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.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 10, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 9 and 17 the phrase “forming resin layer” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “forming the resin layer” which is how the claims will be interpreted.
In claims 10 and 18, the phrase “wherein heating” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the heating” which is how the claims will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-9 and 13-17 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 5 and 13, the phrases “ejecting the first resin liquid from an inkjet head” and “ejecting the second resin liquid from an inkjet head” render the claims indefinite as it is unclear whether this is the same inkjet head as in claim 1 or the same inkjet head as each other. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrases to “ejecting the first resin liquid from the inkjet head” and “ejecting the second resin liquid from the inkjet head” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claims 9 and 17, the phrase “ejecting the third resin liquid from an inkjet head” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether this is the same inkjet head as in claim 1 or the same inkjet head as each other. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrases to “ejecting the first resin liquid from the inkjet head” and “ejecting the second resin liquid from the inkjet head” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichii et al. (JP 62-173295) in view of Kizaki et al. (JP 11-058930) as evidenced by Saito et al. (JP 2001-200214), machine translations included.
With regard to claim 1 and 10, Ichii et al. disclose a sublimation thermal image-receiving sheet (pg. 1). The image-receiving sheet has a surface layer formed on a substrate, which reads on the forming a resin layer on a substrate, and the surface layer can be formed from a coating liquid having a radiation-crosslinkable oligomer that can be cured by ultraviolet irradiation, which reads on applicants’ resin component (pgs. 1-2). The color sheet for sublimation printing will necessarily be placed against the image-receiving sheet, which reads on the adhering a transfer sheet, and then a thermal head is used for printing, which reads on the heating of the transfer sheet to transfer the sublimable dye ink (pgs. 1-2). As shown in Figure 1, the thermal head printing temperature can be approximately 130 C, 150 C or 165 C for example 4 (pg. 3). The surface layer can be formed on the substrate in the same manner as conventional products, e.g. an ordinary coating method can be used (pg. 1-2); however, Ichii et al. do not specifically teach the ejecting of the resin liquid from an inkjet head to form the surface layer.
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 Ichii et al. as eliminating waste of receiving layer material would lend itself to the formation of an image-receiving surface layer in Ichii et al.
Since Ichii 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 image-receiving surface layer of Ichii et al. using an inkjet process in the comparable method of Kizaki et al. This would be an improvement technique to the base method of Ichii et al. as it would allow on demand formation of image-receiving surface layers and would allow for eliminating waste when applying the image-receiving surface layer material.
With regard to claim 3, Ichii et al. teach using Aronix M-6200 in their Example 4 as a UV curable oligomer, please note there is a mistranslation of the tradename in the machine translation (pg. 2). As evidenced by Saito et al. at [0040], Aronix M-6200 has a glass transition temperature of 35 C.
With regard to claim 4, Ichii et al. teach in their example 1 has the coating thickness of the surface layer of 5 microns (pg. 2); however, they do not specifically teach this coating thickness for the UV curable composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the thickness of the UV curable composition applied to the substrate be 5 microns as this is an appropriate thickness recognized by Ichii et al. for dye sublimation receiving layers.
Claims 2, 11, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichii et al. (JP 62-173295) in view of Kizaki et al. (JP 11-058930), and further in view of Sasaki et al. (4,877,922).
Ichii et al. in view of Kizaki et al. render obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ichii et al. also teach that the substrate can be a synthetic resin film (pg. 1); however, they do not specifically teach a resin film having the glass transition temperature claimed.
Sasaki et al. teach a dye sublimation receiver having a substrate that may be paper or a film, such as polycarbonate, which has a Tg of approximately 150 C (col. 9, lines 31-47).
Since Ichii et al. in view of Kizaki et al. and Sasaki et al. are dawn to film substrates for sublimation dye receivers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polycarbonate substrate material of Sasaki et al. as the film substrate of Ichii et al. in view of Kizaki et al. The results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill.
With regard to claim 11, Ichii et al. teach using Aronix M-6200 in their Example 4 as a UV curable oligomer, please note there is a mistranslation of the tradename in the machine translation (pg. 2). As evidenced by Saito et al. at [0040], Aronix M-6200 has a glass transition temperature of 35 C.
With regard to claim 12, Ichii et al. teach in their example 1 has the coating thickness of the surface layer of 5 microns (pg. 2); however, they do not specifically teach this coating thickness for the UV curable composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the thickness of the UV curable composition applied to the substrate be 5 microns as this is an appropriate thickness recognized by Ichii et al. for dye sublimation receiving layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 13-17 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 closest prior art to the method steps of claims 5 and 13 is Tani (US 2005/0181946), but this reference does not teach or suggest polymerizing each of the first resin component and the second resin component by ultraviolet irradiation to form the base layer on the substrate and the surface layer on the base layer along, wherein “the base layer has a glass transition point lower than a glass transition point of the surface layer” in combination with the rest of the limitations claimed.
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