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 .
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.
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(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11-20 and 75-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya et al. (US 5,906,156, hereafter Shibuya) in view of Quintana et al. (JP 2000326648, hereafter Quintana)
With respect to claim 1, Shibuya teaches a method for manufacturing a decor paper or foil, the method comprising: providing a paper layer or a foil (paper web R); providing the paper layer or the foil with a first printed motif, wherein the first printed motif is provided by a first printing technique (offset printing using rotary press 1); providing a second printed motif above the first printed motif, wherein the second printed motif is provided by a second printing technique, wherein the second printing technique is different from the first printing technique. (ink jet printing, 34, using additional printing apparatus 30) (col. 5, line 60 – col. 6, line 37, Figs. 1, 4)
Shibuya does not explicitly teach providing the paper layer or the foil with an ink receiver layer between the first printed motif and the second printed motif; wherein the ink receiver layer is transparent and/or translucent; and wherein the ink receiver layer is free from any pigment.
However, it is well-known to provide an ink receiver layer before printing. For example, Quintana teaches providing a transparent ink receiver layer (ink receiver coating 24), free from any pigment, before ink jet printing. (translation page 3, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Shibuya to include providing an ink receiver layer, as taught by Quintana, in order to provide a more precise printed image. Although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach wherein the ink receiver layer is provided between the first printed motif and the second printed motif, this would be an obvious modification of the process in order to provide the ink receiver directly before the inkjet printing.
With respect to claims 4 and 16-18, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach the color variations of the printed products, this would be controlled by the specific parameters of the system used to produce a desired aesthetic result and therefore the optimum color variations could be readily determined through routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 5, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach wherein the ink receiver layer comprises a binder and an ink destabilizing agent, these are common elements of ink receiver layers and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 6, Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, teaches wherein the ink receiver layer is free from any pigment or water absorbing substance.
With respect to claim 8, Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, inherently teaches wherein the ink receiver layer is provided according to a predetermined pattern, as the layer is provided in a predetermined manner it must have a predetermined pattern.
With respect to claim 9, Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, inherently teaches wherein the predetermined pattern is in register with the first printed motif and/or with the second printed motif, as a consistent movement through the printing apparatus will provide this registration.
With respect to claim 11, Shibuya, as modified by Quintana teaches one of the printing techniques is an analog printing technique. (Shibuya, col. 5, line 60 – col. 6, line 37, Figs. 1, 4)
With respect to claim 12, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach wherein the first printed motif is a solid color motif, this is a common design and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 13, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana does not explicitly teach wherein the first printed motif is a wood or stone imitating pattern, this is a common design and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 14, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first printed motif and the second printed motif comprises metallic, pearlescent, and/or white pigments, these have a desirable appearance and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 15, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first printed motif and the second printed motif comprises a homogeneous distribution of pigment over the entire paper layer, this is a common design and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 19, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach wherein the first printed motif is obtained by printing at least a first ink that penetrates the paper layer or the foil such that the paper layer or the foil is fully colored by the first ink, this is a common design and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 20, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, does not explicitly teach wherein the first ink comprises a dye and/or a pigment and a wetting agent, these are common elements of inks and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 75, although Shibuya, as modified by Quintana does not explicitly teach wherein the second printed motif is a wood or stone imitating pattern, this is a common design and therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the desired printed product.
With respect to claim 76, Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, teaches wherein the first printed motif and the second printed motif together form a decorative pattern on the décor paper or foil.
With respect to claim 77, Shibuya, as modified by Quintana, inherently teaches wherein the second printed motif is in register with the first printed motif, as a consistent movement through the printing apparatus will provide this registration
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Shibuya does not necessarily teach the second printed motif is provided “above” the first printed motif but merely in alignment with the printed motif, the examiner is not persuaded. Generally, in printing terminology, printing is considered to be in layers, with a second printed layer “above” the first printed layer, and therefore applicant’s claim language does not necessarily require that the images are printed directly on top of one another. Also, the printing of layered images is very well known.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to the method of Quintana, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the examiner has only relied upon the teaching of applying an ink receiver coating before applying an image. The arguments regarding the printing of a second image are moot because the reference is not relied upon for teaching of printing a second image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853