DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 2. Claims 1-5 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. 3. Claim 1 refers to the term “a percentage of particles”, but does not recite preposition “the” or “said” in front of the term “particles” ; therefore, it is not clear if said limitation refers to particles previously cited or not. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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. 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. 4 . Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Futami et al (US 2002/0068805). 5 . Futami et al discloses hollow crosslinked polymer particles having particle size of 10 micron , volume hollowness of 1-80%, produced by copolymerization of: a) 5-90%wt of a cross - linkable monomer; b) 95-10%wt of structural units copolymerizable with the crosslinking monomer a) ([0048] -[ 0052], [0142]), wherein the cross - linkable monomer a) includes trivinyl monomers, including trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate ([0171] , also as to instant claim 4 ) and the copolymerizable monomer b) includes diolefins such as butadiene ([0180]). 6 . It is noted that instant specification recites both the polybutadiene and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate as the cross-linkable monomers used in the present invention ([0050] -[ 0051] of instant specification). 7 . In the alternative, though Futami et al does not explicitly and with sufficient specificity, such as by the way of a single example, recite the use of both butadiene and tri methylolpropane trimethacrylate as the comonomers a) and b) , based on the teachings of Futami et al , it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the combination of butadiene and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate as the comonomers a) and b) to form the hollow particles having the average particle diameter of 10 micron as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). 8 . Since the hollow particles of Futami et al are produced from the same combination of di-functional and tri-functional monomers used in amount of about 100% wt based on the total weight of all monomers , having average particle diameter of 10 micron, as claimed in instant invention, and having volume hollowness of as high as 80%, therefore, the hollow particles of Futami et al will inherently comprise, or alternatively, would be reasonably expected to comprise the properties, including void ratio determined according to a method as disclosed in instant invention, shell thickness and percentage of particles having dent with a size of as high as 50%, that are the same as those claimed in instant invention, or alternatively, having values in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well. The above rejections were made in the sense of in re Fitzgerald ( 205 USPQ 594). (CAFC ) based on presumption that the properties governing the claimed hollow particles , if not taught, may be very well met by the hollow particles of Futami et al , since the hollow particle of Futami et al are essentially the same as A pplicants’ particles , wherein the burden to show that it is not the case is shifted to applicants; or in the sense of In re Spada , 911 F 2d 705, 709 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which settles that when the claimed compositions are not novel, they are not rendered patentable by recitation of properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in prior art. W here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. 9 . Claims 1 -4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hirata (WO2020/261926 , Hirata ’916 ). It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO2020/261926 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 12,202,916 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 12,202,916. 10. Hirata ’916 discloses hollow resin particles having volume average particle diameter of 1-25 micron (col 16, lines 60-65), void ratio of 80% or more (col. 17, lines 26 - 28) , and circularity of as high as 0.995 (col. 17, lines 49-51), produced by polymerization of 80-98 pbw of bifunctional and tri-functional crosslinkable monomers (col. 9, lines 20-30), specifically exemplified hollow particles produced by copolymerization of 65 pbw of ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and 30 pbw of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate (col. 18, lines 40-44, as to instant claims 2-4). 11. Though Hirata ’916 does not explicitly teaches the percentage of particles having a dent of as high as 50%, since the hollow particles of Hirata ’916 are produced from the same combination of di-functional and tri-functional monomers used in amount of about 95 % wt , having average particle diameter of as high as 25 micron, as claimed in instant invention, and having void ratio of 80% or more, therefore, the hollow particles of Hirata ’916 will inherently comprise, or alternatively, would be reasonably expected to comprise the properties, including percentage of particles having dent with a size of as high as 50%, that are the same as those claimed in instant invention, or alternatively having values in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well , especially since Hirata ’916 explicitly teaches the particles having circularity of as high as 0. 99 5, i.e. essentially round /spherical . The above rejections were made in the sense of in re Fitzgerald ( 205 USPQ 594). (CAFC ) based on presumption that the properties governing the claimed hollow particles , if not taught, may be very well met by the hollow particles of Hirata ’916 , since the hollow particle of Hirata ’916 are essentially the same as A pplicants’ particles , wherein the burden to show that it is not the case is shifted to applicants; or in the sense of In re Spada , 911 F 2d 705, 709 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which settles that when the claimed compositions are not novel, they are not rendered patentable by recitation of properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in prior art. W here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. 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. 12 . Claims 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami et al (US 2002/0068805). 13 . Futami et al discloses hollow crosslinked polymer particles having particle size of 10 micron , volume hollowness of 1-80%, produced by copolymerization of: a) 5-90%wt of a cross - linkable monomer; b) 95-10%wt of structural units copolymerizable with the crosslinking monomer a) ([0048] -[ 0052], [0142]), wherein the cross - linkable monomer a) includes trivinyl monomers, including trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate ([0171] , i.e. methacryloyl group, to instant claim 4 ) and the copolymerizable monomer b) includes diolefins such as butadiene ([0180]). 14 . It is noted that instant specification recites both the polybutadiene and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate as the cross-linkable monomers used in the present invention ([0050] -[ 0051] of instant specification). 15 . Though Futami et al does not explicitly and with sufficient specificit y recite the use of both butadiene and tri methylolpropane trimethacrylate as the comonomers a) and b), based on the teachings of Futami et al , it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the combination of butadiene and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate as the comonomers a) and b) to form the hollow particles having the average particle diameter of 10 micron as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). 16. The ranges of the amounts of used butadiene (i.e. bi-functional monomer) and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate (tri-functional methacryloyl monomer) are overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention (as to instant claims 2-3). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari , 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) . 17 . Since the hollow particles of Futami et al are produced from the same combination of di-functional and tri-functional monomers used in amount of about 100%, having average particle diameter of 10 micron, as claimed in instant invention, and having volume hollowness of as high as 80%, therefore, the hollow particles of Futami et al will intrinsically and necessarily comprise, or would be reasonably expected to comprise the properties, including void ratio determined according to a method as disclosed in instant invention, shell thickness and percentage of particles having dent with a size of as high as 50%, will be the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having values in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well . The above rejections were made in the sense of in re Fitzgerald ( 205 USPQ 594). (CAFC ) based on presumption that the properties governing the claimed hollow particles , if not taught, may be very well met by the hollow particles of Futami et al , since the hollow particle of Futami et al are essentially the same as A pplicants’ particles , wherein the burden to show that it is not the case is shifted to applicants; or in the sense of In re Spada , 911 F 2d 705, 709 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which settles that when the claimed compositions are not novel, they are not rendered patentable by recitation of properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in prior art. W here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. 18 . Claims 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami et al (US 2002/0068805) in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, Hirata’594 ). It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO2020/066705 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 12,139,594 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 12,139,594 . 19. The discussion with respect to Futami et al set forth in paragraphs 12 -17 above, is incorporated here by reference. 20. Though Futami et al does not explicitly teach the shell thickness of the hollow particle, Hirata’594 discloses hollow resin particles produced by polymerization of 30-100pbw, i.e. as high as 100 pbw of two or more cross-linkable monomers including divinylbenzene and dimethacrylates ( col. 2, lines 55-60 , col. 8, lines 35-60), are having particle size of 1-20 micron (col. 6, lines 30-36), void ratio of as high as 85% (col. 5, lines 25-37), spherical shape with circularity of as high as 0.995 (col. 9, lines 36-38) and further shell thickness of 0.01-1 micron (col. 9, lines 50-53). Thus, Hirata’594 explicitly teaches that hollow particles produced from substantially 100 pbw of the cross-linkable monomers are having not only high void ratio and particle size of as high as 20 micron , but further shel l thickness of as high as 1 micron. 21. Since both Hirata’594 and Futami et al are related to hollow particles produced by polymerization of substantially only monomers having two or more carbon-carbon bonds, and thereby cross-linkable, having substantially the same particle size and void ratio, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Hirata’594 further specifies that such particles can have shell thickness of as high as 1 micron, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hirata’594 and Futami et al , and to modify , or obvious to try to modify the hollow particles of Futami et al and the process for making said particles according to teachings of Hirata’594 , so to produce said hollow particles having shell size of as high as 1 micron, given such is desired for the specific end-use of said hollow particle as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention . MPEP 2141 22 . Claims 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (WO2020/261926, Hirata ’916 ) in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, Hirata’594 ). It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO2020/261926 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 12,202,916 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 12,202,916. It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO2020/066705 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 12,139,594 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 12,139,594. 23 . The discussion with respect to Hirata ’916 set forth in paragraphs 9-11 above, is incorporated here by reference. 24 . Though Hirata ’916 does not explicitly teach the shell thickness of the hollow particle being 0.2-4 micron , Hirata’594 discloses hollow resin particles produced by polymerization of 30-100pbw, i.e. as high as 100 pbw of two or more cross-linkable monomers including divinylbenzene and dimethacrylates ( col. 2, lines 55-60, col. 8, lines 35-60), are having particle size of 1-20 micron (col. 6, lines 30-36), void ratio of as high as 85% (col. 5, lines 25-37), spherical shape with circularity of as high as 0.995 (col. 9, lines 36-38) and further shell thickness of 0.01-1 micron (col. 9, lines 50-53). Thus, Hirata’594 explicitly teaches that hollow particles produced from substantially 100 pbw of the cross-linkable monomers are having not only high void ratio and particle size of as high as 20 micron , but further shel l thickness of as high as 1 micron. 25 . Since both Hirata’594 and Hirata ’916 are related to hollow particles produced by polymerization of substantially only monomers having two or more carbon-carbon bonds, and thereby cross-linkable, having substantially the same particle size and void ratio, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Hirata’594 further specifies that such particles can have shell thickness of as high as 1 micron, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hirata’594 and Hirata ’916 , and to modify , or obvious to try to modify the hollow particles of Hirata ’916 and the process for making said particles according to teachings of Hirata’594 , so to produce said hollow particles having shell size of as high as 1 micron, given such is desired for the specific end-use of said hollow particle as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention . MPEP 2141 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection I 26. Claim s 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,805 in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, based on US 12,139,594 , Hirata’594 ) . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons. 27. US 12,319,805 claims h ollow particles which comprise a shell containing a resin and a hollow portion surrounded by the shell, wherein the shell contains, as the resin, a polymer in which from 70 parts by mass to 100 parts by mass of a cross - linkable monomer unit is contained in 100 parts by mass of all monomer units; wherein the cross - linkable monomer unit contains a monomer unit derived from a bifunctional cross - linkable monomer and a monomer unit derived from a trifunctional or higher- functional cross - linkable monomer; wherein a content of the monomer unit derived from the bifunctional crosslinkable monomer is 50 parts by mass or more and 90 parts by mass or less, and a content of the monomer unit derived from the trifunctional or higher-functional crosslinkable monomer is 5 parts by mass or more and 40 parts by mass or less, in 100 parts by mass of all monomer units of the polymer; wherein a void ratio is 60% or more; and a volume average particle diameter is from 1 µ m to 10 µ m. Further, the content of the crosslinkable monomer unit is 90 parts by mass or more and 97 parts by mass or less in 100 parts by mass of all monomer units of the polymer. T he bifunctional crosslinkable monomer is at least one selected from the group consisting of divinylbenzene, ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate, and pentaerythritol di(meth)acrylate. T he trifunctional or higher- functional crosslinkable monomer is at least one selected from the group consisting of pentaerythritol tetra(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, ethoxylated pentaerythritol tetra(meth)acrylate, pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, and dipentaerythritol poly(meth)acrylate. 28. Though US 12,319,805 does not explicitly teach the shell thickness of the hollow particle being 0.2-4 micron , Hirata’594 discloses hollow resin particles produced by polymerization of as high as 100 pbw of two or more cross-linkable monomers including divinylbenzene and dimethacrylates (col. 8, lines 35-60), are having particle size of 1-20 micron (col. 6, lines 30-36), void ratio of as high as 85% (col. 5, lines 25-37), spherical shape with circularity of as high as 0.995 (col. 9, lines 36-38) and further shell thickness of 0.01-1 micron (col. 9, lines 50-53). Thus, Hirata’594 explicitly teaches that hollow particles produced from substantially 100 pbw of the cross-linkable monomers are having not only high void ratio and particle size of as high as 20 micron , but further shel l thickness of as high as 1 micron. 29. Since both Hirata’594 and US 12,319,805 are related to hollow particles produced by polymerization of substantially only monomers having two or more carbon-carbon bonds, and thereby cross-linkable, having substantially the same particle size and void ratio, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Hirata’594 further specifies that such particles can have shell thickness of as high as 1 micron, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hirata’594 and US 12,319,805 , and to modify the hollow particles of US 12,319,805 and the process for making said particles according to teachings of Hirata’594 , so to produce said hollow particles having shell thickness of as high as 1 micron, given such is desired for the specific end-use of said hollow particle as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention . MPEP 2141 30 . Since the hollow particles of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,805 in view of Hirata’594 are produced from the same combination of di-functional and tri-functional monomers used in amount of about 100% wt , having average particle diameter of 10 micron , shell thickness of 1 micron and void ratio as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the hollow particles of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,805 in view of Hirata’594 will intrinsically and necessarily comprise, or would be reasonably expected to comprise the properties, including percentage of particles having dent with a size of as high as 50%, will be the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having values in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well . W here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. 31. Therefore, the limitations claimed in instant invention are obvious variants of the limitations claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,319,805 in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, based on US 12,139,594 , Hirata’594 ). 32 . Claims 1-5 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1 -9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,805 in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, based on US 12,139,594 , Hirata’594 ). Specifically, see the discussion in paragraphs 26-31 above. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of com mon ownership (see MPEP Chapter 2300). Commonly assigned US 12,319,805 , discussed above, would form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) and the conflicting inventions were not commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue, the assignee can, under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(c), either show that the conflicting inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made, or name the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter. A showing that the inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon the commonly assigned case as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), or 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004. 33. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. 12,319,805 in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, based on US 12,139,594 , Hirata’594 ). Specifically, see the discussion set forth in paragraphs 26-31 above. The applied reference has a common assignee and a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention “by another”; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131; or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor named in the application is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the reference is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2). Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection I I 34 . Claim s 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 215,178 in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, based on US 12,139,594 , Hirata’594 ). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons. 35. US 12,215,178 claims h ollow particles which comprise a shell containing a resin and a hollow portion surrounded by the shell, wherein a void ratio is 50% or more; wherein a volume average particle diameter is 1.0 µ m or more; wherein the shell contains, as the resin, a polymer in which from 70 parts by mass to 98 parts by mass of a cross - linkable monomer unit is contained in 100 parts by mass of all monomer units; wherein the cross - linkable monomer unit comprises at least one selected from a bifunctional cross - linkable monomer unit derived from a bifunctional cross - linkable monomer and a trifunctional or higher-functional cross - linkable monomer unit derived from a trifunctional or higher-functional cross - linkable monomer; The content of the bifunctional cross - linkable monomer unit in 100 parts by mass of all monomer units of the polymer, is from 70 parts by mass to 98 parts by mass. The content of the trifunctional or higher-functional cross - linkable monomer unit in 100 parts by mass of all monomer units of the polymer, is from 5 parts by mass to 50 parts by mass. T he cross - linkable monomer unit contains a cross - linkable monomer unit derived from a (meth)acrylic cross - linkable monomer containing, as a polymerizable functional group, a (meth)acryloyl group. 36 . Though US 12,215,178 does not explicitly teach the shell thickness of the hollow particle being 0.2-4 micron , particle size being 10-20 micron, and content of particles with dent of 5-50%, Hirata’594 discloses hollow resin particles produced by polymerization of as high as 100 pbw of two or more cross-linkable monomers including divinylbenzene and dimethacrylates (col. 8, lines 35-60), are having particle size of 1-20 micron (col. 6, lines 30-36), void ratio of as high as 85% (col. 5, lines 25-37), spherical shape with circularity of as high as 0.995 (col. 9, lines 36-38) and further shell thickness of 0.01-1 micron (col. 9, lines 50-53). Thus, Hirata’594 explicitly teaches that hollow particles produced from substantially 100 pbw of the cross-linkable monomers are having not only high void ratio and particle size of as high as 20 micron , but further shel l thickness of as high as 1 micron. 37 . Since both Hirata’594 and US 12,215,178 are related to hollow particles produced by polymerization of substantially only monomers having two or more carbon-carbon bonds, and thereby cross-linkable, having substantially the same particle size and void ratio, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Hirata’594 further specifies that such particles can have shell thickness of as high as 1 micron, particle size of as high as 2 0 micron, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hirata’594 and US 12,215,178 , and to modify the hollow particles of US 12,215,178 and the process for making said particles according to teachings of Hirata’594 , so to produce said hollow particles having shell size of as high as 1 micron, and particle size of as high as 20 micron, given such is desired for the specific end-use of said hollow particle as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention . MPEP 2141 38 . Since the hollow particles of U.S. Patent No. US 12,215,178 in view of Hirata’594 are produced from the same combination of di-functional and tri-functional monomers used in amount of about 100%, having average particle diameter of as high as 2 0 micron , shell thickness of as high as 1 micron and void ratio as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the hollow particles of U.S. Patent No. US 12,215,178 in view of Hirata’594 will intrinsically and necessarily comprise, or would be reasonably expected to comprise the properties, including percentage of particles having dent with a size of as high as 50%, will be the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having values in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well . W here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. 39 . Therefore, the limitations claimed in instant invention are obvious variants of the limitations claimed in U.S. Patent No. US 12,215,178 in view of Hirata et al (WO2020/066705, based on US 12,139,594 , Hirata’594 ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7349 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9am-5pm EST M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7026 . 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. /IRINA KRYLOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764