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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated July 29, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6 – 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Atherton et al. (USPN 5,206,071).
Atherton et al. disclose an article with a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat (Figure 1; Abstract; Column 12, lines 67 - 68), the article comprising: a substrate (Column 4, lines 6 – 23); a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat that is flexographically applied on a side of the substrate (Column 12, lines 67 – 68; Column 12, lines 29 - 35), the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat comprising a pigment and a polymeric binder in which a ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is in a range of from 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts (Column 10, line 25 – 39; Column 4, line 24 to Column 5, line 2, wherein the hydrogel acts as the binder); wherein the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is applied to the substrate in an amount of from greater than 0 lb/ream to less than 2.5 lb/ream (4.07 GSM) (Column 12, lines 17 – 26) as in claim 1. With respect to claim 2, the ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is in a range of from 7:2 to 9:2 by dry parts (Column 10, lines 25 – 39, wherein 3.5:1 is equal 7:2). Regarding claim 6, the article further includes a printed image in color ink thereon printed by an inkjet printer (Column 6, lines 28 – 32; Column 7, line 63 to Column 8, line 2). For claim 7, an opaque white base layer on the side of the substrate between the substrate and the flexographically-printed, full-color- inkjet receptive topcoat (Column 10, lines 52 – 59). In claim 8, the flexographically-printed, full-color- inkjet receptive topcoat includes one additive that is an anti-settling additive (Column 5, lines 22 – 25). With regard to claim 9, a mordant in the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat(Column 6, lines 28 – 31; Column 9, lines 41 – 43). As in claim 10, the binder comprises a blend of vinyl- acetate ethylene copolymer and polyvinyl alcohol (Column 4, line 24 to Column 5, line 2). With respect to claim 11, the pigment is selected from the group consisting of carbonate, silica, titanium dioxide, silicates, and combinations thereof (Column 10, lines 40 – 51). Regarding claim 13, the substrate is a polymeric substrate (Column 4, lines 6 – 23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 – 5, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atherton et al. (USPN 5,206,071) in view of Klemann (USPGPub 2011/0268897 A1).
Atherton et al. disclose an article with a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat (Figure 1; Abstract; Column 12, lines 67 - 68), the article comprising: a substrate (Column 4, lines 6 – 23); a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat that is flexographically applied on a side of the substrate (Column 12, lines 67 – 68; Column 12, lines 29 - 35), the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat comprising a pigment and a polymeric binder in which a ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is in a range of from 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts (Column 10, line 25 – 39; Column 4, line 24 to Column 5, line 2, wherein the hydrogel acts as the binder); wherein the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is applied to the substrate in an amount of from greater than 0 lb/ream to less than 2.5 lb/ream (4.07 GSM) (Column 12, lines 17 – 26). The pigment has primary particle sizes ranging from 100 nanometers to 10 micrometers (Column 10, lines 25 – 39). However, Atherton et al. fail to disclose the ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is 4:1 by dry parts, a side of the substrate has an adhesive layer received thereon which is opposite the side of the substrate on which the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is flexographically applied, a liner covering the adhesive, the pigment has specific surface areas of from 150 m2/g to 750 m2/g, as measured in accordance with ASTM C 1274-12, and the article is a self-laminating marker having a head end with a printable area and a tail end which is transparent, in which the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is provided on at least on the printable area and wherein the article further comprises an adhesive layer received on a side of the substrate opposite the side on which the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is flexographically applied such that, during application of the self-laminating marker around an object by wrapping, the head end is first wrapped around the object until the tail end wraps back around to adhere to the self-laminating marker to itself to cover the printable area and protect the underlying printable area and any indicia or printing received thereon.
Klemann teaches an article with a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat (Figure; Abstract; Paragraphs 0011 and 0026), the article comprising: a substrate (Figure 1, #11; Paragraph 0064); a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat that is flexographically applied on a side of the substrate (Paragraphs 0011 and 0026), the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat comprising a pigment and a polymeric binder (Paragraphs 0031 and 0039), a side of the substrate has an adhesive layer received thereon which is opposite the side of the substrate on which the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is flexographically applied (Figure 1, #15; Paragraph 0069), a liner is covering the adhesive (Figure 1, #16; Paragraph 0070), the article further includes a printed image in color ink thereon printed by an inkjet printer (Figure 1, #14; Paragraphs 0012 and 0023), the pigment has primary particle sizes ranging from 100 nanometers to 10 micrometers and specific surface areas of from 150 m2/g to 750 m2/g, as measured in accordance with ASTM C 1274-12 (Paragraphs 0033 – 0036), and the article is a self-laminating marker having a head end with a printable area and a tail end which is transparent, in which the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is provided on at least on the printable area and wherein the article further comprises an adhesive layer received on a side of the substrate opposite the side on which the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is flexographically applied such that, during application of the self-laminating marker around an object by wrapping, the head end is first wrapped around the object until the tail end wraps back around to adhere to the self-laminating marker to itself to cover the printable area and protect the underlying printable area and any indicia or printing received thereon (Figure 1; Abstract; Paragraphs 0018 and 0072) for the purpose of forming a self-laminating marker having a layer that will hold ink (Paragraph 0025; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesive layer received thereon which is opposite the side of the substrate on which the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is flexographically applied, covered by a release liner, in Atherton et al. in order form a self-laminating marker having a layer that will hold ink as taught by Klemann.
With regard to the limitation of “the ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is 4:1 by dry parts”, Atherton et al. clearly states that the ratio between pigment is about 0.2:1 to 3.5:1 and that the optimal ratio is dependent on desired performance qualities (Column 10, lines 6 – 28, wherein about could include 4:1). Although Atherton et al. doesn't specifically discloses 4:1 by dry parts, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is 4:1 by dry parts, based on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “Among other things, independent claim 1 requires that "a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat that is flexographically applied on a side of the substrate, the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat comprising a pigment and a polymeric binder in which a ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is in a range of from 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts". The Applicant stresses that the recited ratio of pigment to polymeric binder is that ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder found in of the topcoat layer in the limitation cited above.
Respectfully, Atherton does not appear to teach such a ratio in the topcoat layer as required by independent claim 1 and therefore cannot be said to be anticipated by Atherton.”,
“Importantly, however, the Applicant observes that the cited ratios in column 10, lines 25-39 between the pigment to hydrogel appear to be relevant to the matrix laver- which from a reading of Atherton, the Applicant understands to be layer 2, with the topcoat layer being layer 3:”, and
“So at least the pigment to binder ratios cited by the Office appears to be ratios of the constituents of the matrix layer 2 rather than the topcoat layer 3. Thus, the cited sections in
the Office Action do not support that the topcoat layer 3 meets the claimed limitations with respect to the required ratio of pigment to polymeric binder in the topcoat layer and at least this limitation is not present in Atherton.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Atherton et al. discloses a topcoat (#3) in Figure 1, Atherton et al. clearly teaches that the topcoat is an optional layer (Column 3, lines 46 – 49) while the matrix is required component. In the absence of the topcoat, the matrix layer becomes the top layer, or topcoat, of the article, thereby meeting the claim limitations as the matrix layer (#2) meets the limitations a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat (Figure 1; Abstract; Column 12, lines 67 - 68), the article comprising: a substrate (Column 4, lines 6 – 23); a flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat that is flexographically applied on a side of the substrate (Column 12, lines 67 – 68; Column 12, lines 29 - 35), the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat comprising a pigment and a polymeric binder in which a ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is in a range of from 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts (Column 10, line 25 – 39; Column 4, line 24 to Column 5, line 2, wherein the hydrogel acts as the binder); wherein the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat is applied to the substrate in an amount of from greater than 0 lb/ream to less than 2.5 lb/ream (4.07 GSM) (Column 12, lines 17 – 26). Therefore, Atherton et al. discloses the claimed limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights