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Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated June 10, 2025. 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 § 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 1 – 9 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann (USPGPub 2011/0268897 A1) in view of Missell (USPGPub 2006/0003116 A1).
Klemann discloses 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 in which a ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is in a range of from 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts, a range of from 7:2 to 9:2 by dry parts, or is 4:1 by dry parts (Paragraphs 0031 and 0039; Although Klemann doesn't specifically discloses in which a ratio of the pigment to polymeric binder is in a range of from 3:1 to5:1 by dry parts, a range of from 7:2 to 9:2 by dry parts, or is 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 in a range of from 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts, a range of from 7:2 to 9:2 by dry parts, or 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.) as in claims 1 – 3. With respect to claim 4, 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). Regarding claim 5, a liner is covering the adhesive (Figure 1, #16; Paragraph 0070). For claim 6, the article further includes a printed image in color ink thereon printed by an inkjet printer (Figure 1, #14; Paragraphs 0012 and 0023). In 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 (Figure 1, #12; Paragraph 0023). With regard to claim 8, the flexographically-printed, full-color- inkjet receptive topcoat includes one or more additives that is/are a surfactant, an anti-settling additive, and/or an optical brightener (Paragraph 0057 – 0063). As in claim 11, the pigment is selected from the group consisting of carbonate, silica, silicates, and combinations thereof (Paragraphs 0033, 0034). With respect to claim 12, 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). Regarding claim 13, the substrate is a polymeric substrate (Paragraph 0064). For claim 14, the flexographically-printed, full-color- inkjet receptive topcoat is applied to the substrate in an amount less than 2.5 lb/ream (Paragraph 0025; Although Klemann doesn't specifically discloses in which the coating weight in an amount less than 2.5 lb/ream, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a desired coating weight, 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.). In claim 15, 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). However, Klemann fails to disclose a mordant in the flexographically-printed, full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat.
Missell teaches the use of a mordant in a full-color-inkjet receptive topcoat (Paragraph 0065) for the purpose of fixing the ink in a receptive coating (Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mordant in the topcoat of Klemann in order to fix an ink in a receptive coating as taught by Missell.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann (USPGPub 2011/0268897 A1) in view of Missell (USPGPub 2006/0003116 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fickert et al. (USPGPub 2013/0260162 A1).
Klemann, as modified with Missell, discloses the claimed topcoat, wherein the binder made from a variety of materials (Klemann; Paragraphs 0040 – 0051) except for the binder comprises a blend of vinyl- acetate ethylene copolymer and polyvinyl alcohol.
Fickert et al. teach a paper coating composition comprising a binder comprises a blend of vinyl- acetate ethylene copolymer and polyvinyl alcohol (Paragraph 0008) used in combination with pigments (Paragraph 0024) for the purpose of producing a graphic coated paper (Paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a binder comprises a blend of vinyl- acetate ethylene copolymer and polyvinyl alcohol in the modified Klemann in order to product a graphic coated paper as taught by Fickert et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “a review of Klemann indicates that ratios for pigment to polymeric binder are, in fact, provided, and that they would lead one not to the claimed range for a printable topcoat layer, but to a different range altogether. Looking at paragraph [0031], Klemann states that for a printable topcoat layer, the ratio of pigment to polymeric binder is preferably in the range of 0.75 to 1.20. Accordingly, contrary to the suggestion in the section reproduced above from the Office Action, one reading Klemann would not be led to arrive at a printable topcoat layer with pigment to polymeric binder in the range claimed of from 3:1 to 5:1, at least because a different range is taught for printable topcoat layers that is significantly different from the claimed range. One would not even experiment to get to a ratio of 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts, because they would follow the teaching to employ a ratio within the range of 0.75 to 1.20.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated by the Applicant, the reference does state a range of 0.75 to 1.20; however, that is only the preferred range and not the only range mentioned. The previous line in Paragraph 0031 clearly states “The pigment particle to binder resin ratio in the topcoat layer of this invention is in the range of 0.60 to 5.” This range of the Klemann clearly overlaps the claimed invention. 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 in a range of from 3:1 to 5:1 by dry parts, a range of from 7:2 to 9:2 by dry parts, or 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.
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 June 24, 2025