Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/753,613

ACRYLIC EMULSION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 09, 2022
Examiner
QIAO, HUIHONG
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Osaka Soda Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 109 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
153
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 109 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 communication responds to the amended claim set filed 11/17/2025. Claims 1-5 are current pending. Elected Claims 1-4 are under examination. Claim 5 is withdrawn. Claims 1-4 are rejected for the reasons set forth below. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a previous Office Action. Continued Examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites “when” at (i), (ii), and (iv). As a conjunction, “when” means “in the event,” “if.” Therefore, each of (i), (ii) and (iv) is not a mandatory limitation. Consequently, the limitation is not addressed if the prior art does not disclose the when clause of (i), (ii) or (iv). .The “when” clause of (iv) directs to a process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (MPEP § 2113). Therefore, if a reference discloses an acrylic polymer that meets other mandatory limitations of instant Claim 1 and the acrylic polymer having a coagulability of 95 mass% or more, the reference anticipates the instant claim 1, no matter what the coagulation process is. Examiner also interprets that the coagulability of (iv) is an inherent property of the claimed acrylic polymer. Therefore, if a reference discloses a copolymer meets the structural limitation of the acrylic polymer of instant Claim 1, the coagulability is inherently present. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01 II). "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. (See MPEP 2112 V). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nishio et al. (US3,623,878). Nishio teaches a copolymer emulsion obtained by emulsion polymerization (3: 55-60). Attention is drawn to preparation 1 wherein a copolymer was prepared from polymerization of butyl methacrylate and glycidyl methacrylate (4:10-30). glycidyl methacrylate is an unsaturated monomer having an epoxy group. The particle size of the solid copolymer is 100 nm to 300 nm (Id.). Therefore, Nishio teaches some of the copolymer have a particle size of 150 nm to 300 nm. The disclosure is sufficiently specific to anticipate instant (iii). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US2019/0309140 Al). Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches polymeric particles comprising an alkaline swellable core and shell layers (claim 2), wherein the alkaline swellable core is formed from emulsion polymerization of one or more monomers include acrylic acid and methacrylic acid and one or more monomers include (meth)acrylates (claim 4), therefore, the core polymer comprising constituent units of (meth)acrylate. Liu further teaches that the shell units are formed from a reaction product from one or more monomers include monomethyl maleate, monomethyl fumarate, and monomethyl itaconate (claim 6). Liu exemplifies the polymeric particles obtained by emulsion polymerization (Example 3). Liu furthermore teaches the polymeric particles having an average particle size up to about 300 nm (ab.), overlapping the claimed 150 nm to 300 nm. Regarding Claims 2-3, Liu teaches a latex composition comprising the polymeric particles ([0044]). Liu further teaches the composition may contain crosslinking agents ([0046]). Regarding Claim 4, Liu teaches coatings made from the latex composition ([0052-0053]). Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US2014/0302265 Al). Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches a carboxylic acid-modified nitrile copolymer latex polymerized from a monomer mixture comprising ethylenically unsaturated acid monomers (claim 3), wherein the ethylenically unsaturated acid monomers comprise at least one selected from monomers including monobutyl fumarate, monobutyl maleate and mono-2-hydroxypropyl maleate (claim 6). Yang further teaches the carboxylic acid-modified nitrile copolymer further comprising (meth)acrylate monomers ([0030]). Therefore, Yang discloses a copolymer comprising units of (meth)acrylate and units of at least one of monobutyl fumarate, monobutyl maleate and mono-2-hydroxypropyl maleate. monobutyl fumarate, monobutyl maleate and mono-2-hydroxypropyl maleate read on the claimed unsaturated monomer having the carboxy group contains a butenedioic acid mono chain alkyl ester. Yang further teaches the copolymer has an average particle diameter of 90 nm to 200 nm, overlapping the claimed 150 nm to 300 nm. Regarding Claims 2-3, Yang teaches that a latex composition comprising the carboxylic acid modified nitrile copolymer latex and a crosslinking agent ([0016]). Regarding Claim 4, Yang teaches a dip-molded article comprising the crosslinked latex composition ([0076-0084 ]). Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Candau et al. (US2009/0041691 Al). Candau teaches hollow latex particles having a particle size of 150 to 375 nm ([0095]), wherein the latex particles are derived from monomers including acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, monomethyl maleate, monomethyl fumarate and monomethyl itaconate ([0105]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explained at paragraph 6, the “when” clause directs to optional limitations which are not required to be addressed if a reference does not disclose the “when” clause condition. Additionally, each of the above cited prior art disclose a substantially identical acrylic copolymer to that of instant Claim 1, as such the coagulability is necessarily present. Particularly, Yang discloses gloves made from the copolymer latex by dip-forming with a coagulant. One ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer that the coagulability is 95 mass% or more because the gloves have good mechanical properties (Table 1). Although Yang discloses a different coagulation process, the patentability is determined by the product. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HUIHONG QIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 09, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 03, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595406
LIQUID CHLORIDE SALT-BASED POLYMER SUSPENSION FLUIDS WITH POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL DISPERSANTS AND APPLICATION TO DRAG REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570842
THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER COMPOSITION AND SHAPED ARTICLE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570837
POLYCARBONATE RESIN COMPOSITION AND MOLDED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552958
NOVEL TWO-COMPONENT OUTER COATING CONTAINING POLYASPARTIC ACID ESTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534547
RESIN PARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+23.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 109 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month