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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10, 13-19, 21, and 33-35 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 11th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the limitations of the claims have been amended to add new issues. New grounds of rejection have been issued.
In response to the arguments of pages 6-7 of the present Remarks, the Examiner respectfully finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the barrier layer as disclosed by Asano (US 4931420 A) is substantially impermeable to and prevents contact between the first and second reactants. Support for the barrier being substantially impermeable can be found in at least Asano column 3 lines 27-38, and column 4 lines 12-26, and column 13 lines 3-9. As taught in said columns, Asano’s barrier layer is interposed between layer 4 containing a first reactant (color developer) portion 9 containing second reactants (including ink compositions and color developing systems 7) and is comprised of a material that limits the permeability of said reactants.
The words of the claims are given their plain meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111.01(I)). In the present instance one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the barrier as taught by Asano a substantially impermeable barrier, in that its impermeable to and prevents the contact of the first and second reactants to a significant extent.
Applicant is also directed to Teffenhart’s (US 20070140068 A1) teaching of a barrier layer substantially impermeable to and preventing contact between the first and second reactants as cited in the previous office action and again below.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As cited in the previous office action and again below, the motivation to incorporate the removable barrier of Teffenhart into Asano’s device is proper would allow it to operate as indented. The removable barrier layer of Teffenhart would further prevent impromptu activation of Asano’s device, and allow the user to manually control when any microcapsules, whether they are crushed or uncrushed prior to barrier removal, are able to come into contact. As a result, the user will have a higher degree of confidence in the accuracy of the time-dependent temperature measurements (Teffenhart par.’s 3-4).
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 4931420 A). further in view of Teffenhart (US 20070140068 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Asano discloses (in at least figures 1-5, the description, and the claims)
a delayed reaction threshold temperature indicator (fig. 1 and col. 2 lines 15-34: temperature history indicator) comprising:
a first substrate (fig.’s 2-3 and col. 3 lines 15-20: substrate 3)
a first layer further comprising a first reactant, the first layer supported by the substrate (fig.’s 2-3 and col. 3 lines 27-38: layer 4 containing color developer);
a second layer further comprising a meltable polymer and a second reactant, the second layer supported by the substrate (fig.’s 2-3 and col. 3 lines 27-38: ink composition portions 6 “containing either of a dye-precursor and microcapsules enclosing a hydrophobic organic compound which melts at a predetermined temperature or microcapsules enclosing a hydrophobic organic compound which melts at a temperature and solves a dye-precursor.” See also col. 4 lines 12-26: “9 denotes a portion formed directly on the layer 4 or with the barrier 5 interposed between them and containing microcapsules. More specifically, the portion 9 contains at least the ink compositions 6, color developing systems 7 and bonding agent 8 on a same plane.” See also col. 14 line 65 – col. 15 line 11: ink compositions include polymers and materials formed via polymerization);
a barrier layer between the first layer and the second layer, the barrier layer substantially impermeable to and preventing contact between the first and second reactants (fig.’s 2-3, col. 3 lines 27-38, and col. 4 lines 12-26: barrier layer 5 interposed between layer 4 and portion 9) both before and after liquification of the meltable polymer (col. 13 lines 3-9: barrier layer inhibits the permeation and contact of the reactants both in microcapsule form before melting and in liquid form after melting.) ;
a housing secured to the substrate, the housing (fig.’s 2-3 and col. 4 lines 12-20: covering layer 11) including a viewing window (fig.’s 2-3 and col. 3 lines 35-46: “Color development or change attained when the label is composed as described above can be visibly viewed at some color developing areas denoted by A.” See also col. 3 lines 47-48: “A color developing system denoted by 7 is provided at a checking area shown by B.”);
wherein after removal of the barrier layer, exposure to a temperature at and/or above the melting point of the meltable polymer for at least a predetermined period of exposure time allows the first reactant and/or second reactant to migrate into contact with each other (col. 3 lines 28-38: microcapsules enclosing a hydrophobic organic compound melt at a predetermined temperature, broken (removed) upon activation, and solves with a dye-precursor to induce color development/change process, col. 3 lines 39-46: “color development attained when the dye precursor is contacted with the color developer”, col. 13 lines 3-9: “The barrier used for the indicator label of the present invention and made of macromolecule material is intended to control the permeation of the hydrophobic organic compound in the microcapsules and also control the lapse of time during which the color developer and dye-precursor molecule-contact each other and thus start its color development.”) the migration stopping if the meltable polymer resolidifies prior to the first and second reactant coming into contact (col. 3 lines 28-38, col. 3 lines 39-46, and col. 13 lines 3-9: hydrophobic organic compound melts at a predetermined melting point and migrates towards dye precursor to induce color development process. If the temperature said compound were to decrease below the predetermined melting point, it would resolidify and stop migration.); and
wherein the first and second reactants produce a visual change in appearance visible through the viewing window after the first and second reactants come into contact with each other (col. 3 lines 39-46: “color development attained when the dye precursor is contacted with the color developer” See also fig.’s 2-3 and col. 3 lines 35-46: “Color development or change attained when the label is composed as described above can be visibly viewed at some color developing areas denoted by A.” See also col. 3 lines 47-48: “A color developing system denoted by 7 is provided at a checking area shown by B.”).
Asano does not explicitly disclose wherein the barrier layer is removable.
Teffenhart discloses an analogous art (abstract, fig.’s 1-2: time indicator 2) comprising a barrier layer between the first layer and the second layer, the barrier layer substantially impermeable to and preventing contact between the first and second reactants both before and after liquification of a meltable polymer (fig.’s 1-2, fig 4, and par. 48: activation release sheet 20. When sheet 20 is removed by pulling on gripping tab 24 “[…] the non-curing ink or dye permeable polymer layer 18, becomes disposed over printed migrating ink or dye area 14 (see FIG. 4) activating the time indicator 2”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the barrier layer, as taught by Teffenhart, to be included in the indicator of Asano so the user is able to determine exactly when the indicator was activated thereby increasing the accuracy of the time-dependent temperature measurements (Teffenhart par.’s 3-4)
Regarding Claim 2: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses indicator of claim 1, and Asano further discloses wherein the visual change in appearance is a change in color (col. 3 lines 39-46: “The indicator label of the present invention can be judged by eyes under visible light and this judging is based on the color development attained when the dye-precursor is contacted with the color developer. The term "color development" means that tone of color changes from colorless to colored, but the color changes its density, and that tone of color changes from a color to other colors.”).
Regarding Claim 3: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 2, and Asano further discloses wherein the change in color is a darkening of the first and second layers visible through the viewing window (col. 3 lines 39-46: color development includes changes in color density, i.e. darkening, col. 3 lines 35-38: “Color development or change attained when the label is composed as described above can be visibly viewed at some color developing areas denoted by A in FIG. 1.” See also col. 15 lines 40-45, col. 15 lines 54-58, and col. 16 lines 35 -39: color development examples where the change in color is a darkening.).
Regarding Claim 4: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 1, and Asano further discloses wherein the first layer comprises a second substrate infused or impregnated with the first reactant (col. 14 lines 17-44: layer 4 infused with the same composition as substrate 3).
Regarding Claim 8: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 1, and Asano further discloses wherein the melting point of the meltable polymer is in a range from -10 0C to 50 0C (col. 8 line 30- col. 9 line 6: list of meltable polymers all of which have sharp melting points in the range of -10 0C to 50 0C as well as many with sharp melting points between -10 0C to 50 0C ).
Regarding Claim 10: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 1, and Asano further discloses wherein the predetermined period of time is in the range from 5 minutes to 60 minutes (col. 19 lines 1-9: use cases where color development began after 30 minutes).
Regarding Claim 13: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 10, and Asano further discloses wherein the exposure occurs during two or more exposures to a temperature at and/or above the melting point of the meltable polymer (col. 15 lines 36-52: indicator undergoes initial stage of color development after threshold temperature exceeded, then resolidifies after exposure to sub-zero temperatures, then undergoes second stage of color development after second exposure to temperature above threshold.).
Regarding Claim 14: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 13, and Asano further discloses wherein the meltable polymer resolidifies rapidly when exposed to a temperature below the melting point of the meltable polymer (col. 15 lines 36-52: after initial stage of color development, meltable polymer rapidly resolidifies after exposure to sub-zero temperatures).
Regarding Claim 16: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 14, and Asano further discloses wherein the resolidification of the meltable polymer inhibits migration of the first and/or second reactants through the first and/or second layers (col. 15 lines 36-52: indicator undergoes initial stage of color development after threshold temperature exceeded, then resolidifies after exposure to sub-zero temperatures, then undergoes second stage of color development after second exposure to temperature above threshold. Resolidification prevents further color development, i.e. the migration of reactants between layers.).
Regarding Claim 17: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 1, and Asano further discloses wherein the molecular weight of the meltable polymer is in the range from 5,000 Da to 30,000 Da (col. 8 line 30- col. 9 line 6: list of meltable polymers. See also col. 9 lines 7-19: combinations of two or more of the compounds listed can be used to form the meltable polymer. It is inherent that these combinations can have molecular weights in the range from 5,000 Da to 30,000 Da).
Regarding Claim 33: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 1, and Asano further discloses the indicator comprising a reference area surrounding or adjacent to the viewing window (fig.’s 2-3. See also col. 3 line 56 – col. 4 line 6: color developing system 7 at area ‘B’, different from area ‘A’ provides reference color development that is independent of temperature).
Regarding Claim 34: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 33, and Asano further discloses wherein the reference area comprises a pattern, a color, or a printed indicia that contrasts with or corresponds to the visual change in appearance caused by the reaction between the first and second reactants (fig.’s 2-3. See also col. 3 line 56 – col. 4 line 6: color developing system 7 at area ‘B’, different from area ‘A’ provides reference color development that is independent of temperature).
Regarding Claim 35: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses indicator of claim 1, and Asano discloses the indicator further comprising;
at least one of a freeze indicator, a second temperature threshold exposure indicator with a different temperature threshold, and a cumulative time-temperature exposure indicator (col. 15 lines 36-52: indicator includes freeze indicator and cumulative time-temperature exposure functionality. fig. 4 and col. 4 lines 58- 65: indicators may have multiple color developing areas formed onto substrate 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano and Teffenhart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 4050945 A).
Regarding Claim 5: Asano and Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 1, but neither disclose wherein the first layer comprises the meltable polymer with the first reactant initially contained therein.
Suzuki discloses an analogous art (col. 1 lines 40-56: heat sensitive color-producing composition) wherein a first layer comprises a meltable polymer with a first reactant initially contained therein ( col. 1 line 58 – col. 2 line 11: the composition is a mixture of both a metallic fusible material that produces color and a chelating reactant that reacts with metal. Col. 2 lines 12-24: multiple layers of the color-producing composition are coated onto a base support to prepare a heat-sensitive recording member.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Asano and Teffenhart’s first and second layers to, as taught by Suzuki, each comprise the meltable polymer initially with their respective reactants. This would allow the indicator to produce clearer and sharper colors when heated to provide a more easily recognizable indicator of a threshold temperature (Suzuki col. 2 lines 12-24).
Claim 6-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano and Teffenhart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel (US 20130068155 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: Asano in view of Teffenhart discloses the indicator of claim 1, but neither discloses the indicator further comprising a background comprising a pattern, an indicia, or a color darker than an initial color of the first and second reactants prior to their contacting each other.
Patel discloses an analogous art (fig. 1 and par. 91: freeze indicator) further comprising a background comprising a pattern, an indicia, or a color darker than an initial color of the first and second reactants prior to their contacting each other (fig. 1 and par. 94: indicating formulation coated on substrate 140).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the background pattern, indicia, and color of Patel to be included in the indicator of Asano and Teffenhart thereby increasing the utility of the indicator such messages and instructions corresponding to a detected temperature can be communicated to an observer (Patel par. 94).
Regarding Claim 7: Asano and Teffenhart in view of Patel disclose the indicator of claim 6, and Patel further discloses wherein the background is initially visible through the viewing window and is at least partially obscured by the visual change in appearance (fig. 9 and par. 101: background is initially visible, but is obscured as temperature decreases cause 130 to appear and progressively darken). Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18: Asano and Teffenhart disclose indicator of claim 1, but neither disclose wherein the first reactant is bromothymol blue or resorcinol.
Patel discloses an analogous art (fig. 1 and par. 91: freeze indicator) wherein a first [substrate] (fig. 1: substrate 140) wherein the first reactant is bromothymol blue or resorcinol. (par. 136: resorcinol used as reactant).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for resorcinol, as taught by Patel, to be used as the first reactant in Asano and Teffenhart’s indicator as it is well known as a catalyst able to accelerate solid state polymerization at a low temperature (Patel par. 136).
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano and Teffenhart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hof (US 4362645 A).
Regarding Claim 15: Asano and Teffenhart disclose indicator of claim 14, but neither explicitly disclose wherein resolidification of the meltable polymer comprises recrystallization.
Hof discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-5 and col. 14 lines 5-35: temperature indicating compositions) wherein resolidification of the meltable polymer comprises recrystallization (col. 22 line 39 - col. 23 line 36: soluble organic compositions undergo recrystallization after reversible melting).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Asano and Teffenhart to utilize the meltable polymers that undergo recrystallization, as taught by Hof, to reduce impurities in the indicator composition thereby extending the lifetime of the indicator (Hof col. 22 line 39 - col. 23 line 36).
Regarding Claim 19: Asano and Teffenhart disclose indicator of claim 1, but neither explicitly disclose wherein the weight percent of the first reactant in the first layer is in the range of 0.1% to 10%.
Hof discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-5 and col. 14 lines 5-35: temperature indicating compositions) wherein the weight percent of the first reactant in the first layer is in the range of 0.1% to 10% (col. 22 line 39 - col. 23 line 36: “Generally, the upper limit of suitable insoluble nucleating agent varies from 0.1 to 10 weight percent of the composition, depending upon the suitable nucleating agent, suitable solvent, and Group I-III moiety(s) selected […] We have found 0.1 percent to be most preferable and that high concentrations may affect the color change for a particular system. If too great an amount of talc is used (over about two percent), in a pinacyanol iodide/OCNB-OBNB system, the composition is always blue whether in a liquid or solid state. Hence, as will be recognized by one skilled in the art, a suitable nucleating agent may consist of (1) any insoluble foreign substance inert to the Group I-III moieties and the suitable solvents, so long as the foreign substance does not induce instantaneous solidification, or (2) a substance soluble in and inert to the composition, but limited to less than about 0.3 weight percent of the composition.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Asano and Teffenhart to utilize the weight percent composition of reactants, as taught by Hof, to ensure definitive, visible color changes at predetermined temperatures (Hof col. 22 line 39 - col. 23 line 36).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano and Teffenhart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooperman (US 7770534 B2).
Regarding Claim 21: Asano and Teffenhart disclose the indicator of claim 1, but neither disclose wherein the second reactant is butylamine or 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (HMF).
Cooperman discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 43 lines 48-62: temperature indicator 10) wherein the second reactant is butylamine or 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (HMF) (pages 9-10: Table 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for butylamine, as taught by Cooperman, to be used as the second reactant in Asano and Teffenhart’s indicator as it is well known as a water-soluble capable of producing highly-visible colors (Cooperman abstract and pages 9-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Taylor (US 20080110391 A1) discloses the indicator according to claim 1, apart from the removable barrier layer, and the additional limitations of claims 2-7, 13-14, and 33-35.
Salman (US 20150308901 A1) discloses the indicator according to claim 1, apart from the removable barrier layer, and the additional limitations of claims 2-7, 13-14, and 33-35.
Chou (US 20160361233 A1) discloses the indicator according to claim 1, apart from the removable barrier layer, and the additional limitations of claims 2-7, 13-14, and 33-35.
Magen (US 20190234806 A1) discloses the indicator according to claim 1, with a rupturable barrier layer, and the additional limitations of claims 2-7, 13-14, and 33-35.
Pedicano (US 5107470 A) discloses a delayed reaction threshold indicator with a removable barrier.
Bommarito (US 6741523 B1) discloses the indicator according to claim 1, with a rupturable barrier layer, and the additional limitations of claims 2-7, 13-14, and 33-35.
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 EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/EVAN MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/30/26