DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on December 23, 2025. Claims 1, 17 and 35-38 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17, 19-23, 25-26, 32-38 and 40 are currently pending and under examination.
The 112(a) rejection over claims 37-39 is withdrawn, as the examiner mistakenly missed the original disclosure of such limitations on the top of page 4 of the instant specification.
The 112(b) rejection over claims 37-38 is withdrawn, as applicants have amended to delete the narrower range listed together with the broad range.
The prior art rejections, as set forth in the previous office action, are deemed proper and are therefore maintained.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
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
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 17, 19-23, 25, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 60017174 in view of JP 07-72390, and further in view of JP 59-179640 and/or CA 1276338, and Silibase (Silicone Defoamer, Silibase, 2022, 2 pages), as evidenced by Tsurushige (US 4,226,943) and Straka (US 4,049,587), Shah (US 4,617,230). For convenience, the human translation of JP ‘174 will be cited below and the machine translations of JP ‘390 and JP ‘640 will be cited below.
JP ‘174 teaches a carpet adhesive mixture containing a polymer latex and a filler, and if necessary, adding other additives such as a stabilizer, which is taught to include general anionic emulsifiers, suggesting the introduction of said stabilizer to the already formed latex. JP ‘174 exemplifies the inclusion of styrenated phenol (anti-aging agent), which is a known stabilizer, as evidenced by Shah (col. 12, ll. 34-36).
JP ‘174 exemplifies the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
532
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Examples 2 and 5, the latex composition comprises an acrylic acid modified styrene butadiene copolymer elastomer, calcium carbonate inorganic filler, and a polyethylene wax, where the amount of wax is present in an amount of 9.1 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the solid content of the latex.
JP ‘174 teaches that the adhesive has a solids content of 70% (p. 10); however, applicants claim the solids content as at least 75 in claim 1 and at least 85% in claim 6.
JP ‘174 does not disclose a working range of solids content for the described adhesive; however, JP ‘076 teaches a carpet adhesive comprising an acrylic acid modified styrene butadiene latex, calcium carbonate, sodium tripolyphosphate and water, where the solids were adjusted to 75%, having a similar viscosity as that of JP ‘174 described above.
Additionally, JP ‘390 teaches a carpet backing comprising an acrylic acid modified styrene butadiene copolymer latex, calcium carbonate, polyoxyethylene nonylphenol ether, styrenated phenol and water, teaching that the composition for carpet backing usually has a viscosity of 20,000-40,000 and its solid content is 55-85%, teaching that if the solids content exceeds 85 wt%, the viscosity increases and the coating efficiency increases, causing variations in quality such as peel strength and feeling.
JP ‘174 exemplifies a viscosity of 25,000 cps at 70% solids. Therefore, increasing the solids content to 85% is clearly possible within the teaching of JP ‘174, while still being able to use the composition as a carpet backing.
Therefore, it can be seen that an anionic latex composition having a solids content of 75, 80 or even 85% is suitable for use as a carpet backing adhesive, where JP ‘174 does not particularly limit the solids content of the adhesive composition.
As to the amount of surfactant, JP ‘174 teaches the inclusion of a stabilizer for the adhesive mixture which include general anionic emulsifiers (p. 7) and exemplified as sodium alkylbenzene sulfonate; however, does not teach or suggest specific anionic emulsifiers.
JP ‘640 teaches a carpet backing prepared from a latex of styrene, butadiene, and acrylic acid, comprising polyoxyethylene alkylphenol ether sulfate or a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether sulfate, shown below, as an emulsifier, where R or R’ is an alkyl group, preferably a C8-C12 group and n=2-75, and an inorganic filler, such as calcium carbonate:
PNG
media_image3.png
83
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
JP ‘640 specifically teaches that the use method of the emulsifier is not particularly limited, and includes [3] a portion of the emulsifier is added after the completion of the polymerization process in order to stabilize the latex. In this case, the final emulsifier concentration in the latex must be adjusted to be within the range specified (pp. 6-7), where the specified range is 0.05-6 wt% of the monomers (p. 7), which is the same as 0.05-6 dry parts per 100 dry parts of the elastomer, as the monomers make up the dry parts of the elastomer.
JP ‘640 teaches that these emulsifiers provide a latex with a high softness compared to that using conventional emulsifiers such as sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium alkyl diphenyl ether sulfonate (p. 8).
Therefore, JP ‘640 shows that ethoxylated emulsifiers are suitable for use in carpet backing applications comprising styrene butadiene latex and inorganic fillers, and also teaches that these emulsifiers can be used for polymerization and/or can be added afterwards for stabilizing the latex.
Adding up to 6 wt% (or 6 phr) of the ethoxylated emulsifier to the latex, after polymerization, such that the total amount of emulsifier in the adhesive mixture is no more than 6 wt% dry content is prima facie obvious, as JP ‘174 and JP ‘640 teach adding anionic emulsifiers to an already formed latex as a stabilizer. Note JP ‘174 exemplifies the use of 2.5 dry parts based on the monomer content for polymerization, suggesting the addition of up to 4 wt% (4 dry parts) based on the monomer content after polymerization, which falls within the claimed range of 3-10 phr.
Also note, JP ‘390 exemplifies the preparation of the latex using an emulsifier, and adds additional emulsifier to the already prepared latex to form a composition with calcium carbonate. This is a clear example of what JP ‘174 meant when teaching “[3] a portion of the emulsifier is added after the completion of the polymerization process in order to stabilize the latex”.
Alternatively, JP ‘174 teaches a carpet adhesive mixture containing a polymer latex and a filler, and if necessary, adding other additives such as a stabilizer, which is taught to include general anionic emulsifiers, suggesting the introduction of said stabilizer to the already formed latex. JP ‘174 also teaches that the water repellent agent includes polyethylene wax, paraffin wax,…and the like, which are water repellent agents treated so as to be dispersible in water (p. 6). JP ‘174 does not teach or suggest the amount of emulsifier that can be added as a stabilizer, nor does JP ‘174 teach how the repellent agents are treated to render them dispersible in water.
CA ‘338 teaches aqueous water-repellent coatings, teaching that the use of 5-50 wt% of an aqueous wax dispersion and 50-95 wt% of an aqueous latex, teaching that the aqueous wax dispersion comprises a surfactant to stabilize the dispersion. CA ‘338 teaches that when little solvent is used, and the waxes are not water dispersible themselves, the wax dispersion is maintained with the aid of a surfactant (p. 6, ll. 28-33), where the surfactant includes anionic surfactants, such as sodium lauryl sulfate, which is a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether sulfonate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the water repellent, or wax, of JP ‘174, as a dispersion in an aqueous solution with an anionic surfactant, is prima facie obvious, as JP ‘174 allows for adding anionic emulsifiers as an additive for the carpet adhesive mixture, and CA ‘338 teaches that by introducing the wax as a dispersion, the wax can maintain a dispersed state within the latex.
CA ‘338 teaches the wax dispersion as comprising at least 5 wt% surfactant, and exemplifies an amount of 27 wt% surfactant.
Based on the addition of 9 dry parts wax in Example 5, above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the wax as an aqueous dispersion in combination with about 0.5-3.3 parts surfactant (5-27 wt% surfactant based on the solids of the dispersion).
JP ‘174 in view of JP ‘390, and further in view of JP ‘640 and/or CA ‘338 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 17, 33, 35 and 40.
As to claims 3, 4, 19 and 20, JP ‘174 discloses the inclusion of a water repellent agents having a melting point of 30-100ºC, such as polyethylene and paraffin wax, exemplifying a polyethylene wax having a melting point of 80ºC and a paraffin wax having a melting point of 70ºC, where the following is evidenced by Tsurushinge (col. 4, ll. 23-29):
PNG
media_image4.png
125
389
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the polyethylene and paraffin waxes exemplified and preferred by JP ‘174 inherently meet the claimed 15-60 carbon chain and molecular weight of at least 200 g/mol.
As to claims 7 and 23, JP ‘174 and JP ‘640 each teach the possible inclusion of a crosslinking agent (p. 7).
As to claim 11, JP ‘174 discloses the viscosity of the latex composition when measured with Brookfield viscometer at a rotation speed of 6 rpm as 25,000 cps, which as evidenced by Straka, can inherently possess a viscosity within the claimed range when measured at a higher rpm (col. 8, ll. 1-13).
As to claims 13 and 25, JP ‘174 teaches the inclusion of a stabilizer for the adhesive mixture which include general anionic emulsifiers (p. 7) and
As to claims 21 and 22, JP ‘174 teaches that the inorganic filler can be present in an amount of up to 700 parts based on 100 parts by weight of the elastomer solids. Increasing the amount from 350 parts, as exemplified in Example 2, to 500 parts is prima facie obvious, as this modification is clearly suggested by the teachings of JP ‘174. This suggests an adhesive composition comprising the elastomer in an amount of 16 wt% and the inorganic filler as present in an amount of 81 wt% based on the solids of the adhesive.
Note claims 21 and 22 do not limit how the percentage is calculated and can therefore be construed as based on a total amount of solids.
As to claims 34 and 36, JP ‘174 teaches the water repellent wax component as being present in an amount of preferably 0.4-4 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the solid content of the adhesive mixture. Increasing the content of the wax in Example 2 to 10-20 parts is prima facie obvious, as this provides a wax content of 2.1-4 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the solids content. Therefore, it can be seen that the amount of wax taught by JP ‘174 overlaps with the claimed range of 10-15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the elastomer, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As to claims 37-38, JP ‘174 exemplifies the inclusion of 2.5 parts emulsifier during polymerization, suggesting the inclusion of 2.5 parts emulsifier and 103 parts of components which make up the solids portion of the latex, which further suggests that there are about 2.4 wt% of emulsifier in the latex solids in the adhesive. The adhesive is formed by mixing the components listed in Table 2, where water is added to meet a 70% solids content. This suggests the inclusion of 2.4 parts emulsifier in 678.5 parts latex coating composition (475/x=0.70, gives x=678.5 parts total in the aqueous latex adhesive). 2.4 parts emulsifier from the latex solids in a total amount of 678.5 parts total to make the adhesive, suggests the inclusion of about 0.35 wt% emulsifier in the adhesive coating, which falls within the range of 0.1-1 wt%.
Additionally, JP ‘174 suggests adding an amount of up to 6 wt% based on the total monomer content, which results in an amount of about 0.8 wt% based on the total parts used to make the adhesive. Therefore, it can be seen that the amount of emulsifier which can be added in the latex composition meets the claimed range of 0.1-1 wt%.
As to claim 40, the elastomer and wax are both present in as an emulsion.
Additionally, CA ‘338 teaches the combination of an aqueous wax dispersion and an aqueous latex, teaching that the aqueous wax dispersion comprises a surfactant to stabilize the dispersion. CA ‘338 teaches that when little solvent is used, and the waxes are not water dispersible themselves, the wax dispersion is maintained with the aid of a surfactant (p. 6, ll. 28-33). The remaining limitations of claim 40 have been addressed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the prior art does not disclose a latex composition comprising both a surfactant and a stabilizer.
JP ‘174 teaches a carpet adhesive mixture containing other additives such as a stabilizer, which is taught to include general anionic emulsifiers, suggesting the introduction of said stabilizer to the already formed latex. CA ‘338 also describes the surfactant as stabilizing the dispersion.
JP ‘174 exemplifies the inclusion of styrenated phenol (anti-aging agent), which is a known stabilizer, as evidenced by Shah (US 4,617,230, col. 12, ll. 34-36).
Therefore, the emulsifier meets applicants’ surfactant and the styrenated phenol meets applicants’ stabilizer.
While both the surfactant and the styrenated phenol are considered stabilizers, they are two separate components, as desired by applicants.
Applicants do not define the term stabilizer; therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is used herein, and antioxidants are known as stabilizers in the art.
Also note, however, that because the “stabilizer” is not defined, the surfactant also meets this limitation, as the surfactant is described as stabilizing the latex dispersion.
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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, 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.
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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766