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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 2/12/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 2-16 are withdrawn and claims 1-16 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (JP 6098754 B1) in view of Odaka et al (US 6,803,936 B2) in further view of Shimomura (US 2005/0227024 A1).
Hayashi et al (US 2018/0319191 A1) is being used as the English translation for Hayashi et al (JP 6098754 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a combination of a thermal transfer sheet (Fig. 4 #100; paragraph [0084]) and an intermediate transfer film (transfer film; paragraphs [0038]-[0039]),
wherein the thermal transfer sheet (Fig. 4 #100; paragraph [0084]) comprises a first substrate (substrate; Fig. 4 #50; paragraphs [0069]-[0070] and [0084]) and a coloring layer (colorant layer; Fig. 4 #55; paragraphs [0083]-[0084]), a peel-off layer (Fig. 4 #51; paragraphs [0072]-[0073] and [0084]) and a heat seal layer disposed on the first substrate of the thermal transfer sheet (fusible layer disposed on the substrate of the thermal transfer sheet; Fig. 4 #52; paragraphs [0077]-[0078] and [0084]),
PNG
media_image1.png
124
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the intermediate transfer medium (intermediate transfer film; Fig. 1 #10; paragraphs [0038]-[0039]) comprises a second substrate (support; Fig. 1 #1; paragraphs [0038]-[0039]) and a transfer layer (Fig. 1 #5; paragraphs [0038]-[0039]),
PNG
media_image2.png
162
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the peel-off layer is for removing a portion of the transfer layer from the intermediate transfer medium (Fig. 6b; paragraph [0096])
wherein the heat seal layer includes a layer containing a resin material and particles (paragraphs [0140]-[0141]), and the content of the particles in the layer is 30 parts by mass or more and 120 parts by mass or less based on 100 parts be mass of the resin material (40 parts carbon black to 40 parts vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer amounting to 100 parts by mass of particles to 100 parts by mass of resin; paragraphs [0140]-[0141]), and
wherein the value obtained by subtracting the refractive index of the resin material from the refractive index of the particles is 0.01 or more and 0.4 or less (paragraphs [0140]-[0141]).
Fig. 6b shows the peel-off layer #51 removing a portion of transfer layer #5 from the intermediate transfer medium and is considered to be the peel-off layer removing a portion of the transfer layer from the intermediate transfer medium.
PNG
media_image3.png
240
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hayashi does not disclose an absolute value of difference in 45° specular gloss between the heat seal layer and the transfer layer to be 20% or more, however, Hayashi teaches the same materials having the same content of particles as taught in Applicant’s heat seal layer as disclosed in paragraphs [0090]-[0099] of Applicant’s Specification, which would provide an absolute value of difference in 45° specular gloss between the heat seal layer and the transfer layer to be 20% or more. The fusible heat seal layer comprises 100 parts by weight of titanium dioxide having 40% solid content of titanium dioxide and 40 parts by weight of vinyl-chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer (paragraphs [0142]-[0143]).
Since the fusible layer comprises 100 parts by weight of carbon black dispersion having 40% solid content of carbon black (40 parts by weight of carbon black) and 40 parts by weight of vinyl-chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer, which is the same as the content of particles in Applicant’s heat seal layer as disclosed in paragraphs [0090]-[0099] of Applicant’s Specification; the fusible layer comprising 100 parts by weight of carbon black dispersion having 40% solid content of titanium dioxide (40 parts by weight of carbon black) and 40 parts by weight of vinyl-chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer would inherently provide an absolute value of difference in 45° specular gloss between the heat seal layer and the transfer layer to be 20% or more as carbon black is an inorganic particle, which can be used in Applicant’s heat seal layer as disclosed in paragraphs [0090]-[0091] of Applicant’s Specification, and the content of 40 parts by weight carbon black to 40 parts by weight of vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer is equivalent to 100 parts by weight of particles to 100 parts by weight of resin material, which falls within the range for the content of the particles in Applicant’s heat seal layer as disclosed in paragraphs [0098]-[0099] of Applicant’s Specification of 30 parts by mass or more and 120 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of resin material. Mass and weight are noted to be the same. Also, paragraphs [0090]-[0091] of Applicant’s Specification discloses that when the heat seal layer comprises such particles, the permitted “mattness” is imparted to the heat seal layer, thus creating the difference in 45° specular gloss between the heat seal layer and the transfer layer.
The refractive index of carbon black is 1.8 to 2.1 and the refractive index of vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer is 1.50 to 1.54 (see paragraphs [0140]-[141]). The value obtained by subtracting the refractive index of vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer from the refractive index of carbon black ranges from 0.26 (1.80-1.54) to 0.6 (2.1-1.5). This ranges overlaps the claimed range for the value obtained by subtracting the refractive index of the resin material from the refractive index of the particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide the desired function of soften by heating and transferring onto a transfer layer (paragraph [0079] of Hayashi). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Hayashi does not disclose the combination of a thermal transfer sheet and an intermediate transfer layer with a thermal transfer sheet comprising the coloring layer, peel-off layer and heat seal layer sequentially provided in this claimed order on the first substrate.
However, Odaka discloses a combination of a thermal transfer sheet and an intermediate transfer medium (col. 9, line 63-col.10, line 3 and col. 10, line 61-col. 11, line 8) wherein the thermal transfer sheet comprises a coloring layer (dye layers; Fig. 5 #10; col. 9, line 63-col. 10, line 3), a peel-off layer (Fig. 5 #3; col. 9, line 63-col. 10, line 3) and a heat seal layer heating layer; Fig. 5 #14; Fig. 5 #10; col. 9, line 63-col. 10, line 3) sequentially provided in this claimed order on the first substrate (provided sequentially in order from right to left on a substrate; Fig. 5 #10; col. 9, line 63-col. 10, line 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal transfer sheet of Hayashi to substitute the sequential layer order on the thermal transfer sheet of Hayashi for the right to left sequential layer order of dye layers, peel-off layer and heating layer of Odaka because doing so allows for the formation of a thermal transfer sheet image on the intermediate transfer medium and the removal of the transfer part in the predetermined region of the intermediate transfer medium by the peel-off layer to be carried out by controlling the carrying of one thermal transfer sheet advantageously simplifying the carrying system of the thermal transfer sheet for image formation (col. 10, lines 43-55 of Odaka).
Hayashi does not disclose the combination of a thermal transfer sheet and an intermediate transfer layer comprising the transfer layer including a layer containing a resin material and particles and the content of the particles in a layer is 1 part by mass or less based on 100 parts by mass of resin material.
However, Shimomura discloses a combination of a thermal transfer sheet and an intermediate transfer layer comprising the intermediate transfer medium comprising an image receiving layer comprising an additive in an amount from 0.5 to 80% of the layer and the additive comprising a matting agent of a particle (paragraph [0246]).
The amount of additive overlaps the claimed range for the amount of particles in the transfer layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide the desired mattness for the image receiving layer. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the intermediate transfer medium of Hayashi to include the matting agent of Shimomura in the transfer layer of Hayashi because having a matting agent provides a desired mattness for the image receiving layer.
The combination of Hayashi, Odaka and Shimomura do not disclose the heat seal layer is a layer that is transferred to areas of the intermediate transfer medium from which the transfer layer has not been removed and to areas of the intermediate transfer medium from which the transfer layer has been removed.
However, the limitations of the heat seal layer being a layer that is transferred to areas of the intermediate transfer medium from which the transfer layer has not been removed and to areas of the intermediate transfer medium from which the transfer layer has been removed are intended use limitations.
Since the structure of the combination of the thermal transfer sheet and intermediate transfer medium of Hayashi and Odaka is the same as the structure of the combination of the thermal transfer sheet and intermediate transfer medium as claimed in claim 1, the combination of the thermal transfer sheet and intermediate transfer medium of Hayashi and Odaka would inherently be capable of having the heat seal layer transferred to areas of the intermediate transfer medium from which the transfer layer has not been removed and to areas of the intermediate transfer medium from which the transfer layer has been removed
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue that Hayashi fails to disclose the feature of amended claim 1 of the transfer layer containing particles and the content of particles being 1 part by mass or less and the value obtained by subtracting the refractive index of vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer from the refractive index of titanium dioxide particles being 0.01 or more and 0.4 or less.
This argument is moot as Hayashi fails to disclose the feature of amended claim 1 of the transfer layer containing particles and the content of particles being 1 part by mass or less and the value obtained by subtracting the refractive index of vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer from the refractive index of titanium dioxide particles be4ing 0.01 or more and 0.4 or less. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785