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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Table 2, the information for Examples 9, 11 and 13-17 do not agree with the description of those examples at [0053] through [0061].
In examples 9 and 11, the table refers to polyester ‘A’, but this is not in [0053] and [0055].
In example 14, the table refers to polyester ‘B’, but this is not in [0058].
In examples 13 and 15-17, the Table says the acrylic resin has a Tg of < 40 C, but the description at [0057] says the Tg for acrylic resin B is ≥ 40C.
In example 17, the Table does not indicate whether acrylic resin A or B was used.
At [0061], it refers to example 15 but then refers to the “white resin layer”. The “white resin layer” is in example 16 and not 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 4 and 12, the phrase “onto the non-permeable substrate in an amount of the non-permeable substrate of” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “onto the non-permeable substrate in an amount of” which is how the claims will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-18 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 claims 3 and 11, the limitations a “volatile component” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. The term “volatile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “volatile” in this context is “readily vaporizable at a relatively low temperature” as seen in Merriam-Webster, but it is unclear what would be considered “readily vaporizable” or “a relatively low temperature” to then determine what materials would be considered “volatile”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this as the solvent content.
In claims 10 and 18 on lines 2 and 3 of each claim, the phrase “which comprises resin particles” lack antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear if these resin particles are the same as the resin particles comprising the polymers of claims 8 and 16, respectively, or if they may be different resin particles formed from other polymers. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “which comprises the resin particles” in each instance, which is how the claims will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irita et al. (US 2007/0213220) in view of Kizaki et al. (JP 11-058930), machine translation included.
With regard to claims 1-3 and 11, Irita et al. teach a method for forming an image on a heat-sensitive transfer image-receiving sheet that includes forming a dye-receptor layer on a support, which reads on applicants’ forming a resin layer on a non-permeable substrate [0024] and [0156]. The receptor layer is dried, which means it will intrinsically have a content of volatile components less than 20 wt % as claimed [0156]. The support may be a waterproof material, which reads on applicants’ non-permeable substrate, that includes polycarbonate coated paper, where polycarbonate reads on applicants’ resin having a Tg of 90 C or higher [0140] and [0143]. The dye-receptor layer may include a latex polymer, which reads on applicants’ dispersion liquid comprising resin particles [0031]. The forming of the image also includes bringing a transfer sheet into face-to-face contact, which reads on adhering a transfer sheet, and applying heat to transfer the dye image, wherein the dye is a diffusion/sublimation dye [0021], [0162] and [0175]. The dye-receptor layer may be coated using a usual method [0156]; however, Irita et al. do not specifically teach ejecting the dispersion liquid using an inkjet head.
Kizaki et al. teach the forming of ink-receiving layers only on an entirety or a portion of a recording medium by using an inkjet printing process [0011] and [0012]. This method has the benefits of eliminating waste of receiving layer material by placing it only where desired and without requiring specific inks for printing on said layer. Kizaki et al. is reasonably pertinent to Irita et al. as eliminating waste of receiving layer material would lend itself to the formation of a receptor layer in Irita et al.
Since Irita et al. and Kizaki et al. are drawn to forming image receptor layers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the receptor layer of Iritia et al. using an inkjet process in the comparable method Kizaki et al. This would be an improvement technique to the base method of irita et al. as it would allow on demand formation of receptor layers and would allow for eliminating waste when applying the receiving layer material.
With regard to claims 4 and 12, Irita et al. teach that the receptor layer may be formed at 4 g/m2, which is the same as 0.4 mg/cm2 [0173].
Claims 5-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irita et al. (US 2007/0213220) in view of Kizaki et al. (JP 11-058930), and further in view of Matsumura (JP 01-127386), machine translation included.
Irita et al. in view of Kizaki et al. render obvious all of the limitations above. Irita et al. also teach that the latex polymer may be acrylic resins having Tg above 40 C or higher and may include a crosslinking agent [0049] and [0102]. They also teach that the printing is done by a VY-100 thermal printer [0163]; however, they do not specifically teach the temperature of heating for sublimation printing.
Matsumura teaches a dye sublimation printing process using the VY-100 printer (pg. 1 and 3). Their printing process can be performed at 60 to 500 C, which overlaps with the range claimed (pg. 2).
Since Irita et al. in view of Kizaki et al. and Matsumura are drawn to sublimation printing using the same printer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the printing temperature of Matsumura as the printing temperature claimed as they are the same printers in both references. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in the using the temperature of Matsumura as it is for the same type of printing process using the same printer.
Since there is an overlap in the range of the prior art with the range claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 18 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 prior art would not teach or suggest the method of forming an image on a non-permeable substrate, including the steps of forming a resin layer by ejecting a first dispersion liquid and second dispersion each having resin particles from an inkjet head to form a laminated resin layer having a first resin layer formed from the first dispersion and second resin layer formed from the second dispersion laminated to the first resin layer; adhering a transfer sheet having a sublimable dye ink layer on a surface of the resin layer; and heating the transfer sheet to transfer sublimable dye ink to the resin layer, wherein the resin particles are selected from polyester-based resin and an acrylic resin having a Tg of 40 C or higher, and wherein the first dispersion has a coloring material and the second dispersion has no coloring material in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 8 as to claim 10 and claims 1, 2, 11-13, 15 and 16 as to claim 18.
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