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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of a method of producing a multilayered article in the reply filed on May 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 13, 14, 16, 31, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase (US 6,690,448) and further in view of Loccufier (US 2015/203696) and/or Sakamoto (US 2016/0311243).
Kawase is directed to a method of making a multilayered article comprising a first layer 9 formed via photolithography and a second layer 16 formed via inkjet printing (Column 16, Lines 15-25). In such an instance, though, Kawase simply states that said second layer is formed with ink (Column 15, Lines 23-24)- the reference fails to specific the makeup of the ink, only stating that the ink is cured by baking or ultraviolet (Column 17, Lines 55+).
In any event, the claimed ink composition corresponds with an extremely well known and conventional curable ink, as shown for example by Loccufier (Abstract) and/or Sakamoto (Paragraph 77). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a conventional ink compound in the method of Kawase absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 6, 31, and 34, the claims define a broad range of viscosity values that are consistent with conventional inks. Loccufier provides one example in which an ink composition has a viscosity less than 30 mPa-s (Abstract). These viscosities would be expected to allow for the application of ink without clogging (optimal flow of ink). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional viscosities in the method of Kawase absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
As to claim 13, Kawase provides the general order of dimensions associated with the first and second layer (Column 17, Lines 40+) and such dimensions fall within the extremely broad range of the claimed invention, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed thickness values.
With respect to claim 14, the second layer of Kawase is at least partially contiguous with the respect to the first layer.
As to claim 16, the second layer of Kawase can be viewed as a dot, a linear segment, or a continuous layer (Figure 19).
Regarding claim 35, given the extreme similarity between the ink composition of Loccufier and/or Sakamoto and that of the claimed invention, it reasons that the claimed characteristic would similarly be present in the ink composition of Loccufier and Sakamoto. It is further noted that the ink composition of Loccufier has a viscosity less than 30 mPa-s at 40°C and such is consistent with an inventive viscosity characteristic at 25°C, further suggesting that a viscosity over time property would be present in the ink composition taught by the prior art references.
5. Claim(s) 18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase, Loccufier, and Sakamoto as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Majima (US 2012/0223272).
As detailed above, Kawase is directed to a method of applying an ink layer or second layer to a first layer formed via photolithography in the manufacture of a liquid crystal device. As to the ink composition, Loccufier and/or Sakamoto recognize the conventional makeup of ink compositions (vinyl ether and thiol). In such an instance, though, Kawase fails to teach the use of acrylate compounds or methacrylate compounds for the first layer (described as light reflecting material).
In any event, acrylate or methacrylate compounds are commonly used to form light reflecting layers in liquid crystal applications, as shown for example by Majima (Paragraph 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known materials, such as those required by the claimed invention, for the first layer of Majima absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that acrylate compounds are recognized as being suitable compounds where light reflectivity is desired.
Regarding claim 24, the disclosed materials are well recognized as corresponding with conventional materials in ink compositions, as shown for example by Loccufier (Paragraphs 83-85, 108, and 143).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2, 3, 11, 19-21, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38-44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights