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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the newly amended claim 1 is not found in the prior art of record and therefore unity of invention exists. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature of the invention is found in the specification and not taken from amended claims. The instant specification identifies the technical feature of the invention in paragraph 9 as a binder comprising components (A), (B1), and (C); wherein (A) is a polymer comprising styrene units, acrylic acid ester units, acrylic acid units, an olefinic monomer comprising amine groups, an olefinic surfactant; wherein (B1) is an ionic surfactant; and wherein (C) is an aqueous liquid. As stated in the requirement for restriction, this technical feature is known in the art and therefore is not a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 24, 2025. Further, claim 2 is cancelled and claims 1 and 3-9 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the word “and” should be deleted at the end of line 9.
Regarding claim 3, in line 2, there should be a comma after “sulfonates” and the word “and” should be inserted at the end of line 3.
Regarding claim 7, line two should end with a colon in order to keep the same style as the other claims.
Regarding claim 8, the word “and” should be inserted at the end of line 3.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 9, these claims depend from an objected to claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also subject to the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, in the last line of claim 1, the phrase “= 100% by weight” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as being part of the claim, but will be read as “wherein the total amount of (A) is 100% by weight.”
Regarding claim 4, in the last line of claim 4, the phrase “= 100% by weight” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as being part of the claim, but will be read as “wherein the total amount of the binder is 100% by weight.”
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites the amount of compound (D) as a percentage by weight based on the total amount of the polymer (A). However, compound (D) is not part of polymer (A) and is instead part of the claimed binder. Therefore, it is unclear if this amount should be based the total amount of polymer (A) or the total amount of the binder. For the purpose of further examination, the amount of compound (D) will be interpreted as based on the total amount of the binder.
Additionally, in the last line of claim 6, the phrase “= 100% by weight” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as being part of the claim, but will be read as “wherein the total amount of the binder is 100% by weight.”
Regarding claim 9, in the last line of claim 9, the phrase “= 100% by weight” is enclosed in parentheses. It is unclear if this phrase is meant to be part of the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as being part of the claim, but will be read as “wherein the total amount of the binder is 100% by weight.”
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7, and 8, these claims depend from a rejected claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hellani et al. (US 2014/0342171) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0122575).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Al-Hellani et al. teaches an aqueous polymer dispersion comprising a polymer (component A) (¶5) comprising (A2) 19.8 to 80 parts by weight of at least one vinylaromatic compound such as styrene (component A1) (¶23, 31), (B2) 19.8 to 80 parts by weight of at least one monomer selected from C1 to C18 alkyl esters of acrylic acid and C1 to C18 alkyl esters of methacrylic acid (component A2) (¶25), (C2) 0.1 to 15 parts by weight of at least one ethylenically unsaturated acid such as acrylic acid (component A3) (¶26, 33), (D2) 0.2 to 10% by weight of at least one secondary monomer selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile, glycidyl(meth)acrylate, and dimethylaminoethyl(meth)acrylate (olefinic monomer comprising amine groups; component A4) (¶57), and 0.01 to 1 part by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of monomers, of copolymerizing, branching or crosslinking monomers, other than the monomers (A2)-(D2), selected from monomers having two or more free-radically polymerizable, ethylenically unsaturated groups (¶29); emulsifiers such as ethoxylated C8 to C36 fatty alcohols (non-ionic surfactant; component B2) and alkali metal and ammonium salts of C12 to C18 alkylsulfonic acids (ionic surfactant; component B1; alkylsulfonates) (¶63); and an aqueous liquid (component C) (¶68).
Al-Hellani et al. does not teach that the polymer comprises from 0.1 to 7% by weight of an olefinic surfactant monomer. However, Yang et al. teaches a polymer dispersion comprising, based on the total weight of the polymer dispersion, from 40% to 70% by weight of water, and from 30% to 60% by weight of polymer particles comprising, as polymerized units, based on the total weight of the polymer particles, i) from 28% to 46% by weight of at least one (meth)acrylate C6-C22 alkyl ester nonionic monomer; ii) from 0.1% to 10% by weight of at least one self-crosslinking monomer; iii) from 2% to 4% by weight of at least one reactive silicone with at least one carbon-carbon double bond; and iv) from 0.5% to 5% by weight of a reactive surfactant (¶5). The reactive surfactant has a structure of R1—R2, wherein R1 is an alkenyl group and R2 is a radical comprising at least two carbon atoms and at least one oxylene or oxypropylene or oxybutylene unit (¶27-29). Al-Hellani et al. and Yang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of coating compositions for paper/wood. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 0.5% to 5% by weight of a reactive surfactant, as taught by Yang et al., to the polymer, as taught by Al-Hellani et al., and would have been motivated to do so because this monomer helps to add strength and clarity to the polymer (¶3, 4).
Regarding claim 4, Al-Hellani et al. teaches that the solids content of the aqueous polymer dispersion is in the range of 40% to 60% by weight (this is the amount of polymer A) (¶73). Al-Hellani et al. also teaches that the emulsifiers are used from 0.1% to 5% by weight (¶63). The balance of the dispersion is the aqueous liquid, which is from about 35% to 60% by weight (calculated by Examiner).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hellani et al. (US 2014/0342171) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0122575) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lejeune et al. (US 2006/0225613).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Al-Hellani et al. and Yang et al. teach the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Hellani et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.1 to 2% by weight of a compound comprising a silane group. However, Lejeune et al. teaches a wood coating formulation (¶287) comprising an acrylic latex and 1.185% of an epoxy silane oligomer (Table 9, Formulation 3). Al-Hellani et al. and Lejeune et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of coating compositions for paper/wood. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add about 1% by weight of an epoxy silane oligomer, as taught by Lejeune et al., to the polymer dispersion, as taught by Al-Hellani et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Lejeune et al. teaches that the epoxy silane oligomers enhance the water resistance of acrylic latex (¶292) and enhance the chemical resistance and staining resistance of a wood coating (¶298).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Hellani et al. (US 2014/0342171) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0122575) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Preston et al. (WO 2016/110711).
Regarding claims 7-9, Al-Hellani et al. and Yang et al. teach the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Hellani et al. teaches that the solids content of the aqueous polymer dispersion is in the range of 40% to 60% by weight (this is the amount of polymer A) (¶73), the emulsifiers are used from 0.1% to 5% by weight (¶63), and the balance of the dispersion is the aqueous liquid, which is from about 35% to 60% by weight (calculated by Examiner). Al-Hellani et al. additionally teaches that the polymer dispersion comprises from 0.1 to 5% by weight of protective colloids (component F), which may be degraded starch (non-ionic water-soluble polymer; ¶63, 64).
Al-Hellani et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from 2 to 6% by weight of a polyvinyl acetate homopolymer. However, Preston et al. teaches a coating composition comprising a binder, an alkali earth metal compound, and an anionic dispersant (Page 2), wherein the binder may be an acrylic latex (Page 15). Preston et al. additionally teaches that the coating composition may contain from 0.01 to 5% by weight (Page 30) of a water retention aid such as polyvinyl acetate (homopolymer; Page 28). Al-Hellani et al. and Preston et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of coating compositions for paper/wood. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 0.01 to 5% by weight of polyvinyl acetate, as taught by Preston et al., to the polymer dispersion, as taught by Al-Hellani et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to regulate the viscosity of the coating ensuring a uniform and smooth coating layer.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767