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 1, claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 24-27 in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Nakagawa seeks permanent adhesion of LCD spacer particles whereas Bohland requires only temporary retention of interleavant particles that remain removable from the glass. This is not found persuasive because upon further consideration and search, Bohland teaches the organic polymer particles, including PMMA, polyethylene and polystyrene, positioned between adjacent stacked glass sheets, and further teaches use of a tackifying material that lightly adheres the polymer particles to the glass so that the particles remain in position during storage and shipment. Yamaguchi (US 2006/0001824) teaches organic polymer spacer particles positioned relative to substrate and expressly teaches that the surfaces of the particles may be coated with an organic film or adhesive. Yamaguchi therefore establishes that providing an adhesive outer coating on an organic polymer spacer particle was known for controlling particle and substrate interaction (see abstract, 0024, 0049). Silver et al. (US 5118750) teaches polymeric particle adhesive systems formulated for removable or repositionable adhesion and teaches hydrogenated rosin ester tackifiers for modifying the adhesive characteristics of the system. Silver shows that rosin-containing tackifying systems were known to provide controlled adhesion compatible with subsequent removal or repositioning (see abstract, col. 9,lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rosin coating tackifying material taught by Silver on the particles of Bohland in order to provide temporary particle retention during shipment and storage as desired.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “natural biopolymers and derivatives” should read “natural biopolymers and natural biopolymer derivatives. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11, 16, 18-19, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohland (US 7108889 ) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2006/0001824) and Silver et al. (US 5118750).
As to claim 1, Bohland teaches the organic polymer particles, including PMMA, polyethylene and polystyrene, positioned between adjacent stacked glass sheets, and further teaches use of a tackifying material that lightly adheres the polymer particles to the glass so that the particles remain in position during storage and shipment (see abstract, col. 3,lines 32-44).
Bohland fails to teach an outer coating of rosin or expressly teach polymer coated has a softening point, solubility, comprehensive strength, and volumetric mass density as required by claim 1.
Yamaguchi teaches organic polymer spacer particles positioned relative to substrate and expressly teaches that the surfaces of the particles may be coated with an organic film or adhesive. Yamaguchi therefore establishes that providing an adhesive outer coating on an organic polymer spacer particle was known for controlling particle and substrate interaction (see abstract, 0024, 0049).
Silver et al. teaches polymeric particle adhesive systems formulated for removable or repositionable adhesion and teaches hydrogenated rosin ester tackifiers for modifying the adhesive characteristics of the system. Silver shows that rosin-containing tackifying systems were known to provide controlled adhesion compatible with subsequent removal or repositioning (see abstract, col. 9,lines 24-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rosin coating tackifying material taught by Silver on the particles of Bohland in order to provide temporary particle retention during shipment and storage as desired. Silver teaches an alternative tacky adhesive material and it has been established the mere substitution of one known element for another having the same intended purpose provides predictable results especially since Yamaguchi teaches the use of organic particles with adhesive coatings as spacing material.
As to the limitation “wherein the organic polymer core has a softening point greater than 600 a solubility in water of less than 2 g/L at 25*C, a compressive strength of at least 3 MPa at 250 and a volumetric mass density less than 1.6 g/cm3 at 250,” since Bohland teaches meets the chemical and structural limitation of claim 1, the recited properties of an organic core would be expected. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
As to claims 2 and 3, the core can be pmma, polyethylene and polystyrene (see Bohland).As to claim 9, the rosin can be FORAL 85 which is a gum rosin.
As to claim 11, Silver teaches hydrogenated rosin ester.
As to claim 16, Silver teaches the use of a plasticizer (see lines col. 9 lines 34-36).
As to claims 18-19, Bohland teaches the particle size is 100-125 microns (see col. 4, lines 53-54).
As to claim 24, the polymer can be PMMA which meets the claimed weight.
As to claim 25, Bohland teaches the core is 80-99.5% of the polymer (see col. 4,line 64).
As to claim 26, the particles can have a tackifier amount of 0.5-20% (see col. 4, line 64 of Bohland).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 14, and 27 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 5 and 27, The cited prior art fails to teach or suggest a cellulose or biodegradable core having the claimed coating of rosin as interleavant particles. As to claim 10, although the cited prior art teaches rosin as material but fails to teach or suggest the claimed rosin materials as an outer coating on the core particles. As to claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or show the outer coating has rosin concentration of greater than 50wt% as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saiuchi et al. (US 5486941) teaches spherical spacers for a liquid crystal display element (see abstract). Saiuchi et al. states spacers having no adhesive tend to move and scatter (see col. 2,lines 7-27). Saiuchi et al. teaches particles can be formed of synthetic resin such as polystyrene, polyethylene, PMMA, etc. (see col. 8, lines 8-20). The adhesive can be a waxy polyethylene layer, a hot-melt adhesive layer, or an epoxy layer (see col. 8, lines 53-58).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights