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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “gylcol” in line 2 should be “glycol”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “naphtenates” in line 5 should be “naphthenates”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glassey et al. (US 2015/0307724) in view of Simpson et al. (US 2024/0368378) and Lefebvre et al. (US 2015/0035268). Regarding claim 1, Glassey et al. teach “a process for producing a security feature on a substrate by an intaglio printing process (paragraph 93, claim 12) comprising a step a) of inking an intaglio engraved printing plate with an oxidative drying intaglio ink (paragraph 93), said oxidative drying intaglio ink comprising: i) at least one oxidative drying varnish (paragraph 50), ii) one or more driers in a total amount from about 0.01 wt-% to about 10 wt-% (paragraph 49), and iv) one or more fusible waxes present in a total amount from about 1 wt-% to about 10 wt-% (paragraph 72), the weight percents being based on the total weight of the oxidative drying intaglio ink; a step b) of wiping off any excess the oxidative drying intaglio ink using a paper or a tissue wiping system (paragraph 93) or using a polymeric wiping cylinder and cleaning said polymeric wiping cylinder with an alkaline aqueous wiping solution in combination with one or more mechanical means; a step c) of transferring said oxidative drying intaglio ink in the form of the security feature on the substrate (paragraph 93); and a step d) of drying the oxidative drying intaglio ink in the presence of air so as to form the security feature (claim 13).” Glassey et al. fail to teach “said intaglio engraved printing plate being at a printing plate temperature between about 45°C and about 85°C” or “iii) one or more polythiol compounds present in a total amount larger than 0.5 wt-%, preferably in a total amount from about 0.75 wt-% and 2 wt-%.” However, Lefebvre et al. disclose typical settings for intaglio printing presses involve maintaining the plate cylinder at a temperature of around 60°C and 80°C (paragraph 9). It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to maintain the temperature of the plate between around 60°C to 80°C because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. Simpson et al. teach an oxidatively curing ink (paragraph 239, claim 8) wherein at least one polythiol is added in an amount of 1-30% by weight of the resin component (paragraphs 152 and 153) in order to achieve improvements in hardness and dry time (paragraph 15). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the polythiol of Simpson et al. in the composition of Glassey et al. in order to achieve improvements in hardness and dry time. Regarding claim 2, Lefebvre et al. further teach “wherein the intaglio engraved printing plate has a printing plate temperature between about 50°C and about 80°C (paragraph 9). Regarding claim 3, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the at least one oxidative drying varnish is present in the oxidative drying intaglio ink in an amount from about 10 to about 90 wt-%, the weight percents being based on the total weight of the oxidative drying intaglio ink (paragraph 50).” Regarding claim 4, Simpson et al. further teach “wherein the one or more polythiol compounds are selected from the group consisting of dithiol compounds, dithiol compounds, tetrathiol compounds and mixtures thereof (paragraph 152).” Regarding claim 5, Simpson et al. further teach “wherein at least one of the dithiol compounds is ethylene gylcol bis(3-mercaptopropionate) (paragraph 152).” Regarding claim 6, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the one or more fusible waxes have a melting temperature between about 50°C and about 120°C (paragraph 72: at least carnauba wax).” Regarding claim 7, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the one or more waxes are selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline waxes, paraffin waxes, polyethylene waxes, fluorocarbon waxes, polytetrafluoroethylene waxes, Fischer-Tropsch waxes, silicone fluids, beeswaxes, candelilla waxes, montan waxes, carnauba waxes, rice bran waxes and mixtures thereof (paragraph 72: carnauba wax). Regarding claim 8, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the one or more driers are polyvalent salts containing cobalt, calcium, copper, zinc, iron, zirconium, manganese, barium, strontium, lithium, vanadium and potassium as cation(s) and halides, nitrates, sulphates, carboxylates like acetates, ethylhexanoates, octanoates and naphtenates or acetoacetonates as anion(s) (paragraph 31).” Regarding claim 9, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the oxidative drying intaglio ink further comprises one or more driers being metal complexes and/or metal complex salts, preferably manganese complexes, manganese complex salts, vanadium complexes, vanadium complex salts, iron complexes and iron complex salts (paragraph 31).” Regarding claim 10, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the oxidative drying intaglio ink further comprises one or more fillers or extenders in a total amount from about 0.1 wt-% to about 50 wt-%, the weight percents being based on the total weight of the oxidative drying intaglio ink (claim 7, paragraph 71).” Regarding claim 11, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the one or more fillers or extenders are selected from the group consisting of talcs, micas, montmorillonites, bentonites, wollastonites, halloysites, calcined clays, china clays, carbonates, silicates, vermiculites, amorphous silica, wood flours, natural fibers, synthetic fibers and mixtures thereof (paragraph 71: talcs). Regarding claim 12, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the oxidative drying intaglio ink further comprises one or more coloring components selected from the group consisting of optically variable pigments, color constant pigments, dyes and mixtures thereof, preferably selected from the group consisting of color constant organic pigments, color constant inorganic pigments and mixtures thereof (paragraphs 60 and 61). Regarding claim 13, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the oxidative drying intaglio ink further comprises one or more machine readable materials preferably selected from the group consisting of magnetic materials, luminescent materials, electrically conductive materials, infrared-absorbing materials and mixtures thereof and/or one or more forensic taggants (paragraph 62).” Regarding claim 14, Glassey et al. further teach “wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of papers or other fibrous materials, paper-containing materials, plastics and polymers, metalized plastics or polymers, composite materials and mixtures or combinations thereof (paragraph 78).” Regarding claim 15, Glassey et al. further teach “a security feature made by a process recited in claim 1 (paragraph 82).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853