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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 6, 2025 and May 17, 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 9, ln. 4 of the specification recites, “…any value of flocking intensity can be correlates to a reproducible adhesive printing value…(emphasis added).” The emphasized section includes a grammatical error.
Pg. 12, ln. 11 of the specification includes a symbol that produces a processing error. An image of the error is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
51
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites, “The process of claim 1 further comprising digitally printing a colored ink composition prior subsequent to any one of said digitally printing a first adhesive composition (emphasis added).” The emphasized section appears to contain a grammatical error or otherwise appears to be missing a word.
Claim 6 recites, “curing said flocked image using given curing conditions method to thereby obtain a flocked greyscale image (emphasis added).” An example correction is provided herein: “curing said flocked image using a given curing conditions method to thereby obtain a flocked greyscale image.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites, “The image of claim 9, comprising a range of flock intensities and/or a range of flock quantity.” Claim 9 recites, “An image comprising regions, characterized by more than one flock intensity.” The recitation of “a range of flock intensities” in claim 10 is functionally equivalent to the recitation of “more than one flock intensity” in claim 9, because an image comprising more than one flock intensity includes, definitionally, a range of flock intensities. Further, claim 10 recites “and/or a range of flock quantity,” thus expanding and rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohnishi (US 2016/0280002 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ohnishi teaches an image comprising regions characterized by more than one flock intensity (fig. 1, printed matter 1, medium 2, powdery decorative body 3, layer of ink 4, ¶[0022]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Ohnishi teaches the image of claim 9, further comprising a range of flock intensities and/or a range of flock quantity (fig. 1, printed matter 1, medium 2, powdery decorative body 3, layer of ink 4, ¶[0022]-[0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are hereby allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the process of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, digitally printing a first adhesive composition directly on a surface of a substrate at a range of DPI values according to a first set of raster image processor (RIP) commands, and curing the image.
Regarding independent claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, forming a pattern using a given adhesive composition on a given substrate by a given printing machine, said pattern is afforded by digitally printing said adhesive composition in a gradient of original DPI values ranging from no surface coverage to maximal surface coverage, curing said flocked image using given curing conditions method to thereby obtain a flocked greyscale image, and measuring a flock intensity of said flocked greyscale image at a plurality of positions along said greyscale, thereby obtaining the linearization curve that correlates a DPI value on a range of DPI values to a flock intensity value on a range of flock intensity values.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the image of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, comprising digitally printing a first adhesive composition directly on a surface of a substrate at a range of DPI values according to a first set of raster image processor (RIP) commands, and curing the image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kruehler (DE 102007035406 B3) teaches a method of producing flocked regions on a web substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM EST.
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 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853