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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/1/2026. Claims 8-9 and 31-33 are cancelled; and claims 10, 12-13, 15, 18 and 37 are amended. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 37 recites “A paint composition comprising: an aqueous latex obtained by polymerizing the composition of claim 1; water; an emulsion polymer”. The aqueous latex obtained by polymerizing the composition of claim, would inherently produce an emulsion polymer and comprise water. There is no support in the originally filed disclosure of a paint composition comprising water and emulsion polymer that is different from that obtained by polymerizing the composition of claim 1 to form an aqueous latex. Applicant is advised to rephrase it as “an aqueous latex, obtained by polymerizing the composition of claim 1, comprising water and an emulsion polymer”.
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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image3.png
99
330
media_image3.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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i.e., reads on the monosaccharide unit in present claims 10 and 12) and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image3.png
99
330
media_image3.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_image4.png
148
291
media_image4.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_image5.png
222
399
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein R is selected from C8 to C30 alkyl groups and “Y” is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image6.png
97
330
media_image6.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.
Claims 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). 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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image3.png
99
330
media_image3.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 about 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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image3.png
99
330
media_image3.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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image3.png
99
330
media_image3.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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i.e., reads on the monosaccharide unit in present claims 10 and 12) and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image1.png
102
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
231
230
media_image2.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_image3.png
99
330
media_image3.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_image4.png
148
291
media_image4.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_image5.png
222
399
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein R is selected from C8 to C30 alkyl groups and “Y” is a functional group selected from
PNG
media_image6.png
97
330
media_image6.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). It is noted that derivatized alkyl polyglucoside is free of ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane.
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 13 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. 112(b) and 112(d) as set forth in paragraphs 5 and 7, of Office action mailed 11/12/2025, in view of amendments and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action, necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that (A) present claims do not broadly recite alkyl polyglucoside surfactant but affirmatively require at least one derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant. The alkyl polyglucosides taught in these primary references are not the derivatized alkyl polyglucosides of present claims. In addressing deficiencies in these references, Office relies on Hatchman, asserting that Hatchman teaches surfactants as corrosion inhibitors. Merely including a corrosion inhibitor surfactant without explaining why that surfactant would be selected to satisfy claim 1’s required derivatized APG limitation in the emulsion polymerization composition fails to establish obviousness. The rejections rely on hindsight rather than a reasoned modification of primary references; (B) Hatchman’s disclosed usage content does not align with the claimed surfactant role and amounts. Claim 1 requires the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant to be present in an amount of 0.01 to 10% of the composition. The amount of 1 ppm to 500 ppm in Hatchman are tied to the corrosion inhibition use, not to the use of derivatized alkyl glucoside as emulsifying surfactant in an aqueous emulsion polymerization as required by claim 1; (C) Claim 30 recites a process for producing a latex, comprising providing an aqueous solution that comprises at least one derivatized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, water and at least one initiator; and introducing at least one monomer to the aqueous solution, where the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside is further defined by a specific mixture. The rejection must show that the applied art teaches or suggests the specific process configuration (aqueous surfactant and water and initiator solution, then monomer introduction) and the particular derivatized APG surfactant limitations; and (D) Office acknowledges that Gualiang differs with respect to the species of azo initiator and relies on Song as teaching aqueous emulsion polymerization using water-soluble azo initiators of present claim 7 and further relies on Sinclair which is conclusory. The rejection is not merely substituting one initiator, it is choosing an initiator in the context of composition/process that Office has modified using Hatchman’s derivatized APG surfactant.
With respect to (A), primary references of Maver, Fack, Tan and Gualiang, independently teach emulsion polymerization of monomers in the presence of surfactants that include alkyl polyglucosides (see example 1, of Maver, general disclosure of Fack (paragraphs 0107 and 0109), and example 2, of Gualiang). Tan teaches composition comprising alkyl glucosides as surfactants (paragraph 0206)). Graham v. Deere analysis was done and the secondary reference of Hatchman provided the motivation to use the presently claimed derivatized alkyl polyglucosides as corrosion inhibitors. It is the Office’s position that surfactants are known to one skilled in art to function as emulsifiers in the emulsion polymerization process. Given that primary references of Maver, Fack, Tan and Gualiang use alkyl polyglucoside as an emulsifier, it would have been obvious to use a known derivatized alkyl polyglucosides because one skilled in art would have a reasonable basis to expect the derivatized alkyl polyglucoside, of Hatchman to function as an emulsifier in polymerization process in addition to providing corrosion inhibition to the final product obtained. Case law holds that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to (B), while the amount in Hatchman is used for corrosion inhibition, it overlaps with the amount of surfactants in cited primary references during emulsion polymerization and present claims. Additionally, 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 & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to (C), in addition to 17A above, applicant attention is drawn to Fack wherein it teaches addition of monomer to a solution of surfactants in aqueous medium. The polymerization is initiated in the presence of initiator. Graham v. Deere analysis was done and case law teaches that it is within the scope of one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to change the order of process steps. Specifically, in the present instance that is adding initiator to the aqueous solution comprising a surfactant prior to the addition to monomer.
With respect to (D), in addition to 17A above, it is the Office’s position that using a known water-soluble azo initiator species which is taught in Song in the emulsion polymerization process, of Guanliang et al in view of Hatchman, is within the scope of one skilled in art, absent evidence of unexpected results based on the use of the species of azo initiator.
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.
Contact Information
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
Prosecution Insights