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 action is responsive to the amendment filed May 28, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-16, 19-20 are pending. Claims 2, 14, 17-18, 21 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 19-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-16, 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al in view of Evon et al.
Claim 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al in view of Evon et al in view of Quincy III et al.
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, 3-13, 15-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al (US Patent 2020/0088915 (already of record)) in view of Lofftus et al (US Patent Application 2018/0128946 (already of record)) in view of Evon et al (FR 2538755 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1, 3-13, 15-16, 19, Nair et al teaches a non-foamed, aqueous composition for forming an opacifying layer comprising at least 5 wt% of (a) porous particles comprising continuous polymeric phase and discrete pores having a particle size of 2-50µm, (b) at least 10wt% of binder materials including polyvinyl chloride and polyvinylidene chloride, (c) optionally opacifying colorants and (e) optional additives including 0.0001-20wt% of nanofillers including titanium dioxide (which satisfies claimed white inorganic particulate filler having a RI greater than 2) and aluminum hydroxides, wherein there can be mixtures of each of (e) additive or mixtures of two or more types of (e) additives (which satisfies claimed white low density hydrated alumina) (which 0.0001-20wt% overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of components (iii) and (iv) in the instant claims) (Paragraphs 17, 107, 136-138, 107, 121-125). Nair et al further teaches a flame retardant (Paragraph 121). Nair et al further teaches up to 0.5wt% of carbon black as the opacifying colorant in the pores of the porous particles (which the “up to 0.5” is in the aqueous composition and hence satisfies/overlaps up to 1wt% in the porous particles) (Paragraphs 115, 117). Nair et al further teaches thickeners, dispersants, biocide and optical brighteners (Paragraph 121). Nair et al further teaches Neocryl A6093 as the binder in the examples (which satisfies the claimed glass transition temperature recited in the instant claims as evidenced by Lofftus et al, see below) (Paragraph 216). Nair et al further teaches the an opacifying article made of a fabric and an opacifying layer (Abstract). Nair et al further teaches the fabric used in the opacifying article can have an openness of at least 0% and including 10% (Paragraph 67). Nair et al further teaches additives including dispersants (Paragraph 121). However, Nair et al fails to specifically disclose the percentage of solids, anatase and/or rutile titanium dioxide, defoaming and anti-foaming agent, polymeric dispersant and shear thinning with a zero shear viscosity and density of the composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Lofftus et al teaches a light blocking article containing porous particles and a polymer binder that can be designed into fabric or curtains; the article has an opacifying layer (Abstract). Lofftus et al teaches further Neocryl A6093 has Tg=-30°C (Paragraph 172). Lofftus et al further teaches the opacifying layer can contain additives including defoamers (wherein defoamer satisfies claimed defoamer and anti-foaming) (Paragraph 125). Lofftus et al further teaches combining colorant particles with a dispersant in order to obtain efficient colorant particle size, good colloidal stability, prevent agglomeration and impart the desired properties to the final opacifying layer composition, wherein a preferred dispersant is Solsperse 43000 polymeric dispersant (which satisfies claimed water-soluble polymeric dispersant) (Paragraphs 85, 175).
In the same field of endeavor, Evon et al teaches a layer comprising opacifying agents for textiles (Abstract, Claims). Evon et al further teaches opacifying agents include titanium dioxide in rutile or anatase form (Paragraph 9).
With regard to the percentage of solids, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the percentage of solids within the same range as instantly claimed in Nair et al as Nair et al teaches overlapping amounts of the solid components in the composition; hence, it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide this claimed range.
With regard to anatase and/or rutile titanium dioxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted/provided anatase and/or rutile titanium dioxide in Nair et al and Lofftus et al in view of Evon et al as Nair et al already encompasses 0.0001-20wt% of nanofillers including titanium dioxide, Evon et al teaches opacifying agents include anatase and rutile titanium dioxide. Simple substitution of one anatase or rutile titanium dioxide in Nair et al in view of Evon et al would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan for providing an opacifying colorant additive.
With regard to a defoaming and anti-foaming agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided two defoaming agent additives in Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al as Lofftus et al teaches optional additives include defoaming agents where the objective of Nair et al is to provide a non-foamed composition and includes 0.0001wt% of additives (Paragraphs 140); providing two defoaming agents in the amount of 0.0001wt% or greater would only be obvious in Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al. The 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). See MPEP 2144.07.
With regard to polymeric dispersant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a polymeric dispersant in Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al in order to obtain efficient colorant particle size, good colloidal stability, prevent agglomeration and impart the desired properties to the final opacifying layer composition as taught in Lofftus et al, and wherein Nair et al encompasses the incorporation of a dispersant in the composition.
With regard to the shear thinning with a zero-shear viscosity and density of the composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to have expected a shear thinning with a zero-shear viscosity and density of the composition to be similar to the instantly claimed ranges as the composition of Nair et al encompasses overlapping amounts of each of the components in the composition.
With regard to “a sprayable” composition, Nair et al satisfies the claimed “sprayable” composition, as this is a product by process limitation. The claims are drawn to the composition, not the method of forming an article. Nair et al’s composition has the ability to be sprayed onto the textile/fabric substrate.
With regard to the original openness factor of the fabric substrate being reduced by less than 20%, this is a product by process limitation. The claims are drawn to the composition, not the method of forming an article. Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al (US Patent 2020/0088915 (already of record)) in view of Lofftus et al (US Patent Application 2018/0128946) in view of Evon et al (FR 2538755) as applied to claims 1, 3-13, 15-16, 19 above, and in further view of Quincy III et al (US Patent Application 2006/0141882 (already of record)).
Regarding claim 20, Nair et al, Lofftus et al and Evon et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Nair et al, Lofftus et al and Evon et al teach the features above. However, Nair et al, Lofftus et al and Evon et al fail to specifically disclose a vinyl chloride-acrylic copolymer.
In the same field of endeavor, Quincy III et al teaches a substrate having a coating comprising a binder including vinyl chloride-acrylic copolymer (Paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have substituted vinyl chloride-acrylic copolymer in Nair et al, Lofftus et al and Evon et al in view of Quincy III et al as simple substitution of one known binder for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al in view of Evon et al, Applicant argues that the instant claims require both iii) white inorganic filler material and iv) white low-density particulate hydrated alumina. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because Nair et al teaches there can be mixtures of each of (e) additive or mixtures of two or more types of (e) additives (Paragraph 121). Furthermore, the rejection is over Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al in view of Evon et al. Evon et al teaches a layer comprising opacifying agents for textiles (Abstract, Claims). Evon et al further teaches opacifying agents include titanium dioxide in rutile or anatase form (Paragraph 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted/provided anatase and/or rutile titanium dioxide in Nair et al and Lofftus et al in view of Evon et al as Nair et al already encompasses 0.0001-20wt% of nanofillers including titanium dioxide, Evon et al teaches opacifying agents include anatase and rutile titanium dioxide. Simple substitution of one anatase or rutile titanium dioxide in Nair et al in view of Evon et al would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan for providing an opacifying colorant additive.
Applicant further argues the prior art fails to teach the claimed coatings aids. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument as Lofftus et al teaches combining colorant particles with a dispersant in order to obtain efficient colorant particle size, good colloidal stability, prevent agglomeration and impart the desired properties to the final opacifying layer composition, wherein a preferred dispersant is Solsperse 43000 polymeric dispersant (which satisfies claimed water-soluble polymeric dispersant) (Paragraphs 85, 175). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a polymeric dispersant in Nair et al in view of Lofftus et al in order to obtain efficient colorant particle size, good colloidal stability, prevent agglomeration and impart the desired properties to the final opacifying layer composition as taught in Lofftus et al, and wherein Nair et al encompasses the incorporation of a dispersant in the composition.
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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights