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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicants submitted claim amendments on 8/25/2026 to the office action mailed on 6/9/2026. The status of the claims are as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2001/0044477 A1) to Soane et al. (hereinafter Soane) in view of (US 2013/0040125 A1) to Eberstaller et al. (hereinafter Eberstaller) and in further view of (US 2010/02004349 A1) to Inohara et al. (hereinafter Inohara) and in further view of VICTOR A. OLIVEIRA et al, HYDROGELS OF CELLULOSE ACETATE CROSSLINKED WITH PYROMELLITIC DIANHYDRIDE - PART I: SYNTHESIS AND SWELLING KINETICS, Quim. Nova, 2013, Vol 36, No 1, Page 102-106 (hereinafter Oliveira).
The above noted rejection is hereby maintained.
NEW Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2001/0044477 A1) to Soane et al. (hereinafter Soane) in view of (US 2013/0040125 A1) to Eberstaller et al. (hereinafter Eberstaller) and in further view of (US 2010/02004349 A1) to Inohara et al. (hereinafter Inohara) and in further view of VICTOR A. OLIVEIRA et al, HYDROGELS OF CELLULOSE ACETATE CROSSLINKED WITH PYROMELLITIC DIANHYDRIDE - PART I: SYNTHESIS AND SWELLING KINETICS, Quim. Nova, 2013, Vol 36, No 1, Page 102-106 (hereinafter Oliveira).
Soane is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose. Soane discloses at paragraph [0018] that a shell surrounds a core of a blowing agent that is either a liquid or a solid. Soane discloses at paragraph [0059] that the shell may be made of a modified cellulose polymer. Soane discloses at paragraph [0061] that polymers, including cellulose, may contain one or more functionalities. Soane discloses at paragraph [0089] that the shells could be expanded at 160C, which is within the Tg range of Applicants range of 150 to 250C. Soane discloses at paragraph [0096] that the blowing agent used was isooctane. Soane discloses at paragraph [0061] that the shell may contain one or more reactive functionalities, such as carboxylic acids from maleic anhydride or alcohols. Soane discloses at paragraph [0020] that “irrespective of the polymerization technique used to synthesize the polymer. By selecting functional polymers that have reactive sites within the polymer chain, and/or by incorporating crosslinking agents into the polymer shells, expandable microspheres may be readily produced which are fusible or crosslinkable with adjacent microspheres or with a matrix material in which the microspheres have been incorporated.” This incorporation of reactive functionalities is the Applicants claimed hydrogen bond donor.
Eberstaller is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres. Soane and Eberstaller are both directed toward thermally expandable microspheres and therefore are analogous art. Eberstaller teaches at paragraph [0023] that the expandable polymer is made of a cellulose acetate butyrate, which is an example of a cellulose acetate reacted with a butyrate used as an expandable particle using a heated blowing agent.
Inohara is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres. Soane and Inohara are both directed toward thermally expandable microspheres and therefore are analogous art. Inohara teaches at paragraph [0183] that the shells are made of a cellulose acetate. Inohara teaches at paragraph [0103] that a cross-linking agent minimizes the loss of the blowing agent.
Oliveira is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose. Soane and Oliveira are both directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose and therefore are analogous art. Oliveira teaches that pyromellitic acid is used to crosslink shells of cellulose acetate. One would be motivated from the above cited references to use a carboxylic acid to crosslink a cellulose acetate shell to prevent loss of blowing agents during expansion.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Soane in view of the teachings of Eberstaller, Inohara and Oliveira to add a carboxylic acid to the shell formed by a cellulose acetate to improve thermal expansion by preventing blowing agent release that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-3, 5-11 and 16-17.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2001/0044477 A1) to Soane et al. (hereinafter Soane) in view of (US 2013/0040125 A1) to Eberstaller et al. (hereinafter Eberstaller) and in further view of (US 2010/02004349 A1) to Inohara et al. (hereinafter Inohara) and in further view of VICTOR A. OLIVEIRA et al, HYDROGELS OF CELLULOSE ACETATE CROSSLINKED WITH PYROMELLITIC DIANHYDRIDE - PART I: SYNTHESIS AND SWELLING KINETICS, Quim. Nova, 2013, Vol 36, No 1, Page 102-106 (hereinafter Oliveira) in further view of (US 2005/0079352 A1) to Glorioso et al. (hereinafter Glorioso).
Soane is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose. Soane discloses at paragraph [0018] that a shell surrounds a core of a blowing agent that is either a liquid or a solid. Soane discloses at paragraph [0059] that the shell may be made of a modified cellulose polymer. Soane discloses at paragraph [0061] that polymers, including cellulose, may contain one or more functionalities. Soane discloses at paragraph [0089] that the shells could be expanded at 160C, which is within the Tg range of Applicants range of 150 to 250C. Soane discloses at paragraph [0096] that the blowing agent used was isooctane. Soane discloses at paragraph [0061] that the shell may contain one or more reactive functionalities, such as carboxylic acids from maleic anhydride or alcohols. Soane discloses at paragraph [0020] that “irrespective of the polymerization technique used to synthesize the polymer. By selecting functional polymers that have reactive sites within the polymer chain, and/or by incorporating crosslinking agents into the polymer shells, expandable microspheres may be readily produced which are fusible or crosslinkable with adjacent microspheres or with a matrix material in which the microspheres have been incorporated.” This incorporation of reactive functionalities is the Applicants claimed hydrogen bond donor.
Eberstaller is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres. Soane and Eberstaller are both directed toward thermally expandable microspheres and therefore are analogous art. Eberstaller teaches at paragraph [0023] that the expandable polymer is made of a cellulose acetate butyrate, which is an example of a cellulose acetate reacted with a butyrate used as an expandable particle using a heated blowing agent.
Inohara is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres. Soane and Inohara are both directed toward thermally expandable microspheres and therefore are analogous art. Inohara teaches at paragraph [0183] that the shells are made of a cellulose acetate. Inohara teaches at paragraph [0103] that a cross-linking agent minimizes the loss of the blowing agent.
Oliveira is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose. Soane and Oliveira are both directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose and therefore are analogous art. Oliveira teaches that pyromellitic acid is used to crosslink shells of cellulose acetate. One would be motivated from the above cited references to use a carboxylic acid to crosslink a cellulose acetate shell to prevent loss of blowing agents during expansion.
Glorioso is directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose. Soane and Glorioso directed toward thermally expandable microspheres made with cellulose. Glorioso teaches at paragraph [0038] that they are expandable microcapsules having a liquid core. Glorioso teaches at paragraph [0114] that the shells are reacted with an ascorbic acid that produces excellent expansion properties, which would motivate one skilled in the art to add them to the shell, which reads on Applicants hydrogen donor.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Soane in view of the teachings of Eberstaller, Inohara, Oliveira and Glorioso to add a carboxylic acid to the shell formed by a cellulose acetate to improve thermal expansion by preventing blowing agent release that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-3, 5-11, 16-17 and 20.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim rejections as restated above meet all the requirements of the independent claim and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 21 is allowed.
10. Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach a shell comprising BTCA.
Conclusion
12. 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).
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
