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
Claim Interpretation
The specification defines “rapidly freezing” to mean freezing the latex in 1 second to less than 20 minutes [see Specification as filed paragraph 0022].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Henton’s air drying could be conducted below the freezing point of water and that air drying does not imply a thawing step. This argument is not convincing. The ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that “air-drying” is a process of removing liquid water via air above at least the freezing point of water. Air below the freezing point of water would likely just freeze water or keep ice frozen. And without a step of thawing, one would be “sublimating” the ice and not “drying” the water. Nevertheless, the secondary reference Talalay teaches both freezing and thawing steps, and Examiner just intended to point out that the air-drying step of Henton implied a thawing step before the air drying.
Applicant argues that Example 1 of Henton mixes a dry grafted rubber with the epoxy resin and not the latex of rubber (A) as required by the claims. This argument is not convincing. Henton explicitly discloses that alternatively to adding the grafted rubber particles in a dry phase, the grafted rubber particles in the form of a latex in an aqueous phase can be contacted with the epoxy resin phase, and the aqueous phase can be subsequently removed. or in aqueous added to the resin [col 5 lines 40-60]. Examples 2 and 3 disclose such a method explicitly.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henton et al (US 4778851 A) in view of Talalay (US 3284396 A).
Henton discloses compositions comprising epoxy resins (B) with a dispersed phase of grafted rubber particles (A) [abstract]. The grafted rubber particles (A) are coagulated (agglutinated) by a freezing coagulation method and air dried (thawed) [col 7 lines 23-25], then are mixed with the epoxy resin (B) which is a liquid at 25C with viscosity between 9000 and 11500 centipoise (= 9000 and 11500 mPas) [col 7 lines 26-34]. The graft part of the polymer includes styrene and acrylate monomers [col 7 lines 8-12]. The examples include 10wt% of the rubber [Table 1] and so 90wt% of epoxy resin.
Henton does not disclose that the freeze coagulation is done rapidly.
Talalay discloses similar techniques to Henton for making rubber particles from latex dispersions [col 1 lines 10-16]. Talalay teaches that freeze/thaw agglomeration [col 4 lines 42-50] is preferably carried out by freezing as rapidly as possible [col 4 lines 10-25] , usually within about 2 to 10 seconds [col 4 lines 30-34] but desirably within 5 minutes and preferably within 1 minute [col 5 lines 1-5], followed by thawing as rapidly as possible. Talalay teaches that rapid freezing and thawing according to these parameters obtains optimum results in degree of agglomeration [col 4 lines 50-62].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed rapid freezing agglutination step as the freezing agglomeration step of Henton because Talalay teaches that rapid freezing and thawing according to these parameters obtains optimum results in degree of agglomeration.
Regarding claim 5, the mixture of (A) and (B) includes 81.3 g of epoxy resin (A), 50 g of MEK solvent, and 18.7 g of dry grafted rubber [col 7 lines 27-37], and the latex will have about 24.99 g of water (since the polymer dispersion is 42.8 percent polymer solids) [col 7 lines 19-21]. So the step results in an adjustment of water content to about 14.3wt%.
Regarding claim 6, solvent and water are removed by rotary evaporation [col 7 lines 39-42] which reads on a washing step as well as a separating step.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henton et al (US 4778851 A) in view of Talalay (US 4778851 A) and further in view of Rolland et al (WO 2017112682 A1, hereinafter US 20180370125 A1 is cited as a US equivalent).
If Applicant argues that Modified Henton does not disclose the washing step with sufficient specificity, then the following additional rejection also applies.
Rolland discloses a method of (a) forming a first polymerizable liquid mixture, (b) forming a second intermediate object from a second polymerizable liquid; (c) optionally washing said first intermediate and said second intermediate; (d) contacting said first intermediate object to said second intermediate object; and then, (e) solidifying and/or curing a second solidifiable component [abstract]. The second component may include a curable epoxy resin [0020, 0023] and may include rubber particle dispersions [] similar to Henton. The intermediates may be washed before curing and the wash liquids include water, organic solvents and mixtures thereof [0414-0415] and even addition rinsing steps with water or water/alcohol mixture [0436].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed washing step on the curable composition of Henton because Rolland teaches water and solvents can be used to wash and rinse away impurities and undesired intermediate components.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henton et al (US 4778851 A) in view of Moore (US 4857631 A).
Henton, discussed above, also discloses an example in which 80 parts of epoxy resin is added to 64.7 parts of a latex dispersion of grafted rubber concentrate [col 8 lines 48-58, 21-47] wherein water is removed (separated) [col 8 lines 55-56]. The grafted rubber includes acrylate monomers in the grafted portion [col 8 lines 21-24]. The epoxy resin is diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A [col 8 line 54].
Henton does not disclose that the freeze coagulation is done rapidly.
Moore discloses a method for preparing a readily de-waterable modified rubber concentrate with a rubber content of from 57 to about 88% by weight, by preparing a latex emulsion of the rubber concentrate, freeze coagulating the emulsion (latex), and thawing it to form a coagulate that can be separated from the emulsion-water solution [abstract, col 3 lines 21-25]. Moore discloses that the freezing may be a more rapid freezing [col 5 line 15], The process is useful with graft rubber concentrates [col 2 lines 37-40]. Moore discloses that the invention allows coagulated polymer with water levels below about 15% that are particularly desirable because the polymer can be directly fed into a blending extruder where the rubber concentrate is blended with other polymers [col 5 lines 1-9]. Moore also teaches that no solvent is used in the process and will not end up in the final product [col 2 lines 1-4]. Moore also teaches that the product is free flowing and non or low dusting [col 2 lines 8-10].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the rapid freezing and thawing steps of the claims in the latex rubber of Henton because Moore teaches that the freezing and thawing prepares the rubber withough solvent and reduces water levels to enhance mixing with other polymers like the epoxy resin of Henton, and that the resuling dewatered products are non or low dusting.
Regarding the claimed “rapid” freezing step, Moore teaches that rate of freezing will have some influence on the ease of de-watering and dust formation, and that increasing the rate of freezing has been found to result in a finished product having a higher percentage of retained water for rubber contents below about 64%. The reverse has been observed in products having rubber contents above about 75% [col 5 lines 10-22]. Moore teaches, therefore, that the rate of freezing is a result-effective variable, because changing it will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to utilize increased freezing rates including those within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired end results.
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 MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights