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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 03/03/2026 has been fully considered. Claim 1 is amended, claim 2 is cancelled and claims 1 and 3-6 are amended.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 6,565,952 B1) in view of Uto et al. (US 2001/0017643 A1) and Reiners et al. (US 2022/0258513 A1).
Claim 1: Ishikawa teaches an ink jet recording sheet comprising a substrate and an ink receiving layer on the substrate (abstract). Ishikawa teaches the substrate can be a paper substrate with an anchor-coating layer (col. 8, lines 10-11). Ishikawa does not teach a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with an anchor layer as the material for the substrate with the anchor layer. However, Uto teaches an ink jet recording material comprising a paper support with an anchor layer or a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support with an anchor layer ([0062] and [0065]). Uto shows that the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) with the anchor layer is an equivalent structure known in the ink jet recording medium art. Therefore, because the paper support with the anchor layer and the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support with the anchor layer were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the paper support with the anchor layer for the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support with the anchor layer. The polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support meets the claimed single material layer, and the anchor layer meets the claimed primer layer.
With respect to the thickness of the substrate/support, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the substrate/support, and the motivation would be to control the flexibility of the ink jet recording sheet. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to the thickness of the anchor layer, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the anchor layer, and the motivation would be to control the adhesion property between the substrate/support and ink receiving layer. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Ishikawa teaches the ink receiving layer comprises inorganic pigments (col. 7, line 6). The ink receiving layer meets the claimed top layer or ink absorbing layer, and the inorganic pigments meet the claimed inorganic beads.
Ishikawa teaches the ink receiving layer may be surface-finished into a special form subjected to embossing (col. 8, lines 28-32). Ishikawa teaches drying the layers after coating (col. 7, line 66) but does not teach the claimed drying temperature. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the drying temperature, and the motivation would be to harden the coating so as to enhance abrasion resistance. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Ishikawa does not teach the claimed radiation curing after drying. However, Reiners teaches radiation curing after drying an ink receptive layer [0210] if and when the ink receptive coating is a UV curable coating [0055], wherein UV radiation dose ranges from 300-3000 mJ/cm2 [0210]. Ishikawa and Reiners are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet recording sheet art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ink receptive layer of Reiners with the invention of Ishikawa, and the motivation would be to ensure fast curing and provide high durability.
Ishikawa does not teach the thickness of the ink receiving layer as claimed. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the ink receiving layer, and the motivation would be to control quality, crispiness and height of the embossing effect. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 6,565,952 B1) in view of Uto et al. (US 2001/0017643 A1) and Reiners et al. (US 2022/0258513 A1).
Claim 3: Ishikawa teaches an ink jet recording sheet comprising a substrate and an ink receiving layer on the substrate (abstract). The ink receiving layer meets the claimed top layer or ink absorbing layer. Ishikawa teaches the substrate can be a paper substrate with an anchor-coating layer (col. 8, lines 10-11). Ishikawa does not teach a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with an anchor layer as the material for the substrate with the anchor layer. However, Uto teaches an ink jet recording material comprising a paper support with an anchor layer or a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support with an anchor layer ([0062] and [0065]), wherein the anchor layer is formed by providing a composition comprising binders, a latex, a curing agent, a pigment, a surfactant and the like in an appropriate combination [0065]. Uto shows that the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) with the anchor layer is an equivalent structure known in the ink jet recording medium art. Therefore, because the paper support with the anchor layer and the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support with the anchor layer were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the paper support with the anchor layer for the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support with the anchor layer. The polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support meets the claimed single material layer, and the anchor layer meets the claimed primer layer.
With respect to the thickness of the substrate/support, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the substrate/support, and the motivation would be to control the flexibility of the ink jet recording sheet. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to the thickness of the anchor layer, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the anchor layer, and the motivation would be to control the adhesion property between the substrate/support and ink receiving layer. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Ishikawa teaches the ink receiving layer may be surface-finished into a special form subjected to embossing (col. 8, lines 28-32). Ishikawa teaches drying the layers after coating (col. 7, line 66) but does not teach the claimed drying temperature. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the drying temperature, and the motivation would be to harden the coating so as to enhance abrasion resistance. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Ishikawa does not teach the claimed radiation curing after drying. However, Reiners teaches radiation curing after drying an ink receptive layer [0210] if and when the ink receptive coating is a UV curable coating [0055], wherein UV radiation dose ranges from 300-3000 mJ/cm2 [0210]. Ishikawa and Reiners are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet recording sheet art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ink receptive layer of Reiners with the invention of Ishikawa, and the motivation would be to ensure fast curing and provide high durability.
Ishikawa does not teach the thickness of the ink receiving layer as claimed. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the ink receiving layer, and the motivation would be to control quality, crispiness and height of the embossing effect. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 6,565,952 B1) in view of Uto et al. (US 2001/0017643 A1) and Reiners et al. (US 2022/0258513 A1).
Claims 4 and 6: Ishikawa teaches an ink jet recording sheet comprising a substrate and an ink receiving layer on the substrate (abstract). Ishikawa teaches the substrate can be a paper substrate with an anchor-coating layer (col. 8, lines 10-11). Ishikawa does not teach a polypropylene (PP) with an anchor layer as the material for the substrate with the anchor layer. However, Uto teaches an ink jet recording material comprising a paper support with an anchor layer or a polypropylene (PP) support with an anchor layer ([0062] and [0065]). Uto shows that the polypropylene (PP) with the anchor layer is an equivalent structure known in the ink jet recording medium art. Therefore, because the paper support with the anchor layer and the polypropylene (PP) support with the anchor layer were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the paper support with the anchor layer for the propylene (PP) support with the anchor layer. The polypropylene (PP) support meets the claimed one of PP layer, and the anchor layer meets the claimed primer layer.
With respect to the thickness of the substrate/support, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the substrate/support, and the motivation would be to control the flexibility of the ink jet recording sheet. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to the thickness of the anchor layer, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the anchor layer, and the motivation would be to control the adhesion property between the substrate/support and ink receiving layer. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Ishikawa teaches the ink receiving layer comprises inorganic pigments (col. 7, line 6). The ink receiving layer meets the claimed top layer or ink absorbing layer, and the inorganic pigments meet the claimed inorganic beads.
Ishikawa teaches the ink receiving layer may be surface-finished into a special form subjected to embossing (col. 8, lines 28-32). Ishikawa teaches drying the layers after coating (col. 7, line 66) but does not teach the claimed drying temperature. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the drying temperature, and the motivation would be to harden the coating so as to enhance abrasion resistance. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Ishikawa does not teach the claimed radiation curing after drying. However, Reiners teaches radiation curing after drying an ink receptive layer [0210] if and when the ink receptive coating is a UV curable coating [0055], wherein UV radiation dose ranges from 300-3000 mJ/cm2 [0210]. Ishikawa and Reiners are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet recording sheet art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ink receptive layer of Reiners with the invention of Ishikawa, and the motivation would be to ensure fast curing and provide high durability.
Ishikawa does not teach the thickness of the ink receiving layer as claimed. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the ink receiving layer, and the motivation would be to control quality, crispiness and height of the embossing effect. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Ishikawa does not teach or suggest the substrate is a duplicated layer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the polypropylene (PP) substrate using a bonding material, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 6,565,952 B1), Uto et al. (US 2001/0017643 A1) and Reiners et al. (US 2022/0258513 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kondo et al. (US 2023/0323144 A1).
Ishikawa, Uto and Reiners teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 5: Ishikawa does not teach embossing pressure and temperature as recited in current claim 5. However, Kondo teaches use of 0.2 MPa (2.04 Kg/cm2) Nip pressure [0169] and 60 ̊C embossing roll temperature [0170] in an embossing process. Ishikawa and Kondo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the ink jet recording sheet art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kondo, (i.e., embossing pressure and temperature parameters) with the invention of Ishikawa, and the motivation would be, as Kondo suggested, to provide a film that has high-quality low gloss appearance (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Ishikawa teaches the inorganic pigments in the ink receiving layer (col. 7, line 6); and the inorganic pigments of Ishikawa meet the claimed inorganic beads.
The reference of Uto is introduced to teach the claimed PVC, PET and PP single material layer.
With respect to the claimed thickness of the ink receiving layer/top layer. Examiner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the ink receiving layer, and the motivation would be to control quality, crispiness and height of the embossing effect. In addition, the current specification fails to show the criticality of the claimed 10-150 µm thickness of the top layer or ink absorbing layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, 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.
BSApril 30, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights