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 of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/2026; however, given that the claims 15-17, 21 and 23-27 have been amended to be the same method, this restriction requirement has been rendered moot as no claims remain that read on Group II.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0019] and [0054], the word “lueco” is misspelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, the phrase “the thermo-sensitive ink layers use a leuco dye” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “each thermo-sensitive ink layer uses a leuco dye”, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 27, the phrase “ballot stock includes” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “ballot stock further includes” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 21 and 23-27 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.
In claim 1, the limitations “emitting a first web” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is the first web and what is doing the emitting. It is unclear if the first web is the paper with the thermosensitive ink layer or if there is some other web in the method. The rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase on lines 2-3 of “receiving an input roll of paper having a thermo-sensitive ink layer and a base paper layer and emitting a first web” to “receiving an input roll of a first web having a first thermo-sensitive ink layer on a first base paper layer and unspooling the first web”, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 1 on lines 5-6, the phrase “having the thermo-sensitive ink layer and the base paper layer” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how these layers can be part of the second web when they are on the first web. This rejection can be overcome by making the changes to the first web noted above and making the changes to the second web of lines 5-6 noted below.
In claim 1, the limitations “emitting a second web” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is the second web and what is doing the emitting. It is unclear if the second web is the paper with the thermosensitive ink layer or if there is some other web in the method. The rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase on lines 5-6 of “receiving a second input roll of paper having the thermo-sensitive ink layer and the base paper layer and emitting a second web” to “receiving a second input roll of a second web having a second thermo-sensitive ink layer on a second base paper layer and unspooling the second web”, which is how the claim will be interpreted. Please note that the rest of the claims will need to have the “base paper layers” amended to agree with the change to claim 1.
In claim 1 on line 7, the limitations of tension evening of the second web using “the festooning rollers” renders the claim indefinite as these festooning rollers are already tension evening the first web, and it would not be possible for them to tension even both webs. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “second festooning rollers” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 1 on line 15, the phrase “reducing a temperature of the applied liquid adhesive” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the reducing of temperature is being done on the cured adhesive or on the adhesive in a liquid state. Based on where this method step appears in the claim, Figure 6 and [0060], it would appear this step should be performed on the cured adhesive. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “reducing a temperature of the cured adhesive” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 3, the phrase “the base paper layer comprises” lacks antecedent basis in the claim as there are two base paper layers in claim 1. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “each of the first and second base paper layers comprise” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 6, each of the phrases “the festooning rollers”, “the tensioning rollers” and “the finishing rollers” lack antecedent basis in the claim. For the reasons noted above for claim 1, there are first and second sets of festooning rollers, and therefore it is unclear to which this phrase is referring.
In claim 7, the limitations of “re-spooling an individual paper roll of the output web onto an additional roll core” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if there is now a first roll core being claimed. Also, it is unclear if the output web is being rolled onto a first core to form the “individual paper roll” and then is being moved to the “additional roll core” or if the output web is merely being placed on a roll core.
In claims 8 and 9, the limitations of “further producing a roll core” renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear where the roll core is located or if this is implying that the input rolls have roll cores; furthermore, if this is describing the input rolls, it is unclear which input roll is being described.
In claim 8, the phrase “such that paper disposed on an inner diameter of the roll core is conducive to printing flat output media” renders the claim indefinite because if the paper is on the inside of a roll core it is unclear how it could be unspooled and printed on. Additionally, the phrase makes it sound as the paper is doing the printing of a flat output media, which also does not make any sense as the paper is what is printed on. Based on [0019], it appears that the paper rolled around the roll core and not inside it.
In claim 9, the phrase “to facilitate a printer paper brake” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this claim is requiring a printer paper brake as part of the claimed method or is expressing an intended use/functional limitation. This rejection can be overcome by deleting this phrase.
In claim 10, the phrase “cutting consumable rolls” renders the claim indefinite as these consumable rolls have not been properly established in the claims. It is unclear if this is an input roll or a roll of the laminated product.
In claim 11, the limitations of “unspooling the output web” renders the claim indefinite as it has not been established in the claims that the output web was placed on a spool/roll.
In claim 11, the phrase “the opposite direction” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear what direction is being referred to.
In claim 12, the method step of “applying one or more of ultraviolet…and preprinted barcodes” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear where or to what these indicia are being applied.
In claim 13, the method step of “applying a top coat” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear where or to what this top coat is being applied.
In claim 15, the phrases “the first base paper layer” and “the second base paper layer” lack antecedent basis in the claim. The rejection can be overcome by making the changes to claim 1 noted above to properly establish that the first web comprises “a first base paper layer” and the second web comprises “a second base paper layer” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claims 16 and 17, the phrase “the thermo-sensitive ink layer” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For the reasons noted in the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above, there are two thermo-sensitive ink layers, and therefore this instance in claim 16 lacks antecedent basis as it is unclear to what layer is being referred. This rejection can be overcome by making the claims refer to each of the first and second thermo-sensitive ink layers, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 23, the phrase “the roll core” renders the claim indefinite since the limitations of claim 7 imply multiple roll cores for the reasons noted in the 112(b) of claim 7. It is unclear what roll core is being referred to in claim 23.
In claim 26, the phrase “has a lay flat curl characteristic” renders the claim indefinite as it unclear what shape is a “lay flat curl” as the words “flat” and “curl” are antonyms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 21 and 23-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The closest prior art is to Kagawa (JP H06-036860U), which describes a double-sided thermosensitive recording paper that may comprise two paper supports adhered with an adhesive layer. There is no disclosure of making the paper by laminating by “applying an adhesive in a liquid state using anilox rollers” to the first base paper layer, laminating the webs through laminating rollers by contacting the two base papers layers with the adhesive, “heating the laminated output web to cure the adhesive in an oven while moving the laminated output web through the oven” and reducing a temperature of the cured adhesive in the laminated output web “using an air cooling station” in combination with the rest of the limitations claimed.
There would have been no rationale save improper hindsight to have used curable adhesives, an oven, the festooning rollers, the anilox rollers and the air cooling station because there was no teachings in the art of using an oven to heat a laminate of two thermosensitive ink layers to cure an adhesive. Heating using an oven would be expected to color the thermosensitive ink layers during manufacture, which would consume the article prior to its use by a customer.
The other close prior art is Niemoller et al. (US 2006/0194004); however, this reference teaches away from passing the first and second web “through laminating rollers” as they teach that their roll-to-roll lamination is on a transport roller without being pressurized [0020] and [0024]. Additionally, this reference does not teach or suggest curing the adhesive in an oven, which would involve polymerization or cross-linking of the adhesive, or reducing the temperature using an air cooling station as claimed. There would have been no rationale, save improper hindsight, to have passed the laminated webs of this reference through an oven to cure the adhesive as one of ordinary skill would expect this process to color the thermosensitive ink layers during manufacture, which would consume the article prior to its use by a customer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights