www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/351,564
`
`11/15/2016
`
`KOji MOTOMURA
`
`PIPMM-56685
`
`2783
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`09/06/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`NISULA~ CHRISTINE XU
`
`1789
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/06/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/351,564
`Examiner
`CHRISTINEX NISULA
`
`Applicant(s)
`MOTOMURA et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`1789
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 20 May 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 20 May 2019 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[:] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Datew.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190826
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claims 1-5 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 02/21/2019.
`
`Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, and added new claim 6 on 05/20/2019.
`
`Claims 1-6 are pending.
`
`Claims 1-6 are rejected.
`
`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 § 103
`
`2.
`
`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 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.
`
`3.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
`
`the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as
`
`of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.
`
`Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective
`
`filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later
`
`invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any
`
`potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 3
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et
`
`al. (US 2010/0181249) (Green) in view of Kazuhiro et al. (JP 2015040366) (Kazuhiro) in
`
`reference to the machine translation and lchikawa et al. (US 2015/0210038) (lchikawa),
`
`taken in view of evidence provided by Lin, “Fundamentals of Electrospinning &
`
`Electrospun Nanofibers — 2.6.1 Concentration”, (Lin).
`
`7.
`
`With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6, Green teaches a multi-layer filter media (i.e.,
`
`laminated nonwoven fabric) including a melt-blown fiber filter media layer (i.e., first nonwoven
`
`fabric containing first fibers), an electrospun nanofiber media layer (i.e., second nonwoven
`
`fabric), and a scrim layer formed via spun bonding process or carding process (Le, a third
`
`nonwoven fabric containing third fibers), as shown in Fig.1 of the Office Action below, (Green,
`
`[0010]; [0036]; [0063]; Fig.2),
`
`.r‘ .
`r '
`.
`_A-
`.
`"
`.
`'
`
`.
`r
`$-
`3
`..'
`"
`.-
`I
`
`»
`.
`.
`‘
`.3“! .x‘rf‘r‘i .fr'f (if g“
`
`
`“2&4
`
`
`
`.
`
`~.
`;
`'
`
`.6
`
`
`
`.r
`
`-
`
`Fig.1 (Green, Fig.2)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 4
`
`wherein the meltblown fiber filter media layer 202 contains fibers with a median fiber
`
`diameter between 1 pm and 500 um (Green, [0030]),
`
`wherein the fibers of the electrospun media layer 204 have a median fiber diameter
`
`between 50 and 700 nanometers (i.e., nanofibers see [0010], per claim 2)) (Green, [0032]),
`
`wherein the scrim layer 206 has a median fiber diameter between 1 pm and 50 um
`
`(Green, [0035-0036]),
`
`wherein the scrim layer is located on the opposite side of an opposite side to the first
`
`nonwoven fabric as shown in Fig.1 above (Green, [0036]).
`
`Examiner notes the meltblown fiber filter media layer herein will be referred to as the
`
`meltblown layer and the electrospun media layer herein will be referred to as the electrospun
`
`layer.
`
`While Green does not explicitly teach the “average fiber diameter” of the meltblown layer
`
`and the electrospun layer, given that the median diameter of the meltblown layer is between 1
`
`pm and 500 um and the median diameter of the electrospun layer is between 50 and 700
`
`nanometers, wherein 1 pm is equal to 1000 nanometers (Le, 50 and 700 nanometers = 0.05
`
`and 0.7 pm), it is clear the average fiber diameter of the fibers in the meltblown layer would
`
`necessarily be larger than an average fiber diameter of the fibers in the electrospun layer.
`
`Green further teaches the multi-layer filter media may be formed by using the melt-blown
`
`fiber media layer as the substrate, depositing the electrospun nanofiber media layer on the melt-
`
`blown fiber media layer, and then laminating the scrim layer onto the electrospun nanofiber
`
`media layer after they are deposited on the meltblown layer (Green, [0063]) (Le, the multi-layer
`
`filter media corresponds to laminated nonwoven fabric, wherein due to the structure as shown in
`
`Fig.2 the electrospun layer (i.e., second nonwoven) is laminated on the meltblown layer (i.e.,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 5
`
`first nonwoven) and the scrim layer (i.e., third nonwoven) is laminated on the electrospun layer
`
`(i.e., second nonwoven) as the multi-layer filter media is formed by lamination, per claim 1).
`
`Green does not explicitly disclose an adhesive containing a plurality of particles, wherein
`
`some of the plurality of particles of the adhesive are attached to the second nonwoven fabric,
`
`wherein at least one of the first nonwoven fabric and the third nonwoven fabric is adhered to the
`
`second nonwoven fabric via the some of the plurality of particles of the adhesive, wherein an
`
`average particle diameter of the plurality of particles of the adhesive is smaller than the average
`
`fiber diameter of the first fibers.
`
`With respect to the difference, Kazuhiro teaches a filter medium for air filter including
`
`nanofibers in a nanofiber layer (Kazuhiro, title; problem to be solved),
`
`wherein nanofibers in the nanofiber layer are properly bonded by spreading adhesive
`
`particles in an appropriate amount during electrospinning of the nanofiber layer in the spinning
`
`space, (Kazuhiro, [0026]; problem to be solved),
`
`wherein as a result of spreading adhesive particles during electrospinning of the
`
`nanofiber layer, the nanofiber filter medium can bind the nanofiber surface layer and the cover
`
`sheet with adhesive particles when curing with the base material (Kazuhiro, [0026]),
`
`wherein when the diameter of the adhesive particles is 1 to 100 um to produce favorable
`
`results (Kazuhiro, [0034]).
`
`As Kazuhiro expressly teaches spreading adhesive particles in an appropriate amount
`
`during electrospinning of the nanofiber layer allows the nanofiber layer and the cover sheet to
`
`withstand damage such as peeling/tearing and fracturing due to the blocking phenomenon
`
`during product removal or unwinding, so that it can be maintained and easily handled therefore
`
`improving the processability of the nanofiber filter medium so that it is possible to provide the
`
`filter medium, simply, quickly, with good yield, and economically (Kazuhiro, [0034]).
`
`Green and Kazuhiro are analogous art as they are both drawn to nanofiber filter media.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 6
`
`In light of the motivation provided by Kazuhiro, it therefore would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to spread adhesive
`
`particles with a diameter within 1 to 100 um during electrospinning of the nanofiber layer in the
`
`spinning space of Green, in order to improve processability of the nanofiber filter medium so
`
`that it is possible to provide the filter medium, simply, quickly, with good yield, and economically
`
`(Kazuhiro, [0034]).
`
`Given the plurality of particles of the adhesive are spread in the spinning space during
`
`electrospinning of the nanofiber layer (i.e., second nonwoven fabric), it is clear some of the
`
`plurality of particles are attached to the nanofiber layer (i.e., second nonwoven fabric).
`
`Given the adhesive particles of Kazuhiro are used to bind the nanofiber surface layer to
`
`the cover sheet and the plurality of adhesive particles are spun with the nanofibers of the
`
`nanofiber layer, it is clear some of the plurality of adhesive particles of Green in view of
`
`Kazuhiro would be present on the surface of the nanofiber layer and adhere to either the
`
`meltblown layer or the scrim layer (i.e., at least one of the first nonwoven fabric and the third
`
`nonwoven fabric).
`
`Given the particle diameter of the plurality of particles of the adhesive is within 1 to 100
`
`um, it is clear, in some cases, the average particle diameter of the plurality of particles of the
`
`adhesive would be smaller than the average fiber diameter of the meltblown fibers (i.e., 1 to 500
`
`um).
`
`It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges
`
`disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d
`
`257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQZd 1934 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 7
`
`show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Green in view of Kazuhiro does not explicitly disclose the plurality of particles include a
`
`number n1 of first particles having streaky dents and a number ng of second particles other than
`
`first particles, the number n2 being larger than the number n1.
`
`With respect to the difference, Ichikawa teaches a nonwoven fabric laminate which is hot
`
`embossed, wherein the nonwoven fabric laminate includes a meltblown nonwoven fabric and a
`
`spounbond nonwoven fabric stacked on at least one surface of the meltblown nonwoven fabric
`
`(Ichikawa, abstract), wherein the nonwoven fabric laminate to be applied to air and liquid filter
`
`materials (Ichikawa, [0087]).
`
`Ichikawa teaches the emboss area ratio is preferably 10 to 30% (Ichikawa, [0094]).
`
`As Ichikawa expressly teaches hot embossing maintains high wear resistance (fuzz
`
`resistance) without any decrease in waterproofness (barrier properties) (Ichikawa, abstract).
`
`As Ichikawa expressly teaches when the emboss area ratio is 10 to 30%, the nonwoven
`
`fabric laminates achieve an excellent balance between bond strength and flexibility, wherein if
`
`the emboss area ratio is less than 5% the nonwoven fabric laminate exhibits poor fuzz
`
`resistance, wherein if the emboss area ratio is more than 35% the nonwoven fabric laminate
`
`exhibits poor flexibility, wherein the emboss area ratio correspond to the area of the marks on
`
`the emboss roll (Ichikawa, [0094])
`
`Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa are analogous art as they are both drawn to
`
`nonwoven fabric laminates for air and liquid filter materials.
`
`In light of the motivation for hot embossing as provided by Ichikawa, it therefore would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to hot emboss the multi-layer filter media of Green in view of Kazuhiro to have an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 8
`
`emboss area ratio of 10 to 30%, in order to ensure the multi-layer filter material maintains high
`
`wear resistance (fuzz resistance) without any decrease in waterpoofness (barrier properties),
`
`and ensure the multi-layer filter material does not exhibit poor flexibility, and thereby arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`According to applicant’s specification, first particles having streaky dents are formed by
`
`adhesive particles present in a region facing the protrusions of the embossing surface (PG PUB,
`
`[0057]), wherein in order to satisfy n2>n1, an area of other regions must be larger than an area
`
`of protrusion regions on the embossing surface (PG PUB, [0058]).
`
`Given Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa teaches the emboss area ratio is 10 to
`
`30%, it is clear the area of other regions are larger than the area of protrusion regions on the
`
`embossing surface.
`
`Furthermore, applicant’s specification states from the viewpoint of easily adjusting the
`
`ratio n2/n1, the ratio 82/81 of total area s2 of other regions to total area s1 of regions pushed by
`
`the protrusions of the embossing surface is, for example, 1.1 to 10, and is preferably 1.2 to 5
`
`(PG PUB, [0095]).
`
`Given Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa teaches the emboss area ratio is 10 to
`
`30%, it is clear the ratio 82/81 of total area s2 of other regions to total area s1 of regions pushed
`
`by the protrusions of the embossing surface is 2.3 to 9 (Le, 10% corresponds to 90/10 = 9; 30%
`
`corresponds to 70/30 = 2.3).
`
`Given that ratio 82/81 of the embossed multi-layer filter material of Green in view of
`
`Kazuhiro and Ichikawa is substantially identical to the ratio 32/81 as used in the present
`
`invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the multi-layer filter material of the Green in view of
`
`Kazuhiro and Ichikawa would intrinsically have a n2/n1 of 1.1 to 10, as presently claimed.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 9
`
`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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
`
`8.
`
`With respect to claim 3, Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa teaches all of the
`
`limitation of claim 1 above. Given the particle diameter of the plurality of particles of the
`
`adhesive is within 1 to 100 um, it is clear the average particle diameter of the plurality of
`
`particles of the adhesive would be larger than the average fiber diameter of the spunbound
`
`fibers (i.e., 0.05 to 0.7 um) (Kazuhiro, [0034]).
`
`9.
`
`With respect to claim 5, Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa further teaches when
`
`the adhesive is sprayed by the electrospinning method, it becomes a mixed layer with ultrafine
`
`fibers with many spindle-like beads and spherical fine particles when the solution concentration
`
`is lower and solvent evaporates (Kazuhiro, [0040]).
`
`As evidence by Lin, the ultrafine fiber with many spindle-like beads corresponds to a
`
`beads-on-string morphology of electrospun products as dilute polymer solutions and
`
`evaporation of the solvent result in beads-on string structures,
`
`wherein the beads-on-string structure contains thin filaments and droplets or beads (Lin,
`
`2.6.1 Concentration, pg. 40 line 1 — pg. 41 line 13; Fig. 2.8).
`
`As Kazuhiro expressly teaches the spray glue particles in the shape close to the true
`
`sphere are in the nanofiber layer and connect the surrounding nanofibers (Kazuhiro, [0040]),
`
`wherein the spray glue particles are a suspension of adhesive particles and the particles
`
`described in Kazuhiro are the adhesive particles in the suspension of the spray glue particles
`
`(Kazuhiro, [0017]).
`
`Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa and Kazuhiro are analogous art as they are both
`
`drawn to nanofiber filter media.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 10
`
`In light of the motivation provided by Kazuhiro, it therefore would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure when the
`
`adhesive is sprayed, the solution concentration is lower and the solvent evaporates so that
`
`ultrafine fibers with many spindle-like beads (i.e., beads-on-string structure) and spherical fine
`
`particles are produced in the nanofiber layer of Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa as the
`
`shape close the true sphere are in the nanofiber layer and connect the surrounding layers, and
`
`thereby arrive the claimed invention.
`
`Given the nanoparticle layer of Green in view of Kazuhiro and Ichikawa contains
`
`adhesive in the form of ultrafine fibers with many spindle-like beads (i.e., beads-on-string
`
`structure) and spherical fine particles, it is clear one of the beads in the beads-on-string
`
`structure would correspond to one of the plurality of particles and the string in the beads-on-
`
`string structure would correspond to the filament in view of evidence provided by Lin.
`
`While it is the Examiner’s position one of the beads in the beads-on-string structure
`
`would correspond to one of the plurality of particles and thus the beads-on-string structure
`
`would correspond to an adhesive filament connected to any one of the plurality of particles of
`
`the adhesive, even if not, as the adhesive undergoes electrospinning, it is clear one of the
`
`spherical fine particles would be in contact with the beads-on-string structure, and thus in
`
`contact with the string (i.e., filament), corresponding to an adhesive filament connected to any
`
`one of the plurality of particles of the adhesive.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`10.
`
`Regarding the amendment to claim 1 including, “wherein the plurality of particles include
`
`a number n1 of first particles having streaky dents and a number ng of second particles other
`
`than first particles, the number n2 being larger than the number n1” in lines 10-12, it is agreed
`
`the previously relied upon rejection would not meet the presently claimed. Therefore, the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 11
`
`previous 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn. However, the amendment necessitates a new set
`
`of rejection as set forth above.
`
`11.
`
`Regarding the drawings filed 05/20/2019, the previous objections to the drawing are
`
`withdrawn.
`
`12.
`
`Applicants primarily argue:
`
`“Green discloses a three layer laminated nanofiber filter, however, Green does not teach
`or suggest an adhesive containing a plurality of particles. For the adhesive feature, the
`Office action cites Kazuhiro.
`
`Kazuhiro discloses use of adhesive particles to bind nanofiber layers of a filter medium to
`reduce peeling and fracture. For example, para. [0034] of Kazuhiro discloses particles of
`a size of 1 to 100 micron, while paras. [0032]—[0036] disclose the adhesive being sprayed
`during electrospinning of a respective nanofiber layer. Kazuhiro does not teach or suggest
`that a number ng of adhesive particles not having streaky dents is greater than a number
`ni of particles having streaky dents. Rather, Kazuhiro is instead concerned with particle
`diameter and general overspraying of adhesive. Kazuhiro is not concerned with control of
`quantity of particles having streaky dents and quantity of particles other than those having
`streaky dents.
`
`Accordingly, even if Kazuhiro and Green were combined, the combination would not meet
`the claim limitations because neither teaches or suggests utilizing an adhesive containing
`a plurality of particles, where the particles have the recited features of claim 1 of the
`present application. Lin does not make up for this deficiency.”
`
`Remarks, pg. 6
`
`The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
`
`In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot
`
`show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
`
`combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re
`
`Merck & 00., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`It is noted that while Kazuhiro does not disclose all the features of the present claimed
`
`invention, Kazuhrio is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this
`
`secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nieve/t,
`
`482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 12
`
`881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the
`
`primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
`
`While Green and Kazuhiro does not explicitly teach the recited features of first particles
`
`having streaky dents and second particles not having streaky dents of the adhesive, it is noted
`
`these references are not used to teach this limitation, instead lchikawa is relied upon to teach
`
`this limitation.
`
`Conclusion
`
`13.
`
`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 extension fee 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 date of this
`
`final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/351 ,564
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 13
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you
`
`would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the
`
`automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/C.X.N./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1789
`
`/CORIS FUNG/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
`
`