DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Ink W2 and Test Number 216 in the reply filed on 9/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koike et al. (2024/0010007).
Regarding claim 1, Koike teaches an image recording method comprising:
applying a white ink (Table 1) containing water (Table 1, purified water), a white pigment (Table 1, titanium dioxide), and a resin (Table 1, Resin A) onto one surface of a non-permeable substrate ([0195]-[0196]) by an inkjet method and heating and drying ([0184]-[0189]) the applied white ink to record a white image,
wherein, in a case where a viscosity at 32°C of a concentrated ink obtained by concentrating the white ink until a mass of the white ink is reduced by 30% is denoted by X mPa·s and a temperature rising rate from a start point of the heating and drying to a point of 5 seconds later is denoted by Y °C/s, a product of X and Y is 30 to 280 (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the viscosity/concentration/temperature/reduction/timing/product limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of products of a viscosity and a temperature, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
Regarding claim 2, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, wherein the product of the X and the Y is 40 to 200 (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the viscosity/concentration/temperature/reduction/timing/product limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of products of a viscosity and a temperature, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
Regarding claim 3, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, wherein the heating and drying is performed by blowing hot air, and in a case where a value obtained by dividing a wind speed of the hot air in a unit of m/s by a temperature of the hot air in a unit of °C is denoted by Z, a product of the X and Z is 2.0 to 10.0 (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the viscosity/concentration/temperature/reduction/timing/product/wind speed limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of wind speeds, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
.
Regarding claim 4, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 3, wherein the product of the X and the Z is 3.5 to 7.5 (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the viscosity/concentration/temperature/reduction/timing/product/wind speed limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of products of a viscosity and a temperature, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
.
Regarding claim 5, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, wherein a value obtained by dividing a film thickness of the white ink applied onto the one surface of the non-permeable substrate after the heating and drying by a film thickness of the white ink applied onto the one surface of the non-permeable substrate before the heating and drying is 0.10 to 0.20 (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the thickness limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of thicknesses, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
.
Regarding claim 6, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 5, wherein the film thickness of the white ink applied onto the one surface of the non-permeable substrate after the heating and drying is 1.30 um to 1.80 µm (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the thickness limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of products of thicknesses, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
.
Regarding claim 7, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, wherein the recording further includes transporting the non-permeable substrate onto which the white ink has been applied by a transport member so as to be in a disposition in which the transport member and the white ink are in contact with each other, the image recording method further includes winding the non-permeable substrate onto which the white image has been recorded after the recording, and an average contact surface pressure between the transport member and the white ink during a period from the application of the white ink to the winding of the non-permeable substrate is 750 N/m² to 4000 N/m² (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of average surface contact pressures, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
.
Regarding claim 8, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, wherein the recording further includes recording a colored image by applying a colored ink containing water, a coloring pigment, and a resin onto the one surface of the non-permeable substrate by an inkjet method (Table 1, Note non-white inks).
Regarding claim 9, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 8, wherein the colored image is recorded before the white image and is disposed between the non-permeable substrate and the white image ([0230]).
Regarding claim 10, Koike teaches the image recording method according to claim 1, further comprising: before the recording, applying a pretreatment liquid containing water and an aggregating agent onto the one surface of the non-permeable substrate, wherein, in the recording, the white ink is applied onto a region on the one surface onto which the pretreatment liquid has been applied, to record the white image ([0228]-[0230]).
Regarding claim 11, Koike teaches an image recording apparatus that is used in the image recording method according to claim 1, the image recording apparatus comprising: an ink jet head (fig. 4, item W) configured to apply the white ink onto the one surface of the non-permeable substrate; and a heating and drying device (fig. 1, item 5/6) configured to perform heating and drying on the applied white ink, wherein the product of the X and the Y is 30 to 280 (Note that the claimed limitation is being asserted to be inherent within the reference. That is, despite the limitation not being expressly addressed by Koike, Examiner maintains that heating and drying the white ink on a non-absorbent medium, all as disclose in the prior art reference, would result in the viscosity/concentration/temperature/reduction/timing/product limitation being met).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Koike teaches printing and drying a white ink layer on a non-permeable medium, and the claimed invention has added a range of products of a viscosity and a temperature, but this range is a routine optimization of the process already disclosed by Koike and thus is not patentably inventive.
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
