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 9, 11 and 12 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "flaky metal pigments". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination “flaky metal pigments” will be considered the same as the “flaky metal effect pigments”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "flaky metal pigments". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination “flaky metal pigments” will be considered the same as the “flaky metal effect pigments”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "flaky metal pigments". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination “flaky metal pigments” will be considered the same as the “flaky metal effect pigments”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (U.S. Patent # 10,427,322) in view of Geissler et al (U.S. Patent # 8,864,899) and Wierzchowiec et al (WIPO Patent Publication No. WO2019/154980).
In the case of claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method for radiation induced printing wherein a light-absorbing material was transferred/made to fly onto an attachment target/imprinting material using a laser beam (Abstract). Suzuki further teaches an embodiment where the light-absorbing material was a colorant used to form an image (Column 15 Lines 38-56). The method of Suzuki comprised a step of printing/supplying the light-absorbing material onto a carrier in the form of a light-absorbing material bearer (Column 9 Lines 57-64, Column 10 Lines 17-23 and Column 16 Lines 45-53). Suzuki teaches that when the light-absorbing material was a colorant it was in the form of a liquid/ink comprising pigments (Column 18 Lines 51-61). Suzuki further teaches that the bearer/carrier of the light-absorbing material was optically transparent to the light used for transfer (Column 6 Lines 14-18).
Suzuki further teaches having irradiated the carrier/bearer 40 with a laser beam/energy 12 emitted from an apparatus in the form of a laser light source 2 which comprised a certain wavelength and was emitted for a process time such that that the light-absorbing material 20 changed position causing the material 20 to transfer/fly as droplets onto an imprinting material/attachment target 30 (Column 25 Lines 13-16, Column 25 Line 58 through Column 26 Line 7 Column 26 Lines 24-33 and Figure 4B).
Though Suzuki teaches that the light-absorbing material was a pigment Suzuki does not teach that the pigment was an effect pigment mixture containing a flaky pearlescent pigment and a flaky metal effect pigment. Suzuki does teach that the pigments included inorganic pigments which were used alone or in combination with other pigments (Column 19 Lines 6-10) and included titanium oxides, aluminum powder and iron oxides (Column 19 Lines 23-38).
Geissler teaches a platelet/flaky shaped PVD metallic pigment which included aluminum and was light absorbing Abstract and Column 7 Line 57 through Column 8 Line 8). Geissler further teaches that the pigment was included in printing inks and coatings (Column 10 Lines 16-21).
Based on the teachings of Geissler, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the flaky metallic/aluminum pigment of Geissler in the light-absorbing material of Suzuki because the pigment of Geissler was a known aluminum pigment in the art which was light absorbing and was used in printing inks.
Wierzchowiec teaches a printing ink used for laser transferring from a donor substrate to a receiving substrate wherein the ink comprised laser absorbing particles in the form of non-metallic flaky effects pigment (Abstract and Page 4 Line 16 through Page 5 Line 5). Wierzchowiec that the effects pigments were pearlescent pigments in that they were transparent, dielectric particles coated with metal oxides including zinc oxide, titanium oxide and iron oxides (Page 8 Lines 5-29).
Based on the teachings of Wierzchowiec, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the flaky pearlescent pigments of Wierzchowiec in the light-absorbing material of Suzuki because Wierzchowiec taught a known light-absorbing pigment in the art used in forward laser transfer processes.
As for claim 2, as was discussed previously, the energy-emitting apparatus of Suzuki was a laser.
As for claims 3 and 16, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have included the pigment of Geissler in the light-absorbing material of Suzuki and Geissler further teaches that the pigment had an average thickness of 15 to 30 nm and was a PVD aluminum effect pigment (Column 7 Line 57 through Column 8 Line 8).
As for claims 4-7, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have included the pigments of Wierzchowiec in the light-absorbing material of Suzuki and Wierzchowiec further teaches that the flaky pearlescent pigments comprised a laser transparent substrate coated with metal oxide mixtures including titanium oxide, zinc oxides and iron oxides (Page 8 Lines 5-29).
As for claim 8, Suzuki teaches that the laser/energy-emitting apparatus was a pulsed laser (Column 6 Lines 33-39 and 58-67) having a pulse energy of 0.1 mJ to 0.6 mJ (Column 8 Lines 11-18).
As for claims 9 and 11, none of the references specifically teach that the flaky metal effect pigments in the printing ink/light-absorbing material was in the range of 0.01 to 1.5 wt% of the total printing ink or in the range of 0.15 to 10.0 wt% of the total printing ink. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal concentrations for the flaky metal effects pigments of Suzuki in view of Geissler and Wierzchowiec through routine experimentation because the amount of flaky metal effect pigment affected the color and light-absorbing properties of the printing ink/light-absorbing material.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al in view of Geissler et al and Wierzchowiec et al as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Lehmann et al (U.S. Patent # 7,154,522).
The teachings of Suzuki in view of Geissler and Wierzchowiec as they apply to claims 1 and 6 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 10, though Suzuki teaches that the energy-emitting apparatus was a laser none of the references specifically teach that the energy-emitting apparatus was a CW laser emitting wave energy of 1 to 50 microjoules.
Lehmann teaches a printing process using a laser to forward transfer a material (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 7-15) wherein the laser was a CW laser (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 16) having a energy output of 5 microjoules or less (Column 11 Lines 26-40).
Based on the teachings of Lehmann, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a CW laser having an energy output of 5 microjoules or less in the process of Suzuki in view of Geissler and Wierzchowiec because this was a known laser type used in laser induced forward transfer printing. Furthermore, the energy range of 5 microjoules or less overlapped with the claimed range of 1 to 50 microjoules. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
As for claim 12, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have used a CW laser in the process of Suzuki in view of Geissler and Wierzchowiec. Furthermore, the flaky metal effect pigment concentration range would have been obvious for the reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 9 and 11.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 12 and 16 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712