DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 7/17/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 10/2/19, 4/14/20, 8/21 /20, 2/2/21, 4/16/21,
6/24/21, 12/15/21, 6/22/22, 12/6/22, 5/24/23, 8/24/23, 1/31/24, 6/21/24, 1/23/25, 6/2/25, 12/2/25 and 4/17/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-17, 19, 22-23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As for claim 1, it has been amended to include the limitation of “at a point of impact of the mechanical force on the back surface of the web”. However, there is insufficient support in the specification for this amendment.
Examiner notes that Applicant cited paragraphs 53 and 56 as supporting this amendment. Those paragraphs are provided below for convenience:
[0053] A mechanical force was applied to the multi-layer thin film 20 to release it from the web 40. The mechanical force included cracking of the multi-layer thin film 20 by applying tension to the web 40 with the assistance of a sharp knife in contact with the back of the web 40. The knife did not directly contact the multi-layer thin film 20 to avoid damage to the multi-layer thin film 20. The multi-layer thin film 20 coated on the web 40 was then exposed to a high flow/high velocity air flow to blow off the cracked coating. The application of the knife (cracking) and the application of the air were performed almost simultaneously. In this manner, the multi-layer thin film 20 was released from the web 40 and formed into thin film devices, such as flakes. The flakes were collected into a cyclone by an appropriate air-flow venting system. The flakes, i.e., the released multi-layer thin film 20, were ground using a jet mill grinding technology.
[0056] From the foregoing description, those skilled in the art can appreciate that the present teachings can be implemented in a variety of forms. Therefore, while these teachings have been described in connection with particular embodiments and examples thereof, the true scope of the present teachings should not be so limited. Various changes and modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the teachings herein.
Examiner notes that there is no recitation of an impact upon the back of the substrate as required by the claim. The language used “with the assistance of a sharp knife in contact with the back of the web 40”. There is no language about the knife moving or striking the back surface.
Further, Examiner notes that the only use of impact within the specification is in paragraph 23, repeated here:
[0023] In an aspect, the release layer 30 can be a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) formulation. This formulation is nontoxic, clear, and inert. It is a water soluble polymer with excellent film-forming properties. A coating of PVA has a low adhesion to surfaces of hydrophobic polymers, such as polyethylene phthalate (PET), and is insoluble in most organic solvents. When one or multiple solvent-borne layers are coated onto a PVA layer pre-coated on a hydrophobic polymer sheet (web), the PVA layer not only remains intact during the coating process but also enables the layers to be conveniently separated from the polymer sheet (web) by the application of a mechanical force, such as an impact from a compressed air or water stream. In this manner, the PVA layer can function as a release layer 30. (emphasis added).
Examiner notes that the impact here is on the top surface of the web where the coating is using compressed air or water stream. Again, there is no mention of a knife being used to impact the surface.
As such, there is no support for the amended language.
As for claims 2-3, 13-14, and 22, they depend upon the independent claim 1 and therefore contain all the limitations therefore. They are similarly rejected.
As for claim 4, it has been amended to include the limitation of “at a point of impact of the mechanical force on the back surface of the web”. However, there is insufficient support in the specification for this amendment.
Examiner notes that Applicant cited paragraphs 53 and 56 as supporting this amendment. Those paragraphs are provided below for convenience:
[0053] A mechanical force was applied to the multi-layer thin film 20 to release it from the web 40. The mechanical force included cracking of the multi-layer thin film 20 by applying tension to the web 40 with the assistance of a sharp knife in contact with the back of the web 40. The knife did not directly contact the multi-layer thin film 20 to avoid damage to the multi-layer thin film 20. The multi-layer thin film 20 coated on the web 40 was then exposed to a high flow/high velocity air flow to blow off the cracked coating. The application of the knife (cracking) and the application of the air were performed almost simultaneously. In this manner, the multi-layer thin film 20 was released from the web 40 and formed into thin film devices, such as flakes. The flakes were collected into a cyclone by an appropriate air-flow venting system. The flakes, i.e., the released multi-layer thin film 20, were ground using a jet mill grinding technology.
[0056] From the foregoing description, those skilled in the art can appreciate that the present teachings can be implemented in a variety of forms. Therefore, while these teachings have been described in connection with particular embodiments and examples thereof, the true scope of the present teachings should not be so limited. Various changes and modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the teachings herein.
Examiner notes that there is no recitation of an impact upon the back of the substrate as required by the claim. The language used “with the assistance of a sharp knife in contact with the back of the web 40”. There is no language about the knife moving or striking the back surface.
Further, Examiner notes that the only use of impact within the specification is in paragraph 23, repeated here:
[0023] In an aspect, the release layer 30 can be a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) formulation. This formulation is nontoxic, clear, and inert. It is a water soluble polymer with excellent film-forming properties. A coating of PVA has a low adhesion to surfaces of hydrophobic polymers, such as polyethylene phthalate (PET), and is insoluble in most organic solvents. When one or multiple solvent-borne layers are coated onto a PVA layer pre-coated on a hydrophobic polymer sheet (web), the PVA layer not only remains intact during the coating process but also enables the layers to be conveniently separated from the polymer sheet (web) by the application of a mechanical force, such as an impact from a compressed air or water stream. In this manner, the PVA layer can function as a release layer 30. (emphasis added).
Examiner notes that the impact here is on the top surface of the web where the coating is using compressed air or water stream. Again, there is no mention of a knife being used to impact the surface.
As such, there is no support for the amended language.
As for claims 5-7, 9, 11, and 15-17, they depend upon the independent claim 4 and therefore contain all the limitations therefore. They are similarly rejected.
As for claim 23, it has been amended to include the limitation of “at a point of impact of the mechanical force on the back surface of the web”. However, there is insufficient support in the specification for this amendment.
Examiner notes that Applicant cited paragraphs 53 and 56 as supporting this amendment. Those paragraphs are provided below for convenience:
[0053] A mechanical force was applied to the multi-layer thin film 20 to release it from the web 40. The mechanical force included cracking of the multi-layer thin film 20 by applying tension to the web 40 with the assistance of a sharp knife in contact with the back of the web 40. The knife did not directly contact the multi-layer thin film 20 to avoid damage to the multi-layer thin film 20. The multi-layer thin film 20 coated on the web 40 was then exposed to a high flow/high velocity air flow to blow off the cracked coating. The application of the knife (cracking) and the application of the air were performed almost simultaneously. In this manner, the multi-layer thin film 20 was released from the web 40 and formed into thin film devices, such as flakes. The flakes were collected into a cyclone by an appropriate air-flow venting system. The flakes, i.e., the released multi-layer thin film 20, were ground using a jet mill grinding technology.
[0056] From the foregoing description, those skilled in the art can appreciate that the present teachings can be implemented in a variety of forms. Therefore, while these teachings have been described in connection with particular embodiments and examples thereof, the true scope of the present teachings should not be so limited. Various changes and modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the teachings herein.
Examiner notes that there is no recitation of an impact upon the back of the substrate as required by the claim. The language used “with the assistance of a sharp knife in contact with the back of the web 40”. There is no language about the knife moving or striking the back surface.
Further, Examiner notes that the only use of impact within the specification is in paragraph 23, repeated here:
[0023] In an aspect, the release layer 30 can be a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) formulation. This formulation is nontoxic, clear, and inert. It is a water soluble polymer with excellent film-forming properties. A coating of PVA has a low adhesion to surfaces of hydrophobic polymers, such as polyethylene phthalate (PET), and is insoluble in most organic solvents. When one or multiple solvent-borne layers are coated onto a PVA layer pre-coated on a hydrophobic polymer sheet (web), the PVA layer not only remains intact during the coating process but also enables the layers to be conveniently separated from the polymer sheet (web) by the application of a mechanical force, such as an impact from a compressed air or water stream. In this manner, the PVA layer can function as a release layer 30. (emphasis added).
Examiner notes that the impact here is on the top surface of the web where the coating is using compressed air or water stream. Again, there is no mention of a knife being used to impact the surface.
As such, there is no support for the amended language.
As for claims 19, and 25-26, they depend upon the independent claim 23 and therefore contain all the limitations therefore. They are similarly rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wheeler US PG Pub 200910145332 hereinafter WHEELER in view of Donohue et al. US PGPub 2013/0068410 hereinafter DONOHUE and Wang et al. US PGPub 2014/0079922 hereinafter WANG on claims 1, 2, 22, 23, 25 and 26 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 and 23 have been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wheeler US PG Pub 200910145332 hereinafter WHEELER, Donohue et al. US PGPub 201310068410 hereinafter DONOHUE and Wang et al. US PGPub 201410079922 hereinafter WANG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seto et al. WO 02/073250A2 hereinafter SETO on claim 3 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Claim(s) 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler US PG Pub 200910145332 hereinafter WHEELER, Donohue et al. US PGPub 2013/0068410 hereinafter DONOHUE and Wang et al. US PGPub 2014/0079922 hereinafter WANG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Josephy et al. US Patent Number 6,398,999 hereinafter JOSEPHY on claim 13 and 14 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wheeler US PG Pub 200910145332 hereinafter WHEELER in view of Donohue et al. US PGPub 2013/0068410 hereinafter DONOHUE, Wang et al. US PGPub 2014/0079922 hereinafter WANG, and Josephy et al. US Patent Number 6,398,999 hereinafter JOSEPHY on claims 4-5, 6-7, 9, 11, 15 and 17 are withdrawn because the independent claim 4 has been amended.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wheeler US PG Pub 200910145332 hereinafter WHEELER, Donohue et al. US PGPub 201310068410 hereinafter DONOHUE, Wang et al. US PGPub 2014/0079922 hereinafter WANG, and Josephy et al. US Patent Number 6,398,999 hereinafter JOSEPHY as applied to claim 4 and 6 above, and further in view of Kawamoto et al. US Patent Number 7,438,245 hereinafter KAWAMOTO on claim 16 is withdrawn because the independent claim 4 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11, 13-17, 19, 22-23 and 25-26 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights