DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on October 30, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-11 are currently pending and under examination.
All previous rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have amended to limit the anchor coating agent to consisting of an emulsion with an acid value of less than 50 mgKOH/g, a cellulose ether, an aqueous medium, an ionic salt, a polyethylene wax, a leveling agent and a defoaming agent.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is proposed below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 term “suppresses ” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suppresses” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is also unclear how to determine whether misting is suppressed, as there is no basis to make a comparison.
Therefore, the scope of claim 8 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swei (US 2019/0016914).
Swei teaches a pre-treatment composition comprising the following (p. 1, [0009]):
Evaporable liquid vehicle, listed to include water (p. 3, [0026]);
5-40 wt% multivalent salt, listed to include calcium salts such as calcium chloride (p. 4, [0027]-[0028]);
5-20 wt% coalescent latex binder comprising styrene-butadiene and/or polyurethane (p. 4, [0030]);
30-80 wt% high Tg latex, listed to include polyacrylate, polyvinyl acetate, polystyrene, etc. (p. 4, [0031]);
0.5-20 wt% water soluble binder, listed to include hydroxyethyl cellulose (p. 4, [0035]); and
3-20 wt% wax, listed to include polyethylene wax (p. 3, [0022]).
Swei teaches that the composition can include additive such as defoamers and leveling agents (p. 5, [0040]).
Both of the coalescent latex binder and the high Tg latex meet applicants’ emulsion.
As to the acid value, it is known as a measure of the amount of KOH needed to neutralize the acidic component, typically the carboxylic acid functional groups, of the latex. The high Tg latex of Swei is cationic functional latex; therefore, it inherently possesses an acid value of close to zero, as it is already neutralized. Polyvinyl acetate and styrene-butadiene are fully neutralized and not functionalized with acid groups; therefore, it inherently possesses an acid value of close to zero.
Swei is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1 and 6-7, as the amount of salt is sufficiently specific to the claimed amount of 1-40 wt%.
As to claim 2, hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose is an obvious derivative/variant of hydroxyethyl cellulose.
As to claim 4, Swei exemplifies a combination of High Tg Latex and Coalescent Latex Binder in an amount of 47 wt% (Table 1B), where the weight percentages are intended to be weight percentages by solids (p. 3, [0026]).
As to claims 8-9, Swei teaches the pre-treatment compositions as suitable for use with flexographic printing (p. 1, [0007]-[0008]).
As to claims 10-11, Swei teaches applying the pre-treatment composition based on 1-3 gsm (g/m2) (p. 6, [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights