DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 is 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. The claim recites wherein “a shortest time difference…is within 5 min.” It is not understood what this is intended to mean. Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim 3 is 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. The claim recites wherein “a shortest time difference…is 1.0 sec or more and 5.0 sec or less.” It is not understood what this is intended to mean. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 is 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. The claim recites three seemingly different regions to which three different liquid are applied, but claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, seems to state that all three liquids are applied to a single region, i.e., “the any place.” These two recitations seem to conflict as one would seem to state that the liquids overlap, and the other would seem to state that the liquids do not overlap. Clarification is required.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makimoto et al. (2024/0117210).
Regarding claim 1, Makimoto teaches an ink jet recording method comprising:
a treatment liquid adhesion step of adhering a treatment liquid composition ([0084]) containing an organic acid ([0093], succinic acid) and water ([0101]) to any place on a fabric ([0205], [0207]) by an ink jet method;
a colored ink adhesion step of adhering a liquid droplet of a colored ink composition ([0209]) containing a pigment, an anionic first resin particle ([0147], acrylic resin), and water ([0122]) to the any place by the ink jet method; and
a transparent ink adhesion step ([0212]) of adhering a liquid droplet of a transparent ink composition ([0162]-[0191], note that there is no colorant in the overcoat ink) containing an anionic second resin particle ([0169], acrylic resin) and water ([0177]) to the any place by the ink jet method, and
a shortest time difference |a| between adhesion of one of the colored ink composition and the treatment liquid composition to the any place and subsequent adhesion of another of the colored ink composition and the treatment liquid composition to the any place is within 5 min ([0061], see fig. 1, Note that the colored ink composition is deposited almost immediately after the treatment liquid, i.e., within 5 minutes).
Makimoto does not expressly disclose wherein in the treatment liquid adhesion step, an amount of an acidic group derived from the organic acid adhering to the any place is 4.5 mmol/m² or more. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all limitations of the treatment solution are present in the prior art, and the claimed invention simply adds a range of amounts of an acidic group per unit area of print media. This limitation is being considered to have been arrived at through routine experimentation and is not being considered inventive.
Regarding claim 2, Makimoto teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, the time difference |a| is within 10 msec ([0061], see fig. 1, Note that the colored ink composition is deposited almost immediately after the treatment liquid, i.e., within 5 minutes).
Regarding claim 3, Makimoto teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, a shortest time difference IBI between adhesion of one of the colored ink composition and the transparent ink composition to the any place and subsequent adhesion of another of the colored ink composition and the transparent ink composition is adhered to the any place is 1.0 sec or more and 5.0 sec or less ([0061], see fig. 1, Note that the colored ink composition is deposited almost immediately before the overcoat liquid, i.e., within 5 minutes).
Regarding claim 4, Makimoto teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, a molecular weight of the organic acid is 5,000 or less ([0093], Note that succinic acid meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Makimoto teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1, the pigment is a self-dispersing pigment ([0139]).
Regarding claim 6, Makimoto teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1. Makimoto does not expressly disclose wherein an adhesion amount X of the treatment liquid per unit area, an adhesion amount Y of the colored ink composition per unit area, and an adhesion amount Z of the transparent ink composition per unit area satisfy a relationship of the following numerical expression (1), (Y + Z)/X 1.1. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions are present in the prior art, and the claimed invention simply adds a ratio of the three claimed liquids. This limitation is being considered to have been arrived at through routine experimentation and is not being considered inventive.
Regarding claim 7, Makimoto teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1. Makimoto does not teach wherein in a recording region to which the colored ink is adhered, an adhesion amount Y of the colored ink composition per unit area is g/m² or more. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions are present in the prior art, and the claimed invention simply adds an adhesion amount per unit area of the colored ink. This limitation is being considered to have been arrived at through routine experimentation and is not being considered inventive.
Regarding claim 8, Makimoto teaches the ink jet recording method according to claim 1. Makimoto does not teach wherein an area A of a first region to which the treatment liquid is adhered, an area B of a second region to which the colored ink composition is adhered, and an area C of a third region to which the transparent ink composition is adhered satisfy a relationship of the following numerical expression (2), C ‡ A ‡ B (2). However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions are present in the prior art, and the claimed invention simply adds a ratio of the areas of deposition of the three claimed liquids. This limitation is being considered to have been arrived at through routine experimentation and is not being considered 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
Prosecution Insights