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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on January 22, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1 and 5 were amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are in the application. Claims 8-14 were previously withdrawn. Replacement Paragraphs were submitted to revise units from “Pa-s” to “Pa-s”. A replacement title was submitted.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection directed to the “temperature indicating material” in claim 1 is withdrawn based on Applicant’s arguments.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).
The previous objection to the drawings is maintained. Therefore, leuco dye, a color developer, and a decolorant, adhesive liquified, adhesive solidified, in claim 1, hot melt adhesive, water-based adhesive, an alcohol-based adhesive, and reactive adhesive in claim 4, and antioxidant and light stabilizer in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of an amended title.
The previous objection to the disclosure because of the following informalities:
The specification recites: “Pa-s”. A suggested revision is “Pa- s”.
is withdrawn based on the amendment to the specification.
The previous objection to the specification requesting review for proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is maintained. For example, paragraphs including the phrase “or the like”, “and the like”, should be revised for proper idiomatic English. Amendments to the specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1 and 5 are withdrawn based on the amendments to claims 1 and 5.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “marking device” in claim 1, “adhesive application device” in claim 1, and “ conveyance mechanism” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on paragraph 87, corresponding structure for the “marking device” is as follows “a thermal a device that controls a material to have a low viscosity by heating, and discharges and prints the material; … a thermal ink jet printer, a thermal dispenser and a glue gun…” and their equivalents. The “marking device” is also described in the Abstract and Figure 7B with reference numeral 12.
Corresponding structure for the “adhesive application device” is found in paragraphs 15, 110, 124 and described in the Abstract as performing the following function “applies an adhesive onto the temperature detecting material provided as marking on the base material, wherein the adhesive is applied in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified, and solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied” and the equivalents thereof.
The “adhesive application device” is also described in the Abstract and Figure 7B with reference numeral 13.
Corresponding structure for the “conveyance mechanism” is found in paragraph 110 as a “conveyor” and shown in Figure 7B with reference numeral 10 and the equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210396601 A1 to Abdo et al (hereinafter Abdo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220024238 A1 to Taya et al (hereinafter Taya) is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Abdo teaches a temperature indicator manufacturing system comprising: a marking device (a device that prints thermochromic composition) that provides a marking on a base material ( base substrate, product packaging) with a temperature detecting material (thermochromic composition) which contains a matrix material, and a temperature indicating material which includes at least a leuco dye (leuco dye), a color developer (color developing agent), and decolorant ( decoloring agent). (See Abdo, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 24, 26-27, 29-32, 34, 37-40, 43, 47, 51-52, 67, 77, 87-88, 104)
Examiner is considering a device that prints thermochromic composition in Abdo as equivalent to the corresponding structure, a thermal printer ink jet printer or glue gun, for the marking device in current application.
Abdo does not explicitly teach an adhesive application device that applies an adhesive onto the temperature detecting material which is the marking on the base material .
Taya is directed to a thermosensitive recording medium and image forming method.
Taya teaches an adhesive application device ( means for applying or printing the thermosensitive coloring composition including: blade coater, rod coater, reverse roll coater, a die coater, an offset printing press, a gravure printing press, a flexographic printing press, a relief printing press, a silkscreen printing press) that applies an adhesive (intermediate layer composition or overcoat composition) onto the temperature detecting material (thermosensitive coloring composition on 50, or in 10, 20, 30) provided as marking on the base material. (See Taya, Abstract, paragraph 127.)
Examiner is considering a coating film (intermediate layer or overcoat composition) to be equivalent to an adhesive. Examiner is considering the (intermediate layer or overcoat composition) to be applied in the same manner the thermosensitive coloring composition based on paragraph 127 “ by a method similar to the method of preparing the thermosensitive coloring composition”.
Examiner is considering means for applying or printing the thermosensitive coloring composition in Taya to be equivalent to the adhesive application device because this structure is taught in paragraph of 127 to have the corresponding structure of the “adhesive application device” : “apply the coating in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified, and solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an adhesive application device that applies an adhesive onto the temperature detecting material which is the marking on the base material, because Taya teaches this would allow the intended thermosensitive recording medium to be obtained. (See Taya, Abstract, paragraph 127.)
Abdo does not explicitly teach the adhesive is applied in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified, and the adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied.
Taya teaches the adhesive is applied in a state where the temperature detecting material (thermosensitive coloring composition on 50, or in 10, 20, 30) provided as the marking on the base material is solidified, and adhesive (1, 5, 15, 25) is solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied. (See Taya, Abstract, paragraph 127.) (Examiner is considering the thermosensitive material is dried layer by layer to equivalent to the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified and adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the adhesive is applied in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified, and the adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied, because Taya teaches this would allow the respective layers to be formed and the intended thermosensitive recording medium to be obtained. (See Taya, Abstract, paragraph 127.)
Examiner is considering apply the coating in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified is taught in Taya the temperature detecting material... is solidified (where the thermosensitive coloring composition is applied then dried), and the adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material … is liquefied (coating films dried layer by layer) ”.
Regarding claim 7, Abdo does not explicitly teach the marking device is a marking device that heats the temperature detecting material and provides the marking on the base material; and the adhesive application device is an adhesive application device that heats and applies the adhesive on the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material
Taya teaches the intermediate layer or overcoat composition is formed by a method i.e. flexographic printing, similar to the method i.e. flexographic printing, of preparing the thermosensitive coloring composition. (See Taya, paragraph 127.) Examiner is considering a flexographic printing press to include heat.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the marking device is a marking device that heats the temperature detecting material and provides the marking on the base material; and the adhesive application device is an adhesive application device that heats and applies the adhesive on the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material, because Taya teaches this would allow the respective layers to be formed and the intended thermosensitive recording medium to be obtained. (See Taya, Abstract, paragraph 127.)
The previous rejection of 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210396601 A1 to Abdo et al (hereinafter Abdo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220024238 A1 to Taya et al (hereinafter Taya) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160259959 A1 to Choi et al (hereinafter Choi) and US Pat. Num. 4,693,923 A1 to McGroarty et al (hereinafter McGroarty) is maintained.
Regarding claim 2, Abdo teaches the base material ( base substrate, product packaging) is a package holding a target product. (See Abdo, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 24, 26-27, 29-32, 34, 37-40, 43, 47, 51-52, 67, 77, 87-88, 104)
Abdo does not explicitly teach the temperature control of which is conducted by a temperature indicator using the temperature detecting material.
Choi is directed to a wrapper having structure that can non-destructively improve detection sensitivity using terahertz waves. (See Choi, paragraph 007.)
Choi teaches temperature control of which is conducted by a temperature indicator (determiner, 220, 210) using the temperature detecting material (204). (See Choi, Abstract, paragraphs 7-9, 93.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include temperature control of which is conducted by a temperature indicator using the temperature detecting material, because Choi teaches this would allow a change to be detected in a packaging container with non-destructive testing and high-sensitivity . (See Choi, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 57-9, 93.)
Regarding claim 2, Abdo does not explicitly teach the package is conveyed by a conveyance mechanism from the marking device to the adhesive application device.
McGoarty is directed to performing two different types of deposition at two different locations.
McGoarty teaches the conveyor is effective for transporting the substate is effective for transporting the substrate to two different locations to perform two different types of deposition at the two locations. (See McGoarty, Abstract, col. 3, lines 57-66 and Figs. 1-6.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the package is conveyed by a conveyance mechanism from the marking device to the adhesive application device with a reasonableexpectation of success, because McGoarty teaches the conveyor is effective for transporting the substate is effective for transporting the substrate to two different locations to perform two different types of deposition at the different two locations. (See McGoarty, Abstract, col. 3, lines 57-66 and Figs. 1-6.)
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub . No. 20210396601 A1 to Abdo et al (hereinafter Abdo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220024238 A1 to Taya et al (hereinafter Taya) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200041359 A1 to Aida et al (hereinafter Aida) is maintained.
Claim 3, Abdo does not explicitly teach the matrix material is a nonpolar material; and the temperature detecting material has a phase separation structure in which the temperature indicating material is dispersed in the matrix material.
Aida teaches a temperature detecting material, a temperature detecting ink using same, a temperature indicator, and a product control system.
Aida teaches the matrix material (matrix material) is a nonpolar material (non-polar material which is an electron acceptor); and the temperature detecting material has a phase separation structure (phase separated structure) in which the temperature indicating material (temperature indicating material) is dispersed in the matrix material (matrix material) . (See Aida, Abstract, paragraphs 94-96 and 101.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the matrix material is a nonpolar material; and the temperature detecting material has a phase separation structure in which the temperature indicating material is dispersed in the matrix material, because Aida teaches this would allow a simultaneous detection of an upper limit and a lower limit. (See Aida, Abstract, paragraphs 82-89, 94-96 and 101.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210396601 A1 to Abdo et al (hereinafter Abdo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220024238 A1 to Taya et al (hereinafter Taya) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200041359 A1 to Aida et al (hereinafter Aida) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100311579 A1 to Koga et al (hereinafter Koga) is being maintained.
Claim 4, Abdo does not explicitly teach the adhesive is any one of a hot melt adhesive, a water-based adhesive, an alcohol-based adhesive, and a reactive adhesive.
Koga teaches a method for producing a thermosensitive medium. (See Koga, paragraph 341.)
Koga teaches the adhesive is a hot melt adhesive. (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 464, 474, 477-478.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the adhesive is any one of a hot melt adhesive, a water-based adhesive, an alcohol-based adhesive, and a reactive adhesive, because Koga teaches this would improve flatness and reduce curling. (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 8, 45, 71, 174, 377, 442, 464, 474, 477-478.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210396601 A1 to Abdo et al (hereinafter Abdo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220024238 A1 to Taya et al (hereinafter Taya) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200041359 A1 to Aida et al (hereinafter Aida) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100311579 A1 to Koga et al (hereinafter Koga) as applied to claim 4 and “Automotive Display Solutions” Loctite page 2 and US Pat. Num. 4,078,934 to John Fred Neumer (hereinafter Neumer) is being maintained.
Claim 5, Abdo does not explicitly teach a solidifying point of the hot melt adhesive is not higher than a temperature higher by 50 C than a melting point of the temperature detecting material
Koga teaches a method for producing a thermosensitive medium .
Koga teaches a solidifying point (90-110 o C) (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 191 and Loctite, Technical Data Sheet .) of the hot melt adhesive is not higher than a temperature higher by 50 o C than a melting point of the temperature detecting material (leuco dye 112 -114 o C, Neumer, col. 11, lines 50-52.) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a solidifying point of the hot melt adhesive is not higher than a temperature higher by 50 C than a melting point of the temperature detecting material, because Koga teaches this would allow the thermosensitive medium to be made with the desired properties and production efficiency. (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 188-193 and Loctite, Technical Data Sheet .)
Claim 5, Abdo does not explicitly teach a viscosity thereof near the melting point is between 0.1 Pa-s and 200 Pa-s.
Koga teaches a viscosity thereof near the melting point is 0.1 Pa-s or 200 Pa-s . ( 100,000 cps). (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 189, 192 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a viscosity thereof near the melting point is between 0.1 Pa-s and 200 Pa-s , this would allow the thermosensitive medium to be made with the desired properties and production efficiency. (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 189, 192 .)
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub . No. 20210396601 A1 to Abdo et al (hereinafter Abdo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220024238 A1 to Taya et al (hereinafter Taya) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100311579 A1 to Kitano et al (hereinafter Kitano) is being maintained.
Claim 6, Abdo does not explicitly teach at least one of an antioxidant and a light stabilizer is added to the adhesive.
Kitano teaches a method for producing a thermosensitive medium. (See Kitano, Abstract, paragraph 57.)
Kitano teaches a method for producing a thermosensitive medium where the adhesive includes at least one of an antioxidant (preservative, ultraviolet absorber) and a light stabilizer (light stabilizer) is added to the adhesive. (See Kitano, Abstract, paragraph 57.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one of an antioxidant and a light stabilizer is added to the adhesive, because Kitano teaches this art recognized equivalent form of an adhesive for use with a thermosensitive medium. (See Kitano, Abstract, paragraph 57.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub . No. 20210396601 A1 to Abdo et al (hereinafter Abdo) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220024238 A1 to Taya et al (hereinafter Taya) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100311579 A1 to Koga et al (hereinafter Koga) is being maintained.
Claim 7, Abdo does not explicitly teach the marking device is a marking device that heats the temperature detecting material and provides the marking on the base material; and the adhesive application device is an adhesive application device that heats and applies the adhesive on the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material
Koga teaches a method for producing a thermosensitive medium .
Koga teaches the marking device is a marking device (printer having a thermal head or heated roller ) that heats the temperature detecting material and provides the marking on the base material; and the adhesive application device (printer having a thermal head or heated roller) is an adhesive application device that heats and applies the adhesive on the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material. (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 8, 38, 178, 283, 289, 317, 319-320 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the marking device is a marking device that heats the temperature detecting material and provides the marking on the base material; and the adhesive application device is an adhesive application device that heats and applies the adhesive on the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material, because Koga teaches this would allow the thermosensitive medium to be made flexible. (See Koga, Abstract, paragraphs 8, 38, 45, 178, 283, 289, 317, 319- 320 .)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Taya teaches the adhesive is applied in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified, and adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied. (See Taya, Abstract, paragraph 127.) (Examiner is considering the thermosensitive material is dried layer by layer to equivalent to the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified and adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the adhesive applied in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified, and solidified before the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is liquefied, because Taya teaches this would allow the respective layers to be formed and the intended thermosensitive recording medium to be obtained. (See Taya, Abstract, paragraph 127.)
Examiner is considering apply the coating in a state where the temperature detecting material provided as the marking on the base material is solidified is taught in Taya the temperature detecting material... is solidified (where the thermosensitive coloring composition is applied then dried), and the adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material … is liquefied (coating films dried layer by layer) ”.
Examiner is considering in Taya the following steps: drying the first layer (temperature detecting material) and then forming a second layer i.e. intermediate or overcoat layer (adhesive layer) on top of the first layer would be equivalent to “the adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material .. is liquefied” as this is known sequence in drying a second layer on top of a first layer.
Applicant argues in the second paragraph of page 15 of the Office Action based on Taya description in paragraph that since 124 layers do not have to be provided in the thermosensitive recording medium 100 (the third thermosensitive coloring layer 30, second intermediate layer 25, protective intermediate layer 5, and protective layer 1), these layers are not comparable to the temperature detecting material of claim 1. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for two reasons.
Firstly, Applicant’s representative provides no reason why the third thermosensitive coloring layer cannot be considered as the temperature detecting material other than in some embodiments these layers are not required. This is not considered persuasive for those embodiments which include one or more of these layers.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that reasons which preclude use of these materials (i.e., structural reasons which would prevent the third thermosensitive coloring layer 30 from being considered as the temperature detecting material ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, this argument does not address thermosensitive coloring layers 10, 20 or directly on the support 50 from being considered as the temperature detecting material. (See Taya, paragraph 127 and Fig. 1.)
Applicant argues on the fourth paragraph of page 15 of the Office Action that:
“Taya does not at all disclose or suggest that an adhesive is solidified before the temperature detecting material (e.g., thermosensitive recording medium 100) or one or more layers thereof, such as (first thermosensitive coloring layer 10, first intermediate layer 15, and second thermosensitive coloring layer 20) are liquefied. Additionally, Taya is silent about any particular layers or combination of layers solidifying before any other layer or combination of layers liquifies.”
Examiner disagrees. Taya teaches layers are dried layer by layer (from bottom to top in Fig. 1). Examiner is considering applying a liquid layer on top of a dried layer to be taught by Taya in paragraph 127 and based on the skill of an ordinary artisan to meet the claimed limitation of “particular layers or combination of layers solidifying before any other layer or combination of layers liquifies”. Examiner is considering that in order to build a structure layer by layer, a liquid layer (second layer) is placed on a dried layer (solidified first layer). This structure requires the sequence of the liquid layer (second layer) must solidify without dissolving the dried layer (first layer). Otherwise, the structure would not be able to be formed with distinct layer by layer structure. Instead, the structure would lack “layer by layer” structure and would have an amorphous structure. A person of ordinary skill in the would reasonably be expected to select proper materials to enable the layer by layer structure to be formed. This layer by layer structure would satisfy the following claim limitation “particular layers or combination of layers solidifying before any other layer or combination of layers liquifies”.
Applicant argues on the first paragraph of page 16 of the Office Action that:
“none of the intermediates is an adhesive for adhering the temperature detecting material onto a target material”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “adhesive” as “an adhesive substance”, (See Merriam-Webster) adhesive would read on the applied structure of Taya as they structure are explicitly shown as adhering between two different materials in Fig. 1 of Taya.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “none of the intermediates is an adhesive for adhering the temperature detecting material onto a target material”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights