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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art nearest to Claims 4 and 5 is Ron et al (US PGP 2017/0329259) (discussed in the rejection below) and Sharmi et al (US PGP 2016/0282765). Ron does not appear to teach a terminal alkene other than ethylene, or, more specifically, 1-octene, as a monomer used in a resin comprised in a liquid electrophotographic printing composition. Sharmi teaches terminal alkenes (referred to as “alpha-olefins”), including 1-octene, as monomers which may be used in an ink-receiving layer. However, Sharmi does not teach the use of such monomers in a resin comprising part of a liquid electrophotographic ink.
Ron teaches an electrostatic printing and glossing apparatus, but does not teach a heating system configured to heat a coating composition (or an analogous liquid electrophotographic ink) prior to its application to a printing substrate, as recited by independent Claim 14. No other prior art could be found which teaches such a facet of the printing apparatus. Claim 15 is dependent on Claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “about” in Claim 6 and Claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 6 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ron et al (US PGP 2017/0329259).
Ron teaches a method of electrostatic printing and glossing, comprising forming a first toner image on a print substrate and forming a second toner image disposed on the first (Abstract). The method of printing and glossing ([0109]) is analogous to that of Claim 1, wherein the first toner image taught by Ron is analogous to the instant liquid electrophotographically printed layer disposed on a substrate, and the second toner image taught by Ron is analogous to the layer formed by the instant heated coating solution. The second toner image may be formed from a liquid electrophotographic (LEP) printing composition comprising a first resin component and a second resin component (0037]). The second resin component may be an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer ([0071]). Ron teaches that the second resin component may preferably have a melting point in the range of 50 – 75°C, or in the range of 140 – 180°C ([0063] – [0066]). The resin components may be dispersed in a carrier liquid ([0079]), and the carrier liquid may be a hydrocarbon, silicone oil, or vegetable oil ([0081]).
In the course of adjusting the melting point of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer used as the second resin component, one of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared such a copolymer wherein the vinyl acetate content was 50% or less by weight. In addition, in preparing the dispersion of the second resin component in a carrier liquid, it would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the solubility of the resin in the carrier liquid could be increased by heating such a mixture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the printing and glossing process taught by Ron, which reads on the process described by Claim 1.
As discussed above, the second resin component may preferably have a melting point in the range of 50 – 75°C, reading on the range stated in Claim 2.
Ron does not appear to teach a preferred melt flow rate of the second resin component. However, having controlled the melting point of the second resin component in the range of 50 – 75°C (as discussed above), the melt flow rate of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer would necessarily possess a value for the melt flow rate satisfying the inequality stated in Claim 3.
As discussed above, in the course of adjusting the melting point of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer used as the second resin component, one of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared such a copolymer possessing a vinyl acetate content lying in the range stated in Claim 6.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the mixture of second resin and liquid carrier to a temperature necessary to achieve acceptable solubility, which would read on the range stated in Claim 7. Similarly, it would have been obvious to maintain a sufficient temperature of the prepared solution to maintain solubility as it was applied to the first toner image, reading on Claim 8.
As discussed above, the carrier liquid taught by Ron may be a hydrocarbon, satisfying Claim 9.
As discussed above, the method taught by Ron comprises a step of printing a first toner image on a substrate, analogous to the instant LEP layer, satisfying Claim 10.
Ron describes a printing and glossing apparatus ([0139]), comprising reservoirs for at least the first toner, which is an electrostatic ink ([0140]); and for the second toner, which is a composition as described above analogous to the instant coating composition ([0141]). Together, the first and second toners as taught by Ron constitute a kit which would be described by Claim 11.
As discussed above, the second resin component taught by Ron may preferably have a melting point in the range of 50 – 75°C, and would necessarily possess a value for the melt flow rate satisfying the inequality stated in Claim 12.
The first toner image taught by Ron is formed from an electrostatic ink comprising a first resin component, which comprises an ethylene-(meth)acrylic acid resin ([0039]). The first resin component may be dispersed in a carrier liquid ([0079]), which may be a hydrocarbon, silicone oil, or vegetable oil ([0081]). These are the same carrier liquids in which the second resin component may be dispersed, satisfying Claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grant S Seiler whose telephone number is (571)272-3015. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 5:30 Pacific.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/GRANT STEVEN SEILER/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 10/08/2026
Prosecution Insights