DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Applicant is required to elect one of Pretreatment Liquids P1-P7 in Table 1 [0164] for examination.
Further, Applicant is required to elect one Yellow Dispersion Liquid from liquids Y1-Y15 in Table 2 [0179] for examination.
The species are independent or distinct because each represents a mutually exclusive embodiment of the claimed invention. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, 1 is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: because each of the listed pretreatment and dispersions liquids are mutually exclusive of the other listed pretreatment and dispersion liquids, respectively, each has at least some change in formulation from the others, and thus to search more than one would result in non-overlapping search, which would result in a serious search burden.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimura (2022/0315787) in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 1, Shimura teaches an inkjet recording method, comprising:
applying, onto a permeable substrate ([0185], textile) having an air permeability resistance of from 5 seconds to 50 seconds according to a Gurley test method ([0185], note that textiles fall within the range), a pretreatment liquid ([0020]) which comprises water ([0056]) and at least one coagulating agent ([0040], carboxylic acid) selected from the group consisting of an organic acid having a molecular weight of less than 1000 ([0040], carboxylic acid) and a polyvalent metal salt; and
applying a blue ink onto a region of the permeable substrate onto which the pretreatment liquid has been applied, by an inkjet recording system,
wherein the blue ink comprises water ([0212]), an organic solvent having a boiling point of 250°C or higher ([0212], glycerin), C. I. Pigment Blue 359 ([0211]), and a carboxy group-containing resin DY ([0211], SOLSPERSE 4300), and
a content of the organic solvent having a boiling point of 250°C or higher is 15% by mass to 40% by mass with respect to a total amount of the blue ink ([0212]).
Shimura teaches wherein the ink is Disperse Blue 359, not Pigment Yellow 110. Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply the ink formulation to a yellow pigment instead of a blue dye because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known coloring for another to obtain predictable results.
Further, it should be noted that, 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 obvious or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the general conditions required by the claim, but even if it did not, the amount of the solvent by mass would be treated as an optimization through routine experimentation. This same rational applies to all ranges claimed in the dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1. Shimura does not expressly teach wherein an application amount of the at least one coagulating agent applied onto the permeable substrate is from 0.08 g/m² to 0.35 g/m². 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 obvious or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the general conditions required by the claim except for a deposition density of the coagulating agent, but the g/m2 range is just an optimization through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio Y of a content of the carboxy group-containing resin DY to a content of the C. I. Pigment Yellow 110 in the yellow ink is from 1 to 1. Shimura in view of official notice does not teach wherein the ratio is 0.80. 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 obvious or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the general conditions required by the claim except the ratio, but the ratio is a routine optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1, wherein the yellow ink comprises at least one surfactant selected from an acetylene compound or a polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether ([0212], Note that BYK-348 meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1. Shimura in view of official notice does not teach wherein an average particle diameter of the C. I. Pigment Yellow 110 in the yellow ink is from 100 nm to 160 nm. 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 obvious or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the general conditions required by the claim except the particle diameter range, but the range is a routine optimization.
Regarding claim 6, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a surface tension of the yellow ink and a surface tension of the pretreatment liquid is 10 mN/m or less (see claim 1 rejection, Note that because of the similarities of the prior art formulation and the claimed formula, the surface tension difference is being taken to be inherent within Shimura).
Regarding claim 7, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a magenta ink containing water, C. I. Pigment Red 254, and a carboxy group-containing resin DM onto the region of the permeable substrate onto which the pretreatment liquid has been applied, by an ink jet recording system ([0211]-[0216], Note that yellow, red and blue can be deposited in any order on an area where the pretreatment liquid has been deposited. Note that all inks contain SOLSPERSE 43000).
Regarding claim 8, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a black ink ([0139]) containing water, a black pigment, and a carboxy group-containing resin DK onto the region of the permeable substrate onto which the pretreatment liquid has been applied (ote that all inks contain SOLSPERSE 43000), by an ink jet recording system. Shimura in view of official notice does not teach wherein a mass ratio Y of a content of the carboxy group-containing resin DY to a content of the C. I. Pigment Yellow 110 in the yellow ink is smaller than a mass ratio K of a content of the carboxy group-containing resin DK to a content of the black pigment in the black ink. 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 obvious or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, the prior art teaches all of the general conditions required by the claim except the relative mass ratios of the resins, but the ratios are not inventive.
Regarding claim 9 Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 1, wherein the carboxy group-containing resin DY is a polymer having no crosslinking structure (Note that SOLSPERSE 43000 meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 7, wherein the carboxy group-containing resin DM is a polymer having a crosslinking structure (Note that SOLSPERSE 43000 meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the inkjet recording method according to claim 8, wherein the carboxy group-containing resin DK is a polymer having a crosslinking structure (Note that SOLSPERSE 43000 meets the limitation).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimura in view of official notice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizukami et al. (2023/0143186).
Regarding claim 12, Shimura in view of official notice teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, wherein the permeable substrate is a fabric. Shimura in view of official notice does not teach wherein the permeable substrate is decorative paper for a decorative plate. Mizukami teaches wherein a print substrate can be either fabric or a melamine decorative plate (Mizukami, [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a melamine decorative plate instead of the textile disclosed by Shimura because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known substrate for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Shimura in view of official notice and Mizukami teaches the method of manufacturing a melamine decorative plate, comprising: preparing decorative paper on which an image is recorded, using the inkjet recording method according to claim 12; and infusing the decorative paper on which the image is recorded with a melamine resin (see claim 12 rejection).
Regarding claim 14, Shimura in view of official notice and Mizukami teaches the melamine decorative plate, manufactured by the method of manufacturing a melamine decorative plate according to claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection).
Conclusion
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