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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, it is suggested to amend the limitation reciting “wherein the humectant comprises at least either of propylene glycol and glycerin” to --wherein the humectant comprises at least one of propylene glycol or glycerin-- in order to clarify the language of the claim. The suggested language more clearly sets forth that the humectant includes propylene glycol, glycerin, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3, with respect to the limitations reciting “further comprising at least either of a dispersant and a binder” (lines 1-2), “comprises at least one of a polyol, a saturated fatty acid ester, and an unsaturated fatty acid ester” (lines 3-4), and “comprises at least either of a polysaccharide and a disaccharide” (line 5), it is suggested to amend these limitations as suggested above with respect to claim 2, in particular, following the form “at least one of A or B” in order to clarify the language of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushiro et al. (JP 2019-182943, cited on IDS and ISR, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Fukushiro et al. teaches an inkjet ink comprising water, an alcohol solvent, carbon, and a dispersant [0011]. The alcohol solvent may be normal propyl alcohol (NPA; 1-propanol), which serves to disperse the carbon and to improve drying properties ([0011], [0015], [0038]). The carbon (edible pigment) contained in the inkjet ink may be plant charcoal powder pigments, wherein the carbon is preferably orally ingestible so that the ink (edible ink) can be used for direct printing on the surface of tablets or food [0012].
As shown in Examples 3 and 4 of Table 1, Fukushiro et al. teaches exemplary embodiments in which the ink comprises carbon; 59.5 mass% water; 30 mass% of an organic solvent comprising either 30 mass% NPA or a mixture of 20 mass% IPA and 10 mass% NPA; 10 mass% propylene glycol (PG) as a wetting agent; sucrose fatty acid ester as a dispersant; and 0.5 mass% maltodextrin as a binder [0038]. The content of the organic solvent comprising 1-propanol either alone or in combination with isopropyl alcohol (IPA) therefore falls squarely within the claimed range of 20 to 95 mass% relative to a total mass of the edible ink.
Regarding claim 2, Fukushiro et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Examples 3 and 4 of Fukushiro et al. includes 10 mass% of propylene glycol (PG) as a wetting agent (humectant) ([0019], [0038]), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 mass%.
Regarding claim 3, Fukushiro et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Examples 3 and 4 of Fukushiro et al. include sucrose fatty acid ester as a dispersant at an amount of 0.48 mass% per 1 mass% of carbon; and 0.5 mass% maltodextrin as a binder [0038]. The sucrose fatty acid ester corresponds to the claimed saturated fatty acid ester or unsaturated fatty acid ester, while maltodextrin corresponds to the claimed binder which comprises a polysaccharide, wherein the total content of the dispersant and the binder falls within the broadly claimed range of 0.1 to 15 mass% when the amount of carbon in the ink is within the broad range of about 30 mass% or less.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN 106280685, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Huang teaches a water-resistant, edible printing ink comprising 20-40% shellac, 5-10% ethanol, 15-30% n-butanol, 10-25% propylene glycol, 0-30% food coloring, 0.05-3% additives, 2-5% ammonia water, and 0-5% purified water ([0005], [0008]).
Huang et al. teaches an exemplary ink composition in Example 1 which comprises 20 mass% shellac, 5 mass% ethanol, 25 mass% n-butanol (1-butanol), 5 mass% ammonia, 10 mass% propylene glycol, 30 mass% titanium dioxide (edible pigment), 1.5 mass% silica, 0.5 mass% Span 80, and 3 mass% purified water [0021]. The content of the organic solvent comprising 25 mass% 1-butanol and 5 mass% ethanol is 30 mass%, which falls squarely within the claimed range of 20 to 95 mass% relative to a total mass of the edible ink.
It is noted that the preamble limitation reciting “for inkjet printing” is interpreted as functional language related to the intended use of the claimed edible ink and is considered to be met by any edible ink that is capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2111.02(II). The ink composition taught by Huang et al. is capable of being used in an inkjet printing process, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Example 1 of Huang et al. includes 10 mass% propylene glycol ([0021]), which corresponds to the claimed humectant and is included at a content which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 mass%.
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Example 1 of Huang et al. includes 0.5 mass% Span 80 ([0021]), which corresponds to the claimed dispersant which comprises an unsaturated fatty acid ester and is included at a content which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 15 mass%.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Collins et al. (US 2021/0259275).
Regarding claim 1, Collins et al. teaches an alcohol water-based edible ink formulation which can be printed by inkjet printing (Abstract, [0085]). Collins et al. teaches an exemplary ink shown in Formulation 4 in Table 1 comprising 4.625 wt% isopropanol, 41.375 wt% 1-butanol, 4.0 wt% propylene glycol, 20.0 wt% water, 10.0 wt% HPMC (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose), and 20.0 wt% CaCO3 (calcium carbonate; edible pigment). The content of the organic solvent comprising 41.375 wt% 1-butanol and 4.625 wt% isopropanol is 46 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 20 to 95 mass% relative to the total mass of the edible ink.
Regarding claim 2, Collins et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Formulation 4 of Collins et al. includes 4.0 wt% of propylene glycol (Table 1), which corresponds to the claimed humectant and is included at a content which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 mass%.
Regarding claim 3, Collins et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Formulation 4 of Collins et al. includes 10.0 wt% of HPMC as a binder (Table 1, [0015]), which corresponds to the claimed polysaccharide and is included at a content which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 15 mass%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (US 2021/0259275) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Collins et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although the embodiment of Formulation 4 shown in Table 1 only includes calcium carbonate as a white pigment, Collins et al. further teaches that the edible ink formulation can be combined with other pigments or dyes to form other colors [0050]. For example, the edible white ink formulation can be combined with a black pigment such as iron oxides (iron tetroxide) or vegetable carbon black (plant charcoal pigment) to form a gray ink [0050].
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 ink Formulation 4 taught by Collins et al. by including a black pigment such as iron tetroxide or plant charcoal pigment in addition to the white calcium carbonate pigment in order to formulate an ink having a gray color.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baydo et al. (US 2005/0255205) teaches food grade ink jet inks comprising food grade pigments, lower alcohols, and shellacs (Abstract). The lower alcohols may include butanol or a mixture of butanol and ethanol at a content of at least about 20 wt% [0005]. In exemplary inks A1-C2, each ink comprises 25-45 wt% ethanol and 10-30 wt% of a pigment dispersion which includes 56-57.5 wt% butanol (Tables 1-2).
Waldock (US 2007/0092614) teaches an ink for applying to a bakery product by ink jet printing, wherein the ink comprises 0-60 vol% glycerol, 10-60 vol% solvent, 5-60 vol% sucrose, 1-55 vol% water, and 0.5-20 vol% coloring agent (Abstract, [0104]). The solvent is preferably an organic solvent, such as ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, or propanol [0058].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785