 to 2.5 times a deposition amount of the first treatment liquid composition (adhesion amount of treatment solution may be 2 to 20 mg/in2; at para. 0130; white ink adhesion amount may be 8 to 25 mg/in2 and 9 to 36 mg/in2; at para. 0163, 0165; therefore, the adhesion amount of treatment solution may be 0.06 to 2.5 times the adhesion amount of the white ink).
MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The claimed range of equal to or greater than one half (0.5 times or more) overlaps with the range of 0.06 to 2.5 times taught by Okuda.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a deposition amount of the second treatment liquid composition that is equal to or greater than one half of a deposition amount of the first treatment liquid composition for the purpose of suppressing unevenness, decreased adhesion, and abrasion resistance, as taught by Okuda (at para. 0130).
Regarding claim 6, Okuda further teaches wherein the softening agent is a dimethyl silicone-based softening agent (silicone surfactant may be, for example, BYK-306; at para. 0117; from BYK-306 technical data sheet by BYK Additives & Instruments, BYK-306 is a polyether-modified polydimethylsiloxane).
Regarding claim 7, Okuda further teaches wherein a content of the softening agent is 0.1 to 10 mass % based on a total amount of the second treatment liquid composition (at para. 0123).
MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The claimed range of 8% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less overlaps with the range of 0.1 to 10 mass % taught by Okuda.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a content of softening agent in at least the range of 8% by mass or more and 15% by mass, such as 10%, for the purpose of having sufficient surfactant to improve at least wettability onto the recording medium, as taught by Okuda (at para. 0114).
Regarding claim 9, Okuda further teaches wherein a content of the resin particles in the ink composition is 1 to 10 mass% based on a total amount of the ink composition (resin content is similar to that of white ink which is therefore 1 to 10 mass %; at para. 0188, 0153), and
a content of the resin particles in the first treatment liquid composition is 2 to 30 mass % based on a total amount of the first treatment liquid composition (color material, which may be white hollow resin particles, is 1 to 20 mass %; at para. 0142; resin content may be 1 to 10 mass %; at para. 0153).
MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The claimed range for resin particles in the ink composition of 4% by mass or more and 8% by mass or less lies inside the claimed range of 1 to 10 mass % taught by Okuda. The claimed range for resin particles in the first treatment liquid composition of 10% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less lies within the range of 2 to 30 mass % taught by Okuda.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a resin content, based on respective total amounts, in the ink composition in a range of 4% by mass or more and 8% by mass or less and in the first treatment liquid composition in a range of 10% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less for the purpose of at least improving abrasion resistance, as taught by Okuda (at para. 0144, 0155).
Regarding claim 10, Okuda further teaches the recording method as further comprising a step of heating and drying (heating step improves dryability; at para. 0194).
Regarding claim 12, Okuda further teaches wherein the recording medium is fabric (cloth; at para. 0080).
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 20200317942 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Okuda fails to teach an additional reaction liquid deposition step of depositing a reaction liquid composition containing an aggregating agent aggregating components in the ink composition onto the recording medium.
Yamada teaches a similar recording method to that of Okuda wherein there is an ink deposition step (primarily notes an ink attachment step; at para. 0021; contains at least resin particles, water, and pigment; at para. 0040, 0057, 0029; if both a white ink and a non-white ink were used, would be even more similar to Okuda as applied to claim 1 such that the white ink would be the first treatment liquid and the non-white ink would be the color ink) and softening liquid deposition step (coating liquid attachment step; at para. 0023; contains softening agent that are silicone resin; at para. 0088, 0047; Table 4). Further, a reaction liquid containing an aggregating agent may be applied as a pretreatment (pretreatment agent with polyvalent metal compound for reactivity with resins; at para. 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a reaction liquid deposition step for the purpose of providing a reaction liquid as a reaction with the ink composition resin particles applied as a pretreatment separate from a softening liquid that may be applied after the ink attachment step, as taught by Yamada (at para. 0043, 0095). This would be for the purpose of further improving feel and texture and fastness to rubbing as taught by Yamada (at para. 0173).
Regarding claim 11, Okuda does not teach wherein heating is performed such that a surface temperature of the recording medium becomes 150°C or higher and 160°C or lower in the heating and drying.
Yamada teaches a similar recording method to that of Okuda wherein in the heating and drying step, heating is performed such that a surface temperature of the recording medium becomes 150°C or more and 170°C or less (at para. 0098).
MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The claimed range of 150 to 160°C lies inside the range of 150 to 170°C taught by Yamada.
Therefore, 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 heating such that a surface temperature of the recording medium becomes 150°C or higher and 160°C or lower for the purpose of improving fixation to fibers of the recording medium, as taught by Yamada (at para. 0098).
Regarding claim 13, Okuda does not teach wherein the recording medium is cotton fabric.
Yamada teaches a similar recording method to that of Okuda wherein the recording medium is cotton fabric (at para. 0101).
Therefore, 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 recording medium as cotton fabric as it is one of many types of fabric recording media that is useable with textile printing using inkjet technology, as taught by Yamada (at para. 0024, 0101).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyasa et al. (US 20240401268 A1) is relevant to a majority of the claims. The reference has a common applicant with the present invention but also an earlier effective filing date.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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 X 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.
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights