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 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-6, the phrase “the quantity of polyvinyl alcohol” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the quantity of the polyvinyl alcohol” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claims 2-5, the phrase “all the components of” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “all components of” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12 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 on lines 5 and 7, the phrase “on the opposite side” (two instances) lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “on an opposite side” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 6, the term “core-shell type acrylic emulsion” renders the claim indefinite as the word “type” extends the meaning of the term “core-shell acrylic emulsion” to a scope that makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is unclear what other materials are the same “type” as a “core-shell acrylic emulsion”. This rejection can be overcome by deleting the word “type”.
In claim 11, the phrase “the synthetic resin film support layer contains two protective layers and” renders the claim indefinite as the protective layer is not part of the support layer and no additional limitations appears after the conjunction “and”. The rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the thermosensitive recording medium contains two protective layers” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyauchi et al. (5,194,418).
With regard to claim 1, Miyauchi et al. teach a thermosensitive recording material that may comprise a support that may be a plastic film, which reads on applicants’ synthetic resin film support layer, a thermosensitive coloring layer that may comprise a leuco dye and a developer, an overcoat layer, which reads on applicants’ protective layer and a backcoat layer, which reads on applicants’ barrier backing layer (col. 2, lines 24-39 and col. 8, lines 34-38). The backcoat layer preferably comprises a polyvinyl alcohol that has a saponification ratio of 97 mol% or more, which reads on the degree of saponification claimed (col. 3, lines 3-9 and col. 5, lines 1-2).
With regard to claims 2 and 3, the polyvinyl alcohol in one embodiment can be present in the backcoat layer at 4 parts by weight to a total weight of 7.5 parts solids, which is ~53% of the dry weight of the layer (col. 9, lines 60-70).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi et al. (5,194,418).
With regard to claim 11, the limitations of this claim represent a mere duplication of the overcoat layer. It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have coated the overcoat layer two times in order to form a thicker layer to provide extra protection. The results of such a modification would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi et al. (5,194,418) in view of Shimizu et al. (9,023,756).
With regard to claims 7-9 and 12, Miyauchi et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above. It is noted that the support can be a plastic film or a synthetic paper; however, they do not specifically teach the support material or antistatic agent claimed.
Shimizu et al. teach a thermosensitive recording material that has a back layer on a support (col. 3, lines 7-15). The support may be synthetic paper formed by adding inorganic fillers to a synthetic resin of polypropylene and then forming a film by biaxial stretching (col. 5, lines 26-46). The inorganic fillers will intrinsically act like a cavitating agent in the biaxially oriented film. As an example, they teach using PL-100 having a thickness of 100 microns (col. 9, lines 17-22). This is the same tradenamed biaxially oriented polypropylene used in applicants’ examples. The back layer may have polyvinyl alcohol and may include an antistatic agent (col. 4, lines 22-26 and 65-67).
Since Miyauchi et al. and Shimizu et al. are both drawn to thermosensitive recording media, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the synthetic paper support of Miyauchi et al. with the biaxially oriented polypropylene film of Shimizu et al. having a thickness of 100 microns. The results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill as they are both synthetic paper supports for thermal recording media.
It would also have been obvious to have combined the antistatic agent filler of the back layer of Shimizu et al. into the backcoat layer of Miyauchi et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they did separately. The rationale to use an antistatic agent is to prevent sticking of the paper during the printing process.
With regard to claim 10, the biaxially stretched polypropylene PL-100 will intrinsically have a density of 0.78 g/cm3 as this is the same support used in applicants’ example 1.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (9,023,756) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 2011/0135830).
With regard to claims 1 and 12, Shimizu et al. teach a thermosensitive recording material that has a back layer on one side of a support formed of a resin, which reads on applicants’ barrier backing layer on a synthetic resin film support layer, a thermosensitive recording layer on the other surface of the support, which reads on applicants’ thermosensitive colouring layer, and a protective layer on the thermosensitive recording layer (col. 3, lines 7-15 and 58-62 and col. 7, lines 25-29). The thermosensitive recording layer has a leuco dye and a developer (col. 6, lines 48-67). The back layer may have modified polyvinyl alcohol and may include an antistatic agent (col. 4, lines 22-26 and 65-67); however, they do not specifically teach the degree of saponification of the polyvinyl alcohol.
Matsunaga et al. teach a heat sensitive recording material having a substrate, a heat-sensitive color developing layer, a protective layer and a back layer [0021]. The back layer can have a binder resin including a modified polyvinyl alcohol having a degree of saponification of 90 to 98% [0028] and [0066]. This is important for reducing coating undulation and maintaining high quality of the resin [0028].
Since Shimizu et al. and Matsunaga et al. are both drawn to modified polyvinyl alcohols in back layers for thermosensitive recording media, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included a modified polyvinyl alcohol in the back layer and to have made the degree of saponification of the PVA of Shimizu et al. be from 90 to 98% as taught in Matsunaga et al. to form a back coating layer that was smooth and had less undulations.
With regard to claims 2-5, Shimizu et al. do not specifically teach the amount of PVA to add to their back layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have added the PVA in any amount, including from 10 to 15% by dry weight of the total back layer, such that the layer had the proper amount of binder to hold the other materials together while not so much as to affect the water resistance of the back layer.
With regard to claim 6, Shimizu et al. teach that the back layer comprises an oxazoline resin crosslinking agent and a core-shell acrylic resin of the BARIASTAR line having a shell containing a hydrophilic polymer material that may be (meth)acrylic acid (col. 4, lines 1-37). Since this material is the same as the core-shell acrylic resins preferentially used in applicants’ specification, it will intrinsically have a hydrophobic core polymer as claimed.
With regard to claims 7-10, the support may be synthetic paper formed by adding inorganic fillers to a synthetic resin of polypropylene and then forming a film by biaxial stretching (col. 5, lines 26-46). The inorganic fillers will intrinsically act like a cavitating agent in the biaxially oriented film. As an example, they teach using PL-100 having a thickness of 100 microns (col. 9, lines 17-22). This is the same tradenamed biaxially oriented polypropylene used in applicants’ example 1 and will therefore intrinsically have a density of 0.78 g/cm3.
With regard to claim 11, the limitations of this claim represent a mere duplication of the protective layer. It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have coated the protective layer two times in order to form a thicker layer to provide extra protection. The results of such a modification would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art.
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