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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 15-27 are amended; claims 8-9 and 31-33 are cancelled; and claims 36-37 are added. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 10-30 and 34-37 are currently pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 37 recites “an aqueous latex composition of claim 1” and does not find proper antecedent basis for the limitation in claim 1, since claim 1 is drawn to a “composition for aqueous emulsion polymerization” and forms a latex only upon polymerization of monomers. Hence, metes and bounds of present claims cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. Examiner interprets the claim 37 as being drawn to a paint composition comprising “an aqueous latex obtained from the composition of claim 1 by polymerization of monomers” and the obtained aqueous latex thus comprises “water” and “an emulsion polymer”. There is no teaching in present application that additional water and emulsion polymer are added to the latex obtained from the composition for aqueous emulsion polymerization.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10, 12-13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant comprises a monosaccharide unit, a disaccharide unit, a linker, and a functionalizing agent” (lines 1-3) and fails to limit the scope of claim 1 on which this claim is dependent. Specifically, derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant of claim 10 does not require the functional groups such as sulfonate, phosphate etc. of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant comprises a monosaccharide unit, a disaccharide unit, a crosslinking agent, and a functionalizing agent” (lines 1-3) and fails to limit the scope of claim 1 on which this claim is dependent. Specifically, derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant of claim 12 does not require the functional groups such as sulfonate, phosphate etc. of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant includes the following as a mixture (a)
PNG
media_image1.png
196
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and (b)
PNG
media_image2.png
354
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein … R1 … R11 are independently selected from …
PNG
media_image3.png
80
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and H, with the proviso that R1-R11 are not all H, R12 is selected from … -OH … -N(CH3)2-R1A, …
PNG
media_image4.png
90
212
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” (lines 1-13). and fails to limit the scope of claim 1 on which this claim is dependent. Specifically, alkyl polyglucoside surfactant mixture does not require the functional groups such as sulfonate, phosphate etc. of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant includes the flowing as a mixture (a)
PNG
media_image1.png
196
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein … R1 … R4 are independently selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image5.png
80
178
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and H, with the proviso that R1 ... R4 are not all H, R12 is selected from … -OH … and (b)
PNG
media_image2.png
354
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R5 … R11 are independently selected from …
PNG
media_image3.png
80
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and H, and R12 is selected from … -OH” (lines 1-17) and fails to limit the scope of claim 1 on which this claim is dependent. Specifically, alkyl polyglucoside surfactant mixture does not require the functional groups such as sulfonate, phosphate etc. of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant includes the following as a mixture: (a)
PNG
media_image1.png
196
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein … R1 … R4 are independently selected from
PNG
media_image6.png
114
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
… and H, with the proviso that R1 ... R4 are not all H and (b)
PNG
media_image7.png
360
310
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R5 … R11 are independently selected from …
PNG
media_image6.png
114
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and H, with the proviso that R5 … R11 are not all H” (lines 1-13). Specifically, derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant mixture does not require the functional groups such as sulfonate, phosphate etc. of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-22, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maver et al (US 6,2368,470 B1) in view of Hatchman et al (US 2015/0010429 A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 3-5, Maver et al disclose in example 1, emulsion polymerization of a mixture of 920 g of butyl acrylate, 1040 g of methyl methacrylate, and 40 g of methacrylic acid (i.e., all three read on the monomers in present claim 1, monomer species in present claim 3, and monomer comprising carbon double-double bonds in present claim 4) in the presence of 216.2 g of 37% active ingredient of Glucopon® 625 (i.e., reads on derivatized alkyl polyglucoside in present claim 1), and 6 g of ammonium persulfate (i.e., reads on initiator in present claims 1 and 5) in an aqueous medium (bridging paragraph col. 4-5). The amounts of Glucopon®, monomers, water, and initiator are calculated to be about 2.0% by weight (i.e., reads on the amount of derivatized alkyl polyglucoside in present claim 1), about 47% by weight (i.e., reads on the amount of monomer in present claim 1), about 50% by weight (i.e., reads on the amount of water in present claim 1), and 0.14% by weight (i.e., reads on the amount of initiator in present claim 1), respectively.
Maver et al differ with respect to the species of derivatized alkyl polyglucoside.
However, Hatchman et al teach surfactant as a corrosion inhibitor (abstract). The alkyl polyglycoside is made up of units of formula I and/or II
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(wherein R is a C8-30 alkyl group, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 and R11 are independently selected from the group consisting of -CH2CH(OH)CH2-R12 and H with the proviso that not all R1, R2, R3, R4 are H and R12 is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image10.png
99
330
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein M is selected from H, and cations such as Na, K, and NH4 (paragraphs 0069-0078) which reads on sulfonate derivatized and phosphate derivatized alkyl polyglucosides in present claim 1. Therefore, in light of the teachings in Hatchman et al and given that Maver et al includes an alkyl polyglucoside as a surfactant in emulsion polymerization, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include a known alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, of Hatchman et al, in the emulsion polymerization process, of Maver et al, for functioning as an emulsifier with an additional advantage of inhibiting corrosion.
Regarding claim 2, see example 1, of Maver et al, wherein the emulsion polymerization composition is free of ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane.
Regarding claims 6, examples of initiators, in Maver et al, include hydrogen peroxide (col. 2, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 10 and 12, Hatchman et al teach that alkyl polyglycoside is made up of units of formula I and/or II:
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(i.e., reads on the monosaccharide unit in present claims 10 and 12) and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(i.e., reads on the disaccharide unit in present claims 10, and 12). The corrosion inhibiting surfactant comprises a derivative of an alkyl polyglucoside and may be suitably derived from reaction products of alkyl polyglucoside with a crosslinking agent (i.e., reads on the linker in present claim 10 and crosslinker in present claim 12) and a functionalizing agent (paragraph 0039) which reads on the functionalizing agent in present claims 10, and 12.
Regarding claims 13-15, 17 and 19-20, Hatchman et al teach that alkyl polyglycoside is made up of units of formula I and/or II:
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein R is a C8-30 alkyl group, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 and R11 are independently selected from the group consisting of -CH2CH(OH)CH2-R12 and H with the proviso that not all R1, R2, R3, R4 are H and R12 is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image10.png
99
330
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein M is selected from H, and cations such as Na, K, and NH4 (paragraphs 0069-0078) which reads on compounds of formula “a” in present claims 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, and positional isomer of compound of formula “b” in present claims 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, surfactant in present claim 17. The crosslinking agent is Cl-CH2CH(OH)CH2Cl (paragraph 0043) which reads on the crosslinker in present claim 14, 19 and 20. The functionalizing agent is selected from
PNG
media_image11.png
148
291
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 0057) which reads on functionalizing agent in present claims 14, 19, 20. Additional surfactant such as C10-20 acyl sorbitan may be included (paragraph 0202) which reads on sorbitan ester in present claim 19.
Regarding claims 21-22 and 24, Hatchman et al teach that alkyl polyglucoside derivative is of formula:
PNG
media_image12.png
222
399
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein R is selected from C8 to C30 alkyl groups and “Y” is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image13.png
97
330
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, n is an integer from 1 to 10 (paragraphs 0087-0091) which reads on the surfactant in present claims 21, 22 and 24.
Regarding claim 28, see example 1, of Maver et al, wherein the emulsion polymerization components include sodium lauryl sulfate (col. 4, lines 60-65) which reads on the co-surfactant in present claim 28.
Claim 30 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fack et al (EP 2 070 511 A2) in view of Hatchman et al (US 2015/0010429 A1).
It is noted that EP 2070511 A2 is in French. A copy of the machine translation into English is provided with Office action mailed 12/27/2023. All line/paragraph citations in the body of rejection below are to the English translation unless explicitly stated.
Fack discloses a process of preparing a polymer by adding a monomer mixture to a solution of emulsifying surfactants (i.e., reads on the surfactant in present claims 30 and 36) in a suitable quantity of water (i.e., reads on water in present claims 30 and 36) to prepare monomer emulsion (i.e., which reads on introducing at least one monomer to an aqueous solution in present claim 30; and at least one monomer in present claim 3t). The polymerization reaction is initiated by adding a polymerization catalyst (paragraph 0103) which reads on the initiator in present claims 30 and 36, and producing a latex in claims 30 and 36.
Fack is silent with respect to the species of surfactant and differs with respect to the order of processing.
However, regarding species of surfactant, Fack teaches that surfactants suitable for facilitating emulsion polymerization may be nonionic, anionic, amphoteric or cationic surfactants or mixtures thereof. All types of nonionic, anionic, amphoteric or cationic surfactants conventionally used in emulsion polymerization can be used (paragraphs 0104-0105). The compositions can comprise one or more surfactants and examples include alkyl monoesters and polyglycoside dicarboxylic acids such as alkyl glucoside citrate and alkyl plolyglycoside sulfosuccinates (paragraphs 01077 and 0109). Additionally, Hatchman et al teach surfactant as a corrosion inhibitor (abstract). The alkyl polyglycosides is made up of units of formula I and/or II
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein R is a C8-30 alkyl group, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 and R11 are independently selected from the group consisting of -CH2CH(OH)CH2-R12 and H with the proviso that not all R1, R2, R3, R4 are H and R12 is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image10.png
99
330
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein M is selected from H, and cations such as Na, K, and NH4 (paragraphs 0069-0078). Therefore, in light of the teachings in general disclosure of Fack, Hatchman et al, and given that Fack is open to the use of any surfactant in the polymerization process including anionic, amphoteric or cationic surfactants, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include any of the known surfactants such as those taught in Hatchman et al, in the polymerization process of Fack et al, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding order of processing; case law holds that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), See MPEP § 2144.04. Therefore, it is the Office’s position that it is within the scope of one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare an aqueous solution comprising the surfactant, water and initiator to which is added the monomer, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 34-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al (US 2016/175240 A1) in view of Hatchman et al (US 2015/0010429 A1).
Prior to setting forth the rejection, it is noted that the recitation of "paint composition" in the preamble (cf. independent claims 34 and 37) is deemed to be a statement of purpose or intended use which is not seen to result in any structural difference between the instantly claimed invention and Tan et al and hence the preamble fails to limit the claim. MPEP 2111.02.
Tan et al disclose a composition comprising latex polymers, wax dispersion, and a surfactant mixture (abstract). The composition comprises latex polymer, surfactant mixture comprising nonionic and ionic surfactant, and water (paragraphs 0010-0017) which reads on aqueous latex composition comprising water and emulsion polymer in present claims 34 and 37. The latex polymer is produced in the form an aqueous dispersion through an emulsion polymer (paragraph 0096) which reads on aqueous latex composition comprising emulsion polymer in present claims 34 and 37. The wax dispersion can include pigments (paragraph 0359) which reads on pigment in present claims 34 and 37. The composition can include rheology modifiers (paragraph 0506) which reads on rheology modifier in present claims 35 and 37. The latex polymer is present in amounts of 1 to about 30% by weight of the composition (claim 3) and the amount of monomers in the aqueous composition is implicit in the amount of latex polymer. The wax dispersion is present in amounts of from about 1 to about 15% by weight (claim 4). The surfactant mixture is present in amount of abut 1% to about 5% by weight based on the total weight of wax dispersion (claim 8) which overlaps with the amount of surfactant in present claim 37. The latex polymer exists as dispersed polymer particles in a dispersion medium (paragraph 0098). The dispersion medium comprises water in amounts of at least 50% by weight (paragraph 0100) which reads on the amount of water in present claim 37.
Tan et al fail to disclose a composition comprising the species of derivatized alkyl polyglucoside.
However, Tan et al in the general disclosure teach examples of anionic surfactants that include alkyl glucoside citrate and polyalkyl glucoside sulfosuccinate (paragraph 0206). Additionally, Hatchman et al teach surfactant as a corrosion inhibitor (abstract). The alkyl polyglycosides is made up of units of formula I and/or II
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein R is a C8-30 alkyl group, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 and R11 are independently selected from the group consisting of -CH2CH(OH)CH2-R12 and H with the proviso that not all R1, R2, R3, R4 are H and R12 is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image10.png
99
330
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein M is selected from H, and cations such as Na, K, and NH4 (paragraphs 0069-0078). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Hatchman et al, and given that Tan et al is open to the use of ionic surfactants based on alkyl glucoside, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include known alkyl glucoside surfactants, of Hatchman et al in the composition, of Tan et al, for above mentioned advantages.
Claims 1-5, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-22, 24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guanliang (CN 108892749 A) in view of Hatchman et al (US 2015/0010429 A1).
It is noted that CN 108892749 A is in Chinese. A copy of the machine translation into English is provided with Office action mailed 12/27/2023. All line/paragraph citations in the body of rejection below are to the English translation unless explicitly stated.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Guanliang discloses in example 2, emulsion polymerization composition comprising 0.5 parts by weight of alkyl glycoside APG0814, 0.5 parts by weight of alkyl glycoside APG1214 (i.e., reads on derivatized alkyl polyglycoside surfactant and its amount in present claim 1), 10 parts by weight of methyl methacrylate, 20 parts by weight of butyl acrylate, 2 parts by weight of acrylic acid, and 1 part by weight of acrylamide, (i.e., all read on the monomer in present claim 1, species of monomer in present claim 3, monomer comprises reactive carbon-carbon double bonds in present claim 4, and total (i.e., amount of 33%) reads on the amount of monomer in present claim 1), 0.5 parts by weight of azobisisobutyrazoline hydrochloride (i.e., reads on initiator and its amount in present claim 1; and azo-type initiator in present claim 5) and the remaining water (i.e., about 64% by weight and reads on the amount of water in present claim 1).
Guanliang differs with respect to the species of derivatized alkyl polyglucoside.
However, Hatchman et al teach surfactant as a corrosion inhibitor (abstract). The alkyl polyglycosides is made up of units of formula I and/or II
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(wherein R is a C8-30 alkyl group, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 and R11 are independently selected from the group consisting of -CH2CH(OH)CH2-R12 and H with the proviso that not all R1, R2, R3, R4 are H and R12 is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image10.png
99
330
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein M is selected from H, and cations such as Na, K, and NH4 (paragraphs 0069-0078) which reads on sulfonate derivatized and phosphate derivatized alkyl polyglucosides in present claim 1. Therefore, in light of the teachings in Hatchman et al and given that Maver et al includes an alkyl polyglucoside as a surfactant in emulsion polymerization, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include a known alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, of Hatchman et al, in the emulsion polymerization process, of Guanliang et al, for functioning as an emulsifier with an additional advantage of being a corrosion inhibitor.
Regarding claim 2, composition in example, of Guanliang, is free of ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane.
Regarding claim 10 and 12, Hatchman et al teach that alkyl polyglycoside is made up of units of formula I and/or II:
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(i.e., reads on the monosaccharide unit in present claims 10 and 12) and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(i.e., reads on the disaccharide unit in present claims 10, and 12). The corrosion inhibiting surfactant comprises a derivative of an alkyl polyglucoside and may be suitably derived from reaction products of alkyl polyglucoside with a crosslinking agent (i.e., reads on the linker in present claim 10 and crosslinker in present claim 12) and a functionalizing agent (paragraph 0039) which reads on the functionalizing agent in present claims 10, and 12.
Regarding claims 13-15, 17 and 19-20, Hatchman et al teach that alkyl polyglycoside is made up of units of formula I and/or II:
PNG
media_image8.png
102
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
231
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein R is a C8-30 alkyl group, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 and R11 are independently selected from the group consisting of -CH2CH(OH)CH2-R12 and H with the proviso that not all R1, R2, R3, R4 are H and R12 is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image10.png
99
330
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein M is selected from H, and cations such as Na, K, and NH4 (paragraphs 0069-0078) which reads on compounds of formula “a” in present claims 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, and positional isomer of compound of formula “b” in present claims 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, surfactant in present claim 17. The crosslinking agent is Cl-CH2CH(OH)CH2Cl (paragraph 0043) which reads on the crosslinker in present claim 14, 19 and 20. The functionalizing agent is selected from
PNG
media_image11.png
148
291
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 0057) which reads on functionalizing agent in present claims 14, 19, 20. Additional surfactant such as C10-20 acyl sorbitan may be included (paragraph 0202) which reads on sorbitan ester in present claim 19.
Regarding claims 21-22 and 24, Hatchman et al teach that alkyl polyglucoside derivative is of formula:
PNG
media_image12.png
222
399
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein R is selected from C8 to C30 alkyl groups and “Y” is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image13.png
97
330
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs 0087-0091) which reads on the surfactant in present claims 21, 22 and 24.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, composition in example 2, of Gualiang, includes octadecyl dimethyl hydroxyethyl quaternary ammonium nitrate and APG0814 (i.e., reads on co-surfactant in present claims 28 and 29).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guanliang (CN 108892749 A) in view of Hatchman et al (US 2015/0010429 A1) and Song (US 2006/0287216 A1).
The discussion with respect to Guanliang and Hatchman et al in paragraph 15 above is incorporated here by reference.
Guanliang differs with respect to the species of azo initiator.
However, Song in the same field of endeavor teaches preparation of polymers by emulsion polymerization (paragraph 0060) in an aqueous medium in the presence of water-soluble azo initiators such as 2,2’-azobis(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride and 4,4’-azobis-4-cyanovaleric acid (paragraph 0061) which read on the azo-type initiator in present claim 7. Case law holds that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Song and case law, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to use any of the known initiators in aqueous emulsion polymerization, such as the azo initiators taught in Song, absent evidence to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 16, 23 and 25-27 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.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as set forth in paragraphs 5-6 and 10-13, of office action mailed 8/29/2024, are withdrawn in view of amendments and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this office action, necessitated by amendment.
While the grounds of rejection are changed, it was still deemed appropriate to address some of the arguments which would be pertinent to new grounds of rejection in this office action (See paragraph 19 below).
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that (A) Maver discloses compositions that serve to provide a dried or partially dried coating which has improved resistance to blocking. On the other hand, Hatchman discloses the use of certain surfactants as corrosion inhibitors, especially in oil field applications. Office action fails to demonstrate why one would look to corrosion inhibitors in oilfield operations to serve as aqueous coating compositions having improved block resistance; (B) Maver states that use of alkyl polyglucosides of C8-C22 alkanols and reducing sugars as sole emulsifiers or co-emulsifiers with other surfactants in the emulsion polymerization of ethylenically unsaturated monomers is known. The use of these emulsion polymers in coatings was not disclosed nor is there any recognition of the criticality of the HLB value of the co-surfactants on the block resistance of the dried coating derived therefrom. The coating composition of Maver includes alkylglucosides surfactants having an HLB value from 11.6 to 14.6 and may be used as sole or co-surfactants in the preparation of emulsion polymer or post-added during or after the formation of the emulsion polymer. Office action alleges that motivation to substitute a surfactant outside the scope of Maver because one of skill in art would view block resistance and corrosion inhibition as being two different protective concepts. Block resistance is a physical resistance to tackiness while corrosion inhibition is a chemical process. One of ordinary skill in art would not view protecting the coating itself from damage due to sticking as simply interchangeable with protecting the underlying substrate from chemical attack; (C) Fack is directed to a composition for cosmetic treatment of Keratin materials. The use of specific cationic polymer in such compositions makes it possible to improve the texture and stability of shampoos and conditioners. In a typical polymerization, the monomer mixture is added with stirring to a solution of emulsifying surfactant. Surfactants suitable for facilitating emulsion polymerization may be nonionic, anionic, amphoteric or cationic surfactants that are conventionally used in emulsion polymerization. Examiner fails to provide any evidence one would make the leap from Fack’s surfactants conventionally used in emulsion polymerization to the assertion that Fack is open to the use of any surfactant; (D) Tan is directed to hair styling composition comprising latex polymers and wax dispersions. In a preferred embodiment, the surfactant combination is at most 1.5% of Tan’s hair styling composition. Only advantage of Hatchman surfactant is corrosion inhibition. In order to achieve the corrosion inhibition, the surfactant of Hatchman is present in amounts of 10 to 99% corrosion inhibition surfactant of the composition.
With respect to (A) Maver discloses its composition to be used to form coatings that have improved resistance to blocking. Graham v. Deere analysis is done and Hatchman provided the motivation to include its surfactants as corrosion inhibitors. It is the Office’s position that inclusion of surfactants of Hatchman into the composition of Maver provides the additional advantage of functioning as a surfactant in emulsion polymerization as well as provide corrosion inhibition properties to the coating composition.
With respect to (B), there is no mention of substitution of the surfactant in Maver with that of the surfactant in Hatchman. In fact, the rejections of record state “obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include a known alkyl polyglucoside surfactant” and does not specify that the surfactant of Maver is replaced by the surfactant of Hatchman. Hence, the additional advantage of corrosion inhibition in addition to the block resistance of Maver.
With respect to (C), it is the Office’s position that Fack is open to any emulsifier (surfactant) and examples of surfactants include derivatized sulfosucciniates, since emulsifiers are known to one skilled in art to be used in the emulsion polymerization process. Hence, it is the Office’s position that it is within the scope of one skilled in art to use known emulsifiers of Hatchman in the polymerization process of Fack.
With respect to (D), applicant’s attention is drawn to Hatchman et al wherein it teaches that amount of surfactant used may be any suitable amount to reduce or inhibit corrosion. It is used in an amount of from 1 ppm to 500 ppm (paragraph 0174). Hatchman also teaches that corrosion inhibitor formulation may be a combination of corrosion inhibiting surfactant together with a corrosion inhibitor that is not a corrosion inhibiting surfactant. The corrosion inhibitor formulation may include 10 to 99% by weight, such as from 50 to 95 wt% of the corrosion inhibiting formulation (paragraph 0211). Hence, it is clear that the amount of 50 to 95 wt% is a reference to that in the corrosion inhibitor formulation and not in the composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764