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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “forming…at a part of an edge of one portion” as at the edge means that the cut intersects the edge but applicant’s specification indicates this means it is near the edge, or even near an area that will become the edge[0081]. The specification actually seems to refer to an edge of the printed design, not an edge of the print medium. For the purposes of examination this is considered to mean near the edge of the print medium, not crossing the edge. It is noted that near the edge in the disclosure includes a cut in the middle of the card that is near the edge after it is folded(32a) and that near is a relative term.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear how the opening of the folded portion CAUSES the one portion to be cut(by opening the folded print medium, the one portion is cut) particularly since claim 1 already requires the cutting. For the purposes of examination, this is considered to mean that by opening the folded portion, the cut porting is raised.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al.(JP 2021140121A) in view of Liguori et al.(US Publication 2017/0127779) US Publication 2021/0277291 is considered an English language translation of Iida et al. and all paragraph numbers refer thereto.
Iida et al. discloses a method of making a three-dimensional article comprising applying a pressure induced phase transition toner that exhibits adhesiveness under pressure using an electrophotographic system to a part of a sheet, and folding part of the sheet over to form a three-dimensional part where part of the sheet is bonded to another part of the sheet.([0202]-[0210]) The reference does not go into detail as to the specifics of the article. Liguori et al. discloses a folded sheet wherein a single continuous cut is made in the third portion of a sheet(around 21, 22) which is near an edge(Figure 6), an adhesive is applied to portions of the sheet not intended to separate, the sheet is folded and so a second portion(12) is bonded to the third portion(13), the first portion is folded over, and the cut area can be cantilevered from the surrounding sheet when the first portion is opened.([0015],[0038]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the method of Iida et al .to make the card of Liguori et al. since the method of Iida et al. is directed to making a variety of printed articles[0393] and the article of Liguori et al. is similar to that of Iida et al. with two folds and one area permanently bonded to the other.
Regarding claim 2, the sheet can have an image printed on one side([0038]; Liguori et al)
Regarding claim 18, Iida et al. teaches the toner contains a styrene and vinyl monomer resin[0049], and a methacrylate resin having two methacrylates[0070] which comprise at last 90 mass% of the toner, and the toner has two glass transition temperatures with a difference of at last 30C between them.(Abstract)
Regarding claim 19, the toner is an island in sea phase with the styrene as the sea.[0095]
Regarding claim 20, the islands are 200-500 nm.[0096]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Regarding applicants’ argument that Iida et al. does not show a continuous cut and a section which cantilevers when the card is opened, Liguori et al. does.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 3 and 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a portion of the adhesive having a weaker force that a separate portion of the adhesive in a folded structure wherein a portion of the sheet cantilevers outward when the card in opened. While Ashiya et al. teaches the different adhesive strengths, it suggests the adhesive is coated on the entire surface and coating the adhesive on the entire surface would result in the folded part not cantilevering and the card attached to that folded area possibly staying bonded to the unfolded flap. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest having two different color adhesive in different areas when the adhesive is intended to be permanent and cannot be seen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights