Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/626,005

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING INKJET PRINTABLE PAPER OR FOIL FOR USE AS A DECOR PAPER OR FOIL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Examiner
SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNILIN, BV
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
720 granted / 1007 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1051
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
61.2%
+21.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1007 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 along with the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 12/09/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1 and 14 are amended, claims 7, 9, 11 and 15 are cancelled and claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14 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, 8, 10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. (2004/0142122 A1) view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2005/0142305 A1), Aksay et al. (US 2016/0115293 A1) and van der Zwan et al. (US 2010/0189931 A1). Claims 1, 2, 8 and 14: 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 {instant claim 2} [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 {instant claim 14} [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 specific surface area of the silica. However, Kobayashi teaches a wet process fine silica having a BET specific surface area of 100-400 m2/g [0082] in an ink jet recording sheet (abstract). Taguchi and Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi with the invention of Taguchi, and the motivation for combining would be, as Kobayashi suggested, to prevent cracking and to control ink absorptivity and glossiness [0082]. Taguchi teaches additives in the inkjet printing sheet [0130], but does not teach sodiumaluminate, double sulphate salt and polyaluminumchloride as suitable examples of the additives. However, Aksay teaches sodium aluminate, alum {meets the claimed double sulphate salt} and aluminum chlorohydrate {meets the claimed polyaluminumchloride} {instant claim 8} as suitable examples of an additive such as flocculating agents ([0038] and [0042]), wherein these agents/additives are used both in an ink composition and coating composition [0076]. Taguchi and Aksay 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 sodium aluminate, alum or aluminum chlorohydrate of Aksay 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. Claims 3 and 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 {instant claim 4} [0132]. Claims 5 and 6: Taguchi teaches the colorant receiving layer comprises a metal salt [0124], and 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]. Claims 12 and 13: Taguchi teaches the inorganic microparticles have a mean primary particle size of 2µm or less [0074]. 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, 8, 10, 12-14 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. Kobayashi teaches precipitated/wet process fine silica having BET specific surface area of 100-400 m2/g [0082]. For the above reasons claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14 and 16 stand rejected. 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 January 9, 2026 /BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 14, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570076
FILM AND LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565022
Insulative Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558913
RECORDING MATERIAL FOR DYE SUBLIMATION PRINTING HAVING IMPROVED TRANSPORT PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12533866
INFRARED ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT CAMOUFLAGE FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12534636
EXTERIOR WINDOW FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1007 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month