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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on January 6,2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not shown that it would be serious burden to perform a complete search and examination. This is not found persuasive in view of the reasons set forth in the Office action mailed on December 16, 2025. See page 3 “Restriction for examination purpose…”.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 6, 2026.
Specification
The use of the terms Loctite,EXPANCEL, and DUALITE, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: insert “the” before “microspheres”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-9 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.
As to claims 5 and 6, these claims recite “microparticle”. It is unclear whether this recitation refers to additional microparticle or “heat expandable polymeric microparticles” recited in claim 1. For purpose of examination, “microparticle” is interpreted as “heat expandable polymeric microparticles” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kiuchi et al. (US 20040191510 A1) and as evidenced by (a) Sato et al. (US 20110094675 A1) and (b) Nakamura et al. (US 5246973).
As to claims 1 and 6, Kiuchi discloses a heat-peelable double-faced pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) sheet which comprises a substrate (a), a heat-peelable PSA layer (b) (adhesive debonding coating composition) formed on one side of the substrate (a) and containing heat-expandable microspheres (heat expandable polymeric microparticles/microspheres), and a PSA layer (c) formed on the other side of the substrate (abstract, 00055-0056). Further, Kiuchi discloses that the PSA for the heat peelable PSA includes e.g. silicone PSA, urethane-based PSA, acrylic based PSA etc. (0047), and a crosslinking agent (0048). Accordingly, Kiuchi teaches a curable adhesive matrix.
Further, as to claim 1, Kiuchi teaches 25 parts by weight of heat-expandable microspheres per 100 parts by weight of an acrylic polymer (0130), which is equivalent to 20 wt% of the microspheres [(25/125) * 100 = 20 wt%], and within the claimed range of about 1% to about 60% by weight. Given that the amount of the heat-expandable microspheres disclosed by Kiuchi is within the claimed range, Kiuchi anticipates the claimed range. Alternatively, with respect to the claimed amount of polymeric microparticles, Kiuchi discloses that the amount of heat-expandable microspheres can be suitably determined according to the expansion ratio, the property of reducing the adhesive force of the heat-peelable adhesive layer (b) etc. According to Kiuchi, in general, the amount of the heat-expandable microspheres is in the range of from e.g. 5-200 parts by weight per or 15-75 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the polymeric ingredients constituting the heat-expandable PSA layer. Given that the claimed range overlaps or like inside the range disclosed by Kiuchi, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Kiuchi discloses that too large amount of the microspheres are apt to cause the heat-peelable PSA layer to suffer cohesive failure. On the other hand, too small amount thereof result in reduced peelability (0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the workable range of the microspheres as claimed and as rendered obvious by Kiuchi, motivated by the desire to form the heat-peelable PSA of Kiuchi with desired expansion ratio, reducing the adhesive force without cohesive failure, without reducing the peelability of the adhesive. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(II)(A).
Further, as to claim 1, Kiuchi teaches heat expandable microspheres such as Matsumoto Microsphere F30D (0130), which has expansion initiation temperature of about 80°C as disclosed by 0084 of Sato. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the microspheres of Kiuchi would expand when subjected to temperatures of about 70°C to about 250°C as claimed.
Further, as to claim 1, Kiuchi is silent as to explicitly disclosing “a curable adhesive matrix capable of withstanding temperatures greater than about 250°C when cured”. However, where 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 is established. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Kiuchi as set forth previously discloses identical or substantially identical curable adhesive matrix as claimed. Therefore, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the curable adhesive matrix of Kiuchi would inherently be capable of withstanding temperatures greater than about 250°C when cured. Alternatively, this limitation would obviously be presence, once the curable matrix of Kiuchi is provided.
Further, as to claim 1 limitation “An adhesive debonding coating composition for thermally debonding a cured adhesive bond-line from a substrate this limitation is deemed to be an intended use in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. Given that the adhesive debonding coating composition of Kiuchi is identical to that of the presently claimed in terms of structure and composition, it meets the intended use of the claimed adhesive debonding coating composition (i.e. the adhesive debonding composition of Kiuchi can be used for thermally debonding a cured adhesive bond line from a substrate).
As to claim 2, Kiuchi discloses that the PSA for the heat peelable PSA includes e.g. silicone PSA and urethane-based PSA (0047).
As to claim 3, as set forth previously Kiuchi discloses 20 wt% of heat-expandable microspheres. Further, Kiuchi discloses that the amount of the heat-expandable microspheres can be suitably determined according to the expansion ratio, the property of reducing the adhesive force of the heat-peelable adhesive layer (b) etc. According to Kiuchi, in general, the amount of the heat-expandable microspheres is in the range of from e.g. 5-200 parts by weight per or 15-75 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the polymeric ingredients constituting the heat-expandable PSA layer. Moreover, Kiuchi discloses that too large amount of the microspheres are apt to cause the heat-peelable PSA layer to suffer cohesive failure. On the other hand, too small amount thereof result in reduced peelability (0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the workable range of the microspheres as claimed and as rendered obvious by Kiuchi, motivated by the desire to form the heat-peelable PSA of Kiuchi with desired expansion ratio, reducing the adhesive force without cohesive failure, without reducing the peelability of the adhesive. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(II)(A).
As to claim 4, Matsumoto Microsphere F30D disclosed by Kiuchi has particle diameter of 10-20 micrometers (average size measured across the largest dimension) as evidenced by column 6, lines 60-65 of Nakamura. This particle diameter is within the claimed range of about 2 to about 50 µm. Further, Matsumoto discloses that the particle diameter (average particle diameter) of the heat-expandable microspheres can be suitably selected according to the thickness of the heat-peelable pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (b), etc. Accordingly to Matsumoto, from the standpoints of the impartation of surface smoothness to the heat-peelable pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (b), peelability, etc. the average particle diameter of the heat-expandable microspheres can be selected in the range of, for example, from 5 to 120 µm, preferably from 10 to 75 µm (0057). Claimed particle size range of about 2 µm to about 50 µm overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Matsumoto such that prima facie case of obviousness exits. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(II)(A).
As to claim 5, Kiuchi as evidenced by Sato as set forth previously discloses heat expandable microspheres such as Matsumoto Microsphere F30D (0130), which has expansion initiation temperature of about 80°C.
As to claims 7-9, Kiuchi discloses that the microspheres are obtained by encapsulating substance which upon heating readily gasifies and expands, and examples of such substance include isobutane, propane, or pentane in a shell (0055). Further, Kiuchi discloses that the shells are constituted of materials such as polyacrylonitrile (0056).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maruta et al. (US 20190029926 A1) discloses a dental adhesive containing thermos-expandable particles (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
February 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights