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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on June 26, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-4, 6, 12-14, 18, and 19 are amended, and claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation reciting “wherein the inkjet receiver coating is provided with 20 to 60 %, based on dry coating weight, of flocculating agent” is indefinite in view of the limitation reciting “an inkjet receiver coating that has an absorbing substance content below 10%wt”.
With respect to the flocculating agent, paragraph [0020] of the instant specification discloses that the inkjet receiver coating can comprise a flocculant, which is preferably a metal salt, preferably a cationic metal salt, for example chosen from the list consisting of: CaCl2, MgCl2, CaBr2, MgBr2, CMA (Calcium Magnesium Acetate), NH4Cl, Calcium Acetate, ZrCl4, calcium nitrate and Magnesium Acetate. The flocculant can also be chosen from the list consisting of: sodium aluminate, a double sulphate salt such as alum, polyaluminum chloride, polyacrylate, dicyandiamide (e.g. Floquat DI5 from SNF) and polyacrylamide [0020].
With respect to the absorbing substance, paragraph [0012] of the instant specification discloses that the inkjet receiving coating comprises a content of water absorbing substance below 10%wt, where the water absorbing substance can comprise pigments, in particular minerals, like silicate or aluminum silicates, for example talc, clays, calcined clays, kaolin, and silica. Paragraph [0012] further indicates that the water absorbing particle or substance of the present invention refers to a substance, in particular in the form of a particle, that is able to absorb liquid.
It is noted, however, that each of the materials listed for the flocculating agent in the specification fall within the scope of the claimed absorbing substance. In particular, each of the disclosed metal salts, acetate and nitrate compounds, and polymers suitable for use as the flocculating agent has hygroscopic or liquid-absorbing properties. Given that the flocculating agent is considered to fall within the scope of the claimed absorbing substance, the limitation requiring that the inkjet receiver coating is provided with 20 to 60% of flocculating agent therefore precludes the possibility of the inkjet receiver coating having an absorbing substance content below 10 wt%.
For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation requiring that the inkjet receiver coating has an absorbing substance content below 10 wt% will be interpreted in light of the specification to mean that the content of silicates, aluminum silicates, talc, clays, calcined clays, kaolin, and silica in the inkjet receiver coating is below 10 wt%. Therefore, the claimed inkjet receiver coating may include any other absorbing substances which may be used as flocculating agents in an amount within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation reciting “wherein the ink includes a binder having vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate (VC-VAC) copolymer latexes, vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate (VC-VAC) polymer latexes, acrylate dispersion, urethane dispersion, and combinations thereof” is indefinite because it is not clear exactly what materials are encompassed by the claim.
First, it is noted that the current language of the claim states that the binder has the listed materials “and combinations thereof”, such that the claim appears to require that the binder includes all of the listed materials. However, based on the previous language of the claim which recited “or combinations thereof”, the claim appears to intend to require that the binder has (or includes) one or more of the listed materials. For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation in claim 3 will be interpreted to mean that the ink includes a binder having one of the listed materials or combinations thereof.
Additionally, the scope of the claimed Markush group elements reciting “vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate (VC-VAC) copolymer latexes” and “vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate (VC-VAC) polymer latexes” is unclear, as these two elements appear to encompass the same feature. It is not clear what differentiates a VC-VAC copolymer latex from a VC-VAC polymer latex. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation reciting “the inkjet receiver coating is free from any water absorbing substance” is indefinite for the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1. In particular, it is not clear how the inkjet receiver coating can be free from any water absorbing substance when the materials used for the flocculating agent are all water absorbing substances. Similar to claim 1, for the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation requiring that the inkjet receiver coating is “free from any water absorbing substance” is interpreted to mean that the coating is free from the materials listed in paragraph [0012] of the instant specification, i.e., silicates, aluminum silicates, talc, clays, calcined clays, kaolin, and silica. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 2, 4-8, and 10-20, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,963 (hereinafter “US ‘963”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claims 1 and 11 of the instant invention, claim 1 of US ‘963 recites a method for manufacturing a panel having a support and a top layer, the top layer having a printed motif and a wear layer disposed above the printed motif, the top layer having an inkjet receiving layer (inkjet receiver coating) that includes less than 10% by weight of water absorbing substances. The method comprises providing a printing substrate (printable substrate), providing the printing substrate with the inkjet receiving layer, and digital inkjet printing the motif with a set of water-based inks.
Claims 4 and 5 of US ‘963 further recite that the inkjet receiving layer comprises between 30 and 80% of multivalent metal salt, which corresponds to the claimed flocculating agent, as evidenced by paragraph [0020] of the as-filed specification. Claim 5 of US ‘963 therefore recites a range of the flocculating agent relative to the inkjet receiving layer which overlaps the claimed range of 20 to 60%. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3 of the instant invention, claims 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1, and claim 1 further recites that the binding agent of the water-based ink is vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer or polymer latexes, ether acrylates or urethane dispersion or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant invention, claims 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1, and claim 1 further recites that the binding agent of the water-based ink shows a minimum film forming temperature (MFFT) below 60°C.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant invention, claims 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1, and claim 11 further recites that the digital inkjet printing is performed at a temperature above room temperature.
Regarding claims 6 and 7 of the instant invention, claims 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1, and claim 1 further recites that the digital inkjet printing includes one or more printing operations each dedicated to print one color, thus indicating the presence of a plurality of print heads each configured to print a single color. Claim 1 further recites that the method comprises one or more ink drying steps, wherein each of the ink drying steps is performed after performing the one or more respective printing operations.
Regarding claims 8 and 20 of the instant invention, claims 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1, and claim 10 further recites that the printed motif is printed on a thermoplastic foil that is subsequently attached to the support, wherein the thermoplastic foil corresponds to the claimed printable substrate.
Regarding claim 9 of the instant invention, claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 8, and claim 3 further recites that the inkjet receiving layer is free from water absorbing substances.
Regarding claims 12-14 of the instant invention, claim 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1, and claims 6-8 further recite that the method comprises providing an adhesion layer (first adhesion layer) between the printed motif and the wear layer, wherein the inkjet receiving layer and the adhesion layer can each comprise a water-based dispersion of terpolymer with vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate, and ethylene; a water-based dispersion of copolymer with vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate; a water-based aliphatic polyurethane (PU) dispersion; a water-based acrylic dispersion; a water-based styrene dispersion; or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant invention, claim 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 11. Given that claim 1 of US ‘963 recites that the wear layer is disposed above the printed motif, it is understood that the wear layer must be applied above the printed motif after printing.
Regarding claim 19 of the instant invention, claim 1, 4, and 5 of US ‘963 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1, and claim 9 further recites that the printed motif is printed directly on the support of the panel.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Mondt (US 2018/0170083, previously cited) in view of Clement et al. (EP 3415337, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 20, De Mondt teaches a method for manufacturing polymeric decorative panels including a step of inkjet printing an image (motif) on a first thermoplastic foil (12; printable substrate) using an aqueous pigmented inkjet ink ([0031], Fig. 2). The decorative panel (22) includes a base layer (35) laminated on the top side by a decorative layer (34) and a protective layer (33), wherein the decorative layer is formed by the inkjet printed image on the first thermoplastic foil ([0019], [0037], [0050], Fig. 3). The decorative layer and protective layer can be taken together to correspond to the claimed top layer.
Although De Mondt teaches that inkjet inks generally have a relatively low viscosity which can cause image quality problems when printing on a thermoplastic foil made of PVC, wherein the thermoplastic foil is preferably selected from PVC, PE, PP, PU, PET, or the like ([0008], [0033]), the reference does not expressly teach that the first thermoplastic foil is provided with an inkjet receiver coating as claimed.
Clement et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a paper or thermoplastic foil printable with an inkjet printer for use as a décor foil in a laminated panel (Abstract, Figs. 1-6). Clement et al. teaches that the printable thermoplastic foil may be provided with an inkjet receiver coating comprising an ink reactive compound in order to enhance the printing quality by preventing bleeding or smearing of the ink [0013]. Similar to De Mondt, Clement et al. teaches that the thermoplastic foil treated with the inkjet receiver coating may be a PVC foil, PP foil, PE foil, PET foil, or TPU foil [0065].
Clement et al. teaches that the inkjet receiver coating preferably has a pigment to binder ratio between 0/1 or 0.01/1 and 25/1, wherein the pigments are said to absorb the vehicle of the ink ([0013], [0039], [0068]). In particular, Clement et al. teaches that the inkjet receiver coating may be applied in two partial steps, i.e., as a first layer and a second layer which differ in that they may have a different pigment to binder ratio [0037]. The pigment to binder ratio in the second composition used to form the second layer (inkjet receiver coating) may be 0:1 to 2:1, where the second layer preferably may be free from pigments, in order to obtain a low dust release and to level out unevenness in the first layer ([0038]-[0039]). Examples of the pigment include silica particles, aluminosilicates, talc, clay, kaolin, and the like ([0022]-[0023], [0047]), such that the second layer of the inkjet receiver coating has a content of an absorbing substance which overlaps the claimed range of below 10 wt% and may be free of any water absorbing substance encompassed by the interpretation set forth in the indefiniteness rejections above.
Clement et al. also teaches that the inkjet receiver coating further comprises an ink reactive compound, such as a cationic metal salt chosen from the list consisting of: CaCl2, MgCl2, CaBr2, MgBr2, CMA (Calcium Magnesium Acetate), NH4Cl, Calcium Acetate, ZrCl4, calcium nitrate, and Magnesium Acetate, or a flocculating agent chosen from the list consisting of: sodium aluminate, a double sulphate salt such as alum, polyaluminum chloride, polyacrylate, dicyandiamide (e.g. Floquat DI5 from SNF) and polyacrylamide ([0013], [0018]-[0019]). Clement et al. teaches that the second layer has a higher amount of the ink reactive compound than the first layer, leading to an effective interaction with the pigments of the jetted ink drops, thereby improving the print quality and color density of an ink printed thereon ([0013], [0044]). Clement et al. teaches that the first and second layers may each be applied at 12 g/m2, and that the ink reactive compound may be applied at 0.2 to 10 g/m2, preferably between 0.5 and 5 g/m2 dry coating weight in the inkjet receiver coating ([0020], [0133]). Clement et al. therefore teaches that the second layer of the inkjet receiver coating is provided with an amount of the ink reactive compound (flocculating agent) which overlaps the claimed range of 20 to 60% based on the dry coating weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for manufacturing decorative panels taught by De Mondt by applying an inkjet receiver coating free of water absorbing substances and having an amount of flocculating agent within the claimed range to the first thermoplastic foil, as taught by Clement et al., in order to improve the print quality and color density of the ink printed on the thermoplastic foil and to provide a level surface on which the ink is printed.
Regarding claim 2, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and De Mondt further teaches that the decorative PVC roll including the first thermoplastic foil (printable substrate) and the base layer (support) are heat-pressed into a single unit and cut into decorative panels ([0018], [0153], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and De Mondt further teaches that the aqueous pigmented inkjet inks contain polymeric resin particles (i.e., latex particles), in particular, polyurethane based particles or (meth)acrylate based resin particles (acrylate dispersion or urethane dispersion) that are dispersed in an aqueous medium ([0072], [0074], [0094]). De Mondt teaches that the minimum film forming temperature (MFT) of the polymer latex is preferably between -40 and 50°C [0106].
Regarding claim 5, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and De Mondt further teaches that a pre-heating device may be included in the inkjet printing device for heating the substrate prior to jetting ([0125]), such that the inkjet printing is performed at an elevated temperature (above the external environment temperature).
Regarding claim 6, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and De Mondt further teaches that the inkjet printer contains a thermal curing device for removing water and organic solvents from the inkjet printed image ([0123], claim 16).
Regarding claim 7, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above, and De Mondt further teaches that the aqueous pigmented inkjet inks may be jetted by one or more print heads ejecting small droplets of ink through nozzles ([0120]-[0122]), indicating that the inkjet printing device may include a plurality of printing heads. De Mondt further teaches that the inkjet printer contains a thermal curing device (drying unit) for removing water and organic solvents from the inkjet printed image, wherein the thermal curing device may be in the form of NIR LEDs mounted on a system of a plurality of inkjet print heads so that the radiation is applied very shortly after jetting ([0123]-[0124], [0126]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 10, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Although De Mondt teaches that a pre-heating device may be included in the inkjet printing device for heating the substrate (thermoplastic foil) prior to jetting, wherein the pre-heating device may be an infrared radiation source or a heat conduction device, such as a hot plate or heated drum (heated support) ([0125]), the reference does not specifically teach that the substrate is placed on the hot plate or heated drum during inkjet printing.
De Mondt does, however, further teaches that the thermal curing device is included in the inkjet printer for removing water and organic solvents from the inkjet printed image [0123]. Given that De Mondt teaches that the thermal curing (i.e., heat and/or radiation) can be applied prior to jetting and very shortly after jetting ([0125], [0127]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the thermoplastic foil on the heated support at any point (i.e., before, during, or after) relative to the inkjet printing step for the purpose of removing water and organic solvents from the inkjet printed image.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and De Mondt further teaches that the method of manufacturing the decorative panel includes a step of applying a second thermoplastic foil on the printed image, wherein the second thermoplastic foil is a transparent foil and forms the protective layer (33; wear layer) of the panel ([0031], [0037], Fig. 3). De Mondt teaches that the second thermoplastic foil is applied above the image (motif) after printing ([0031], Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and De Mondt further teaches that a primer (first adhesion layer) can be applied for enhancement of the adhesion between the first and second thermoplastic foils, wherein the primer may be a vinyl chloride vinyl acetate (VC-VAC) copolymer ([0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 13, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. As noted above, De Mondt teaches that the primer (first adhesion layer) may be a vinyl chloride vinyl acetate (VC-VAC) copolymer ([0040]-[0041]). Clement et al. also teaches that the inkjet receiver coating can include VCVAC derivatives as a binder [0025].
Regarding claims 16-18, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above, and De Mondt further teaches that the top surface of the decorative panel, i.e., at least the protective layer (33; wear layer) is preferably provided with a relief formed by pressing a digital embossing plate against the second thermoplastic foil during heat-pressing (during thermal lamination of the printable substrate onto the support) ([0059]-[0060], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, De Mondt in view of Clement et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above with respect to claim 1, De Mondt et al. teaches that the decorative layer is formed by the inkjet printed image on the first thermoplastic foil ([0037], [0050]), wherein the first thermoplastic foil having the inkjet receiver coating applied thereon can be taken to correspond to the claimed support of the panel.
Response to Arguments
Response-Priority
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to paragraphs [0028], [0043], [0059], and [0068] of the instant specification and claim 3 removing or replacing the phrase “ether acrylates” with --either acrylates--, the continuation priority claim is considered to be proper. The amendments to the specification and claims are reasonably supported by the original specification and claims in the parent application (18/247,211).
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 4, 13, and 14 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed June 26, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 6, 13, 14, and 19 in the response filed June 26, 2026.
However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new issues are presented under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to claims 1 and 3.
Response-Double Patenting
Applicant's arguments, see page 14 of the remarks filed June 26, 2026, with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the claims of the ‘963 patent do not mention any flocculating agent, much less in the specific amount defined by claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous double patenting rejections have been modified to address this new limitation. In particular, as explained above, claims 4 and 5 of the ‘963 patent set forth that the inkjet receiving layer comprises between 30 and 80% of a multivalent metal salt. The multivalent metal salt recited in the patented claims corresponds to the claimed flocculating agent, as evidenced by paragraph [0020] of the as-filed specification.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
In light of the amendments to claim 1 requiring that the inkjet receiver coating is provided with 20 to 60% of flocculating agent based on dry coating weight, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Suzuki et al. have been withdrawn, as Suzuki et al. fails to disclose a flocculating agent in the ink-receiving layer.
However, with respect to the obviousness rejection based on De Mondt et al. in view of Clement et al., as explained in the prior art rejections above, Clement et al. expressly teaches the use of an ink reactive compound, such as a flocculating agent, being included in the inkjet receiver coating for the purpose of capturing the ink and immobilizing the pigment in the ink on the printed surface, thereby improving the print quality and color density ([0013], [0019]). Clement et al. teaches various exemplary materials for the ink reactive compound including metal salts and flocculating polymers ([0018]-[0019]), which are identical to the materials used in the instant invention as flocculating agents. The Applicant’s argument that neither of the applied references teaches a flocculating agent in an inkjet receiver coating is therefore not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights