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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 05/11/2026 has been fully considered. Claim 1 is amended, claims 7-9 and 11-15 are cancelled and claims 1-6, 10 and 16 are pending.
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 1-6, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. (2004/0142122 A1) view of Takehiko et al. (US 2005/0148691 A1), Mitsui et al. (US 2015/0183668 A1) and van der Zwan et al. (US 2010/0189931 A1).
Claim 1: Taguchi teaches an ink jet printing sheet comprising a colorant receiving layer and a support (abstract), wherein the colorant receiving layer comprises a water soluble resin [0061] and a polymeric mordant of polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride [0118]. The colorant receiving layer meets the claimed inkjet receiver coating, and the polymeric mordant or polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride meets the claimed polyionic polymer. Taguchi teaches the support can be a paper [0152]. Taguchi teaches the colorant receiving layer comprises inorganic microparticles [0074], and a wet process silica is a suitable example of the inorganic microparticles [0076]. The wet process silica meets the claimed precipitated silica. Taguchi does not teach the BET specific surface area and particle size of the silica. However, Takehiko teaches a silica obtained by a wet gelling method [0015] in a composition for forming a receiving layer (abstract), wherein the silica has a BET specific surface area of 400-500 m2/g and a secondary average particle dimeter of 3.5-9.3 µm ([0033] and [0034]). The BET specific surface area and the secondary average particle dimeter of Takehiko overlap with the claimed BET surface area range and particle size range, respectively. Taguchi and Takehiko are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet recording medium art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wet process fine silica of Takehiko with the invention of Taguchi, and the motivation for combining would be, as Takehiko suggested, to control flocculative force and ink absorbency [0034].
Taguchi teaches additives in the inkjet printing sheet [0130] but does not teach dicyandiamide as one of suitable examples of the additives. However, Mitsui teaches a dicyandiamide/formalin condensate as a known flocculation treatment agent [0041] before the claimed invention in an ink jet printing paper ([0053] and [0060]). Taguchi and Mitsui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet printing art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the dicyandiamide/formalin condensate flocculation treatment agent of Mitsui with the invention of Taguchi, and the motivation for combining would be to control ink fixing property of the layer.
Taguchi teaches the water soluble resin includes a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [0063] but does not teach the PVA is mixed with a polyvinyl acetate (PVAc). However, van der Zwan teaches an ink receiving layer comprising a binder that is a blend of a water soluble polymer and a water dispersible polymer; and polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl acetate are suitable examples (abstract [0030] and [0038]). In Example 1, the amount of the polyvinyl alcohol is 5% by weight and the amount of the polyvinyl acetate is 4% by weight [0038]; therefore, it is interpreted that the PVA is the main constitution because the amount of the PVA is larger than that of the PVAc. With respect to the amount of the PVAc, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the content of the PVAc, and the motivation for adjusting the content of the PVAc to the claimed range would be to reduce flocculation. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Taguchi and van der Zwan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet recording medium art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the blended binder (PVA+PVAc) of van der Zwan with the invention of Taguchi, and the motivation would be to control aggregation and water resistance of the layer.
Claim 2: The polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride of Taguchi meets the claimed polyionic polymer.
Claim 3: Taguchi teaches the colorant receiving layer comprises an acid [0131], and formic acid, acetic acid, tartaric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid and boronic acid are suitable examples of the acid [0132]. The acid of Taguchi meets the claimed pH altering substance.
Claim 4: Taguchi teaches the colorant receiving layer comprises an acid [0131], and formic acid, acetic acid, tartaric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid and boronic acid are suitable examples of the acid [0132].
Claim 5: Taguchi teaches the colorant receiving layer comprises a metal salt [0124].
Claim 6: Taguchi teaches calcium chloride, magnesium chloride and magnesium acetate are suitable examples of the metal salt {instant claim 6} [0126].
Claim 10: Taguchi teaches the colorant receiving layer has a particle to binder ratio of 5:1 to 10:1 [0092].
Claim 16: Taguchi teaches a printing sheet comprising a support, the colorant receiving layer (Coating Solution A), a barrier layer and a Coating Solution B in the order thereof ([0178] and [0196]) in the order there of, wherein the colorant receiving layer and the barrier layer comprise water soluble resin ([0178] and [0197]). The colorant receiving layer meets the claimed first layer, and the barrier layer meets the claimed second layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 10 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Takehiko teaches the claimed BET surface area and particle size, and Mitsui teaches the claimed flocculating agent.
For the above reasons claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14 and 16 stand rejected.
Pertinent Prior Art
Liu et al. (US 2003/0099816 A1).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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 on 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.
BS
July 23, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights