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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 12/30/2025 and 1/29/2026 do not include strikethrough markings in amended claims 1 and 3. Specifically, both claims have removed “synthetic latex” from the list of adhesive resins.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (JP 06-293865, machine translation).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 9, and 12, Asakura discloses an aqueous coating composition comprising fatty acid sucrose ester (paragraphs 0001 and 0038), wherein the examples show good adhesion (paragraphs 0064 and 0068) and therefore the composition is considered to be an “adhesive” composition. MPEP 2111.02 states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Asakura teaches that the fatty acid sucrose ester can be derived from saturated (lauric acid and stearic acid) and unsaturated (oleic acid) fatty acids (paragraph 0039). Asakura discloses that the fatty acid sucrose ester is present in an amount of 0.5-30 wt % by weight paint solids (paragraph 0044), and the solids contents is 20-45 wt % (paragraph 0045)—which provides for an amount of fatty acid sucrose ester of 0.1-13.5 wt % fatty acid sucrose ester in the aqueous coating composition which substantially overlaps with claimed range of 0.5-50 wt %. Asakura that the aqueous coating composition comprises a water-dispersible resin that includes polyester (paragraph 0016) and preferred styrene/acrylic resins (paragraph 0026).
Asakura fails to exemplify or anticipate a composition comprising unsaturated fatty acid sucrose ester in the claimed range.
Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select both given that Asakura discloses that unsaturated fatty acid sucrose ester is suitable and the amount of fatty acid sucrose ester overlap with the claimed range—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results which are reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims.
With respect to claim 3, Asakura discloses a water-dispersion resin such as polyester but fails to disclose that it is a “natural latex.”
Even so, it is the examiner’s position that a water-dispersible polyester can be synthetic or natural latex such as polylactic acid or polyhydroxyalkanoates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a polyester that is derived from natural sources—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results.
With respect to claim 5, Asakura discloses that the carboxyl group-containing acrylic resins includes those derived from styrene and (meth)acrylic comonomers (paragraph 0025-0026), e.g., paragraph 0050.
With respect to claim 6, this which claim further limits styrene butadiene latex but does not exclude the alternative embodiment of styrene acrylate (SA) latex. Since the latter embodiment is disclosed by Asakura as discussed above, it is proper to include claim 6 in this rejection.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Asakura teaches that a mixture of two or more fatty acid sucrose esters can be used (paragraph 0038). The differences in the number of carbon atoms inherently provide for difference in HLB.
With respect to claim 13, the fatty acid sucrose ester also reads on polyol fatty acid ester because sucrose is a polyol.
With respect to claim 14, Asakura discloses adding glycol solvents (paragraph 0034) which read on claimed catalyst.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura (JP 06-293865, machine translation) in view of Masuda (US 5,698,628).
The discussion with respect to Asakura in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Asakura discloses adding conventional paint additives such as pigments (paragraph 0045) but fails to disclose specific inorganic additives.
Masuda discloses a water-based paint (abstract) and teaches that known pigments include calcium carbonate and kaolin (col. 15, lines 24-29).
Given that Asakura discloses adding pigments and further given that Masuda teaches that conventional pigments for aqueous paints include calcium carbonate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least one of these mineral fillers in the aqueous coating composition of Asakura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Asakura does not disclose the adhesive binder like claimed.
Asakura that the aqueous coating composition comprises a water-dispersible resin that includes polyester (paragraph 0016) and preferred styrene/acrylic resins (paragraph 0026).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn