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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 24, 2026.
Accordingly, the requirement is made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkisian (US20110303113) in view of Matsumoto (US20190039384).
Regarding claim 1, Sarkisian teaches a method of printing (abstract) comprising the steps of producing images by an ink composition (marking material) on a recoding medium (paragraph 0005). Sarkisian teaches to dry the image (fixation treatment) (paragraphs 0013 and 0015). Sarkisian teaches to apply a layer of over-print varnish composition onto the printed image (pargraph 0007), wherein the varnish is anionic latex (paragraph 0029), which reads on the limitation of ionically stabilized varnish. Sarkisian further teaches to apply a pre-treatment liquid comprises divalent cations, such as Mg2+, on the recording medium before applying the marking material (paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0020), and the marking material is an aqueous ink composition (paragraph 0032), which is a similar system as the claimed invention, thus, intricially have a side effect of cations from the primer migrate into the ink (marking material).
Sarkisian does not explicitly teaches when the image has been formed, a layer of liquid solvent is formed on at least a part of the surface of the image, thereby causing ions to migrate from the marking material into the solvent and then to be absorbed into the substrate together with a part of the solvent before the varnish is applied. However, Matsumoto teaches a method of ink-jet printing (abstract) and discloses superheated steam is used to dry the printed image (fixation treatment) (paragraphs 0111-0113), which is before the applying the varnish, wherein the printed medium is preferably not lower that 35ºC before contacting with the superheated steam. Since the steam is condensed to form a layer a water at temperature lower that water boiling temperature (100ºC), it would be reasonably expected that a layer of water is being condensed on the surface of the substrate at the beginning of superheated steam treatment especially when the temperature is closer to 35 ºC. It is the position of the examiner that property of the layer of solvent formed on the surface of the printed image causing ions to migrate from the marking material into the solvent and then to be absorbed into the substrate together with a part of the solvent, is inherent, given that the process and the material (the ions in the aqueous marking material, the superheated steam causing a layer of solvent formed on the surface of the printed image, the solvent being water, and the recording medium being paper) disclosed by Sarkisian in view of Matsumoto and the present application are the same. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999).
Regarding claim 2, Sarkisian teaches the varnish is anionic latex (paragraph 0029), which reads on the limitation of anionic stabilized vanish.
Regarding claim 3, Sarkisian teaches to apply a pre-treatment liquid comprises divalent cations, such as Mg2+, on the recording medium before applying the marking material (paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 4, Sarkisian the pre-treatment liquid comprises divalent cations, such as Mg2+ (paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 5, Sarkisian teaches varnish is water-based varnish (pargraph 0028).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches the solvent is water (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the drying process (fixation treatment) comprises exposing the surface of the printed image to superheated steam (an atmosphere that contains water vapor) (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches the drying process (fixation treatment) comprises a step of blowing hot gas against the surface of the printed image, at least a portion of the hot gas being constituted by superheated steam (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Regarding claim 11, Sarkisian teaches to apply a pre-treatment liquid comprises divalent cations, such as Mg2+, on the recording medium before applying the marking material (paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 12, Sarkisian the pre-treatment liquid comprises divalent cations, such as Mg2+ (paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 13, Sarkisian teaches varnish is water-based varnish (pargraph 0028).
Regarding claim 14, Sarkisian teaches varnish is water-based varnish (pargraph 0028).
Regarding claim 15, Sarkisian teaches varnish is water-based varnish (pargraph 0028).
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto teaches the solvent is water (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto teaches the solvent is water (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto teaches the solvent is water (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto teaches the solvent is water (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkisian (US20110303113) in view of Matsumoto (US20190039384) as applied to claims 1-8 and 11-19 above, and further in view of Weiser (EP2962302).
Regarding claim 9, Sarkisian in view of Matsumoto teaches all limitations of this claim, except the varnish is applied by an anilox roller. However, Weiser teaches a method of forming a layer structure (abstract) and discloses liquid coating can be applied to a surface by air doctor coater, reverse roll coater or anilox rollers etc (pargraph 0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute anilox rollers for air doctor coater or reverse roll coater (Sarkisian’s method, see paragraph 0016) as the coating device for the varnish in the method as disclosed by Sarkisian in view of Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 20, Sarkisian in view of Matsumoto teaches all limitations of this claim, except the varnish is applied by an anilox roller. However, Weiser teaches a method of forming a layer structure (abstract) and discloses liquid coating can be applied to a surface by air doctor coater, reverse roll coater or anilox rollers etc (pargraph 0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute anilox rollers for air doctor coater or reverse roll coater (Sarkisian’s method, see paragraph 0016) as the coating device for the varnish in the method as disclosed by Sarkisian in view of Matsumoto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights