DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-14 are currently pending and under examination.
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 § 102
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niu (US 2018/0086935), as evidenced by Chen (US 2021/0229479) and Evonik (Tego Wet 510, Evonik, 2025, 1 page).
Niu discloses a primer composition exemplified as comprising the following:
water, which meets applicants’ aqueous medium;
26 wt% Raycat 105 (cationic latex), which as evidenced by Chen has a Tg of 23°C (pp. 6-7, [0063]), and meets applicants’ emulsion;
9 wt% polyethylene wax;
45 wt% calcium chloride, which meets applicants’ ionic salt;
2 wt% Tego Wet 510, which as evidenced by Evonik contributes to leveling (p. 1), and therefore, meets applicants’ leveling agent; and
18 wt% of one of polyvinyl alcohol (Examples 5-8).
As to the claimed acid value of the emulsion, the acid value is known as a measure of the amount of KOH needed to neutralized the acidic component, typically the carboxylic acid functional groups, of the latex. The latex of Niu is a cationic functional latex; therefore, it inherently possesses an acid value of close to zero, as it is already neutralized.
Niu discloses that a defoamer can also be included in the primer composition (p. 3, [0027]).
Niu anticipates instant claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swei (US 2014/0212591).
Swei teaches a pre-treatment composition comprising an evaporable solvent, such as water, and a pre-treatment composition comprising the following (p. 1, [0010]):
50-80 wt% fixer, listed to include calcium chloride (p. 3, [0023]);
5-20 wt% low Tg latex, based on the solids content of the pre-treatment coating after solvent removed, the low Tg latex with a Tg of -25 to 50°C (p. 3, [0028]);
5-20 wt% water soluble binder, listed to include polyvinyl alcohols and hydroxyethyl cellulose (p. 3, [0029]); and
5-20 wt% wax, listed to include polyethylene wax (p. 2, [0020]).
Swei further teaches that the composition can include a defoamer and leveling agent (p. 4, [0034])
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.
Swei teaches the low Tg latex can be a cationic functional latex; therefore, it inherently possesses an acid value of close to zero, as it is already neutralized. Swei also teaches the low Tg latex to include polyvinyl acetate and styrene-butadiene, where both of these latices 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, 6 and 12-14.
As to claim 2, hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose is an obvious derivative/variant of hydroxyethyl cellulose.
As to claim 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]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swei (US 2014/0212591), as applied above to claims 1-2, 6 and 9-14, and further in view of Vaidyanathan (WO 2021/050071)
Swei is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-2, 6 and 9-14, as described above and applied herein as such, as Swei teaches a pre-treatment coating composition comprising an evaporable solvent, particularly water, and a pre-treatment matrix comprising a low Tg matrix, a water soluble binder such as polyvinyl alcohol or cellulose ether, a fixer such as calcium chloride, and a polyethylene wax, where defoamers and leveling agents are listed as additives.
Swei teaches each of the components based on the composition after the solvent is evaporated, and does not teach the amount of ionic salt based on the mass of the anchor coating agent, as claimed.
Swei teaches the pre-treatment coating initially includes water allowing for processability, which can be removed via drying over time, but does not teach or suggest the amount of water present.
Vaidyanathan, who also lists Swei as a co-applicant, teaches a pre-treatment composition comprising an evaporable liquid vehicle and a coating matrix, the matrix comprising about 30-70 wt% salt, 5-30 wt% polyurethane binder and a combined amount of about 10-38 wt% of a polyvinyl alcohol, teaching that the pre-treatment coating composition includes these solids suspended in an aqueous liquid vehicle, teaching that the evaporable water present in an amount of 35-90 wt%, or from 60-80 wt%, and further teaches that the pre-treatment coating is applied via a number of possible methods, with a basis weight of 0.5-2 gsm (pp. 15-16, [0035]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated 60-80 wt% water into the pre-treatment composition of Swei in to render the pre-treatment composition suitable for coating, as this method is suggested by Swei and Vaidyanathan teaches that at a water content of 60-80 wt%, the composition can be used for coating at a basis weight of 0.5-2 gsm, which is similarly desired by Swei.
A water content of 60-80 wt% suggests an overall solids content of 20-40 wt%, where the solids content is made up of the pre-treatment matrix, and Swei teaches the pre-treatment matrix as comprising 50-80 wt% fixer, suggesting the pre-treatment coating composition as comprising about 10-32 wt% fixer.
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
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