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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 9/16/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 11, 15 and 26 are withdrawn and claims 1-26 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al (US 2007/0270309 A1) in view of Matsubara et al (US 2002/0004111 A1) in further view of Watanabe et al (US 2006/0007765 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Iida discloses a heat-sensitive recording material comprising a heat-sensitive recording layer (paragraph [0062]) and an undercoat layer (undercoat layer is disposed between support and heat-sensitive recording layer; paragraph [0092]) on a support (paragraph [0062]) in this order,
wherein: the undercoat layer contains hollow particles (paragraph [0096]);
the heat-sensitive recording layer contains a leuco dye and a color developer (the heat-sensitive recording layer comprises a leuco dye and a developer; paragraph [0062]); and
the heat-sensitive recording material has a characteristic selected from characteristic A where the undercoat layer further contains an adhesive (styrene-butadiene copolymer latex; paragraph [0101]);
Iida does not disclose the heat-sensitive recording material comprising a maximum particle size of the hollow particles being from 15 µm to 30 µm.
However, Matsubara discloses hollow glass microspheres having a maximum particle size of at most 30 µm (paragraph [0016]).
The range of at most 30 µm for the maximum particle size of the hollow glass microspheres overlaps the claimed range for the maximum particle size of the hollow particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide a smooth surface and prevent degradation of outer appearance of a layer having the hollow glass microspheres (paragraph [0017] of Matsubara). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat-sensitive recording material of Iida to include the maximum particle size of at most 30 µm for the hollow glass microspheres of Matsubara for the hollow particles of Iida because doing so would provide a smooth surface and prevent degradation of outer appearance of a layer having the hollow glass microspheres (paragraph [0017] of Matsubara).
Iida does not disclose the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the undercoat layer comprising a water retention agent, wherein the water retention agent is carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and the content of the water retention agent is 0.3 mass% to 2 mass% with respect to the total solids content of the undercoat layer
However, Watanabe discloses a heat-sensitive recording material (thermally sensitive recording material; paragraph [0008]) comprising the undercoat layer comprising a water retention agent (undercoating layer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose and carboxymethylcellulose has sufficient water-holding ability; paragraphs [0010] and [0014]), wherein the water retention agent is carboxymethyl cellulose (carboxymethyl cellulose has sufficient water-holding ability; paragraphs [0010] and [0014]), and the content of the water retention agent is 0.3 mass% to 2 mass% with respect to the total solids content of the undercoat layer (carboxymethyl cellulose is 0.3 weight parts to 2 weight parts to 100 weight parts of pigment; paragraphs [0010] and [0014]).
The combination of styrene-butadiene copolymer latex in Iida, hollow glass microspheres in Matsubara having a maximum particle size of at most 30 µm and carboxymethyl cellulose of Watanabe reads on the claimed characteristic (A) of the heat-sensitive recording material as recited in claims 1-2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat-sensitive recording material of Iida to include the carboxymethyl cellulose of Watanabe in the undercoat layer of Iida because doing so would provide sufficient water-holding ability (paragraph [0014] of Watanabe)
Regarding claim 3, Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 2 as noted above and Iida discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the adhesive in the undercoat layer being a water-dispersible adhesive formed of a water-insoluble resin (binder comprising styrene-butadiene copolymer latex; paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 4, Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 3 as noted above and Iida discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the water-insoluble resin being styrene-butadiene copolymer (binder comprising styrene-butadiene copolymer latex; paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 9, Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 2 as noted above and Iida discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the hollow organic particles having a void ratio from about 50% to about 99% (paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 10, Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 2 as noted above and Iida discloses the heat-sensitive recording material and Iida discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the hollow organic particles having an amount from about 5 to about 70 mass% based on total solids of the undercoat layer (paragraph [0097]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al (US 2007/0270309 A1) in view of Matsubara et al (US 2002/0004111 A1) in further view of Watanabe et al (US 2006/0007765 A1) in further view of Kajikawa et al (US 2007/0225164 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 4 as noted above.
Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe do disclose the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the styrene-butadiene copolymer latex having a glass transition temperature of 10 °C or lower.
However, Kajikawa discloses the heat-sensitive recording material (thermosensitive recording material; paragraph [0002]) comprising the styrene-butadiene copolymer having a glass transition temperature of -10 °C to 10 °C (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat-sensitive recording material of Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe to include the Tg of the styrene-butadiene copolymer of Kajikawa for the styrene-butadiene copolymer latex of Iida because having the required Tg provides the desired binding or adhesion of components for the intermediate or undercoat layer.
Regarding claim 6, Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 4 as noted above.
Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe does not disclose the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the styrene-butadiene copolymer latex having an average particle size from 150 nm to 300 nm.
However, Kajikawa discloses the heat-sensitive recording material (thermosensitive recording material; paragraph [0002]) comprising the styrene-butadiene copolymer having an average particle diameter of 175 nm (paragraph [0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat-sensitive recording material of Iida, Matsubara and Watanabe to include the average particle size of the styrene-butadiene copolymer of Kajikawa for the styrene-butadiene latex of Iida because having the required average particle size provides the desired binding or adhesion of components for the intermediate or undercoat layer while providing a smooth texture for the undercoat layer.
Claims 1 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (JP 2008-229930 A1) in view of Mito et al (US 2007/0111888 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Fukushima et al (JP 2008-229930 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Fukushima discloses a heat-sensitive recording material comprising a heat-sensitive recording layer (heat-sensitive color-developing layer; pg. 3 of Fukushima translation) and an undercoat layer (pg. 3 of Fukushima translation) on a support (pg. 3 of Fukushima translation) in this order,
wherein: the undercoat layer contains hollow particles (pg. 3 of Fukushima translation);
the heat-sensitive recording layer contains a leuco dye and a color developer (pg. 5 of Fukushima translation);
and the heat-sensitive recording material has a characteristic selected from characteristic (C) where the undercoat layer further contains an adhesive (styrene-butadiene copolymer latex; pg. 4 of Fukushima translation) and starch (pg. 4 of Fukushima translation), the hollow particles include at least two groups of hollow particles including large particle size hollow particles and small particle size hollow particles (the hollow particles comprises hollow particles A having an average particle diameter of 1 µm or less and hollow particles B having an average particle diameter of 2 µm to 10 µm; pg. 3 of Fukushima translation), a maximum particle size of the large particle size hollow particles is 10 µm to 80 µm (hollow particles having a particle diameter of 10 µm or less; pg. 3 of Fukushima translation), an average particle size of the large particle size hollow particles is 11 µm to 25 µm (hollow particles B having an average particle diameter of 2 µm to 10 µm; pg. 3 of Fukushima translation), and an average particle size of the small particle size hollow particles is 1.5 µm to 6 µm (the hollow particles comprises hollow particles A having an average particle diameter of 1 µm or less; pg. 3 of Fukushima translation), and
wherein the hollow particles have a particle diameter of 10 µm or less (pg. 3 of Fukushima translation).
The hollow particles having a particle diameter of 10 µm or less overlap the claimed ranges for the maximum particle size of the large particle size hollow particles being 10 µm to 80 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have high sensitivity for the undercoat layer and prevent streaks and scratches during blade coating (pg. 3 of translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The endpoint of 10 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles B is sufficiently close to the endpoint of 11 µm for the average particle diameter of the large particle size hollow particles that it would meet it.
The only deficiency of Fukushima is that Fukushima disclose the endpoint of 10 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles B, while the present claims require 11 µm for the average particle diameter of the large particle size hollow particles
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of 11 µm for the average particle diameter of the large particle size hollow particles and that taught by Fukushima are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of 10 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles B disclosed by Fukushima and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of 11 µm for the average particle diameter of the large particle size hollow particles, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of 11 µm for the average particle diameter of the large particle size hollow particles disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Fukushima, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
The endpoint of 1 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles A is sufficiently close to the endpoint of 1.5 µm for the average particle diameter of small particle size hollow particles that it would meet it.
The only deficiency of Fukushima is that Fukushima disclose the endpoint of 1 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles A, while the present claims require 1.5 µm for the average particle diameter of small particle size hollow particles.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of 1.5 µm for the average particle diameter of the small particle size hollow particles and that taught by Fukushima are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of 1 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles A disclosed by Fukushima and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of 1.5 µm for the average particle diameter of the small particle size hollow particles, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of 1.5 µm for the average particle diameter of the small particle size hollow particles disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Fukushima, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Fukushima does not disclose the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the undercoat layer comprising carboxymethyl cellulose.
However, Mito discloses a heat-sensitive recording material comprising the undercoat layer comprising a binder comprising starch and carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0061])
The combination of styrene-butadiene copolymer latex, the hollow particles having a particle diameter of 10 µm or less, the hollow particles B having an average particle diameter of 2 µm to 10 µm and the hollow particles A having an average particle diameter of 1 µm or less in Fukushima and carboxymethyl cellulose of Mito reads on the claimed characteristic (C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat-sensitive recording material of Fukushima to include the carboxymethyl cellulose of Mito for the starch in the undercoat layer of Fukushima because doing so would provide the desired binding of components in the undercoat layer.
Regarding claim 17, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the hollow particles comprising hollow particles A having an average particle diameter of 1 µm or less (pg. 3 of Fukushima translation) and hollow particles B having an average particle diameter of 2 µm to 10 µm (pg. 3 of Fukushima translation).
The hollow particles B having an average particle diameter of 2 µm to 10 µm and the hollow particles A having an average particle diameter of 1 µm or less overlap the claimed ranges for the maximum particle size of the large particle size hollow particles being 10 µm to 50 µm and the average particle size of the small particle size hollow particles being 11 µm to 15 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have high sensitivity for the undercoat layer (pg. 3 of translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the undercoat layer comprises styrene-butadiene copolymer latex (pg. 4 of translation), the hollow particles having a particle diameter of 10 µm or less (pg. 3 of translation) and wherein the hollow particles comprises hollow particles A having an average particle diameter of 1 µm or less (pg. 3 of translation) and hollow particles B having an average particle diameter of 2 µm to 10 µm (pg. 3 of translation).
The ratio of D100/D50 for the hollow particles B is 1 (10 µm/10 µm) to 5 (10 µm/2 µm). This ratio overlaps the claimed range for D100/D50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have high sensitivity for the undercoat layer and prevent streaks and scratches during blade coating (pg. 3 of translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising hollow particles B having a hollow ratio of 80% or more and hollow particles A having a hollow ratio of 80% or less (pg. 3 of translation).
Regarding claim 20, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising 15 parts by weight of hollow particles B based on the total weight of the undercoat layer (pg. 7 of translation).
The hollow particles B read on the claimed large particle size hollow particles. The total solid weight of the undercoat layer is 41 parts by weight (100 total parts - 59 parts water). The content of hollow particles B based on the total weight of the undercoat layer is 36.59% by weight [(15 parts/41 solid parts) x 100%].
Regarding claim 21, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the coating amount of the undercoat layer being 3.0 g/m2 (pg. 8 of translation).
Regarding claim 22, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising 15 parts by weight of hollow particles A and 15 parts by weight of hollow particles B (pg. 7 of translation).
The ratio of hollow particles A to hollow particles B is 1:1. This reads on the claimed ratio of small particle size hollow particles to large particle size hollow particles.
Regarding claim 23, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the hollow particles having a particle diameter of 10 µm or less (pg. 3 of translation).
The hollow particles having a particle diameter of 10 µm or less overlaps the claimed range for the maximum particle size of the small particle size hollow particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to prevent streaks and scratches during blade coating (pg. 3 of translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 24, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 16 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the undercoat layer comprises styrene-butadiene copolymer latex (adhesive; pg. 4 of translation).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (JP 2008-229930 A1) in view of Mito et al (US 2007/0111888 A1) in further view of Kajikawa et al (US 2007/0225164 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Fukushima et al (JP 2008-229930 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Fukushima and Mito disclose the heat-sensitive recording material of claim 24 as noted above and Fukushima discloses the heat-sensitive recording material comprising the undercoat layer comprising styrene-butadiene copolymer latex (pg. 4 of translation).
Fukushima does not disclose the heat-sensitive recording material comprising a glass transition temperature of the styrene-butadiene latex.
However, Kajikawa discloses a thermosensitive recording material comprising the intermediate layer comprising styrene-butadiene copolymer having a glass transition temperature of -10 °C to 10 °C (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Fukushima, Mito and Kajikawa before him or her, to modify the heat-sensitive recording material of Fukushima to include the Tg of the styrene-butadiene copolymer of Kajikawa for the styrene-butadiene latex of Fukushima because having the required Tg provides the desired binding or adhesion of components for the intermediate or undercoat layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicants argue that the binders taught by Iida and Mito are outside the claimed content of the water retention agent of 0.3 mass% to 2 mass% with respect to the total solids content of the undercoat layer.
This argument is moot as Iida and Mito do not disclose the claimed content of the water retention agent being 0.3 mass% to 2 mass% with respect to the total solids content of the undercoat layer and therefore the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the average particle size of the large particle size hollow particles is 11 µm to 25 µm, and the average particle size of the small particle size hollow particles is 1.5 µm to 6 µm, which excludes the ranges taught by Fukushima.
This argument is not persuasive as the endpoint of 10 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles B is sufficiently close to the endpoint of 11 µm for the average particle diameter of the large particle size hollow particles that it would meet it and the endpoint of 1 µm for the average particle diameter of hollow particles A is sufficiently close to the endpoint of 1.5 µm for the average particle diameter of small particle size hollow particles that it would meet it.
Applicants argue that Matsubara and Kajikawa does not cure the deficiencies of Iida and Mito.
The Examiner disagrees and notes that Matsubara and Kajikawa are teaching references used to teach maximum particle size of at most 30 µm for the hollow glass microspheres (Matsubara) and Tg of styrene-butadiene copolymer (Kajikawa).
However, note that while Matsubara and Kajikawa do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Matsubara and Kajikawa are used as teaching references, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather these references teach certain concepts, namely the hollow glass microspheres (Matsubara) and Tg of styrene-butadiene copolymer (Kajikawa), and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue that Kajikawa does not cure the deficiencies of Fukushima and Mito.
The Examiner disagrees and notes that Kajikawa is a teaching reference used to teach Tg of styrene-butadiene copolymer.
However, note that while Kajikawa does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kajikawa is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely Tg of styrene-butadiene copolymer, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 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, 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785