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 is responsive to the claims filed 05/15/2026. Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are currently pending and under consider in this Office Action.
The 35 USC 103 rejection dated 02/17/2026 at para. 8 based on Araki in view of Koppers is WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s amendments.
The double patenting dated 02/17/2026 at para. 9 is WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected based on Koppers in view of Araki. The new ground of rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, in particular, Claim 1 has been amended to limit the polymer latex does not comprise protective colloids. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppers et al.
(US6,809,148) in view of Araki et al. (JP201 l 195760A).
Regarding Claim 1, Koppers teaches a polymer dispersion obtained by aqueous emulsion polymerization of monomers in the presence of surfactants ( 6: 10-15). Koppers further teaches the monomers comprising a) from 25 to 70% by weight of at least one conjugated aliphatic diene, b) from 25 to 70% by weight of at least one vinyl aromatic monomer, c) from 2.5 to 15% by weight of at least one monoester of a C2-C 10-alkanediol with acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, d) from 0 to 1.0% by weight of
ethylenically unsaturated monomers which have at least one acid group, or salts thereof (ab.),
wherein the exemplary monomers c) are hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates (4: 45-53), and wherein the
exemplary monomers d) include acrylic acid and methacrylic acid (5:21-23). From the disclosure, the
weight ratio of vinyl aromatic compounds to conjugated dienes is 0.36 : 1 to 2.8 : 1, overlapping with the
claimed at least 1.5 : 1. Thus, Koppers teaches the polymer dispersion comprising the claimed
components a) to d) in the amount overlapping the claimed ranges, respectively. Regarding the claimed
component e), instant claimed each of e 1) to e 3) in the amount up to 10 wt. %, including each of e 1) to e 3) being 0%. In addition, Koppers teaches the monomers comprising ethylenically unsaturated nitriles from 0 to 5 wt.% of the polymerized monomers (ab.), overlapping the range of the claimed e3).
Koppers furthermore teaches that no protective colloid is present in the polymer dispersion (claim 1).
Moreover, Koppers furthermore teaches suitable surfactants for carrying out the emulsion polymerization include emulsifiers in the amount of 0.1 to 7.5 wt.% based on the weight of the monomers (6: 40-45). The wt.% range overlaps with the claimed 2 to 6 wt.%.
The difference between Koppers and instant Claim 1 is that Koppers is silent that the non-ionic
surfactants having an HLB of 17-19.
However, Araki teaches a polymer latex obtained from aqueous emulsion polymerization of
ethylenically unsaturated monomers in the presence of an emulsifier (ab.) wherein the ethylenically
unsaturated monomers are selected from vinyl aromatic compounds such as styrene, conjugated diolefins
such as butadiene and isoprene, a,β-unsaturated mono- or dicarboxylic acids such as acrylic acid and
methacrylic acid, hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates, and (meth)acrylic acid esters ([0018]). Those monomers read on the monomers a)-d) of Koppers. Therefore, Araki discloses a polymer latex polymerized from monomers taught by Koppers. Araki further teaches the emulsifier is a nonionic emulsifier having HLB of 13 to 19 ([0036]) and exemplifies a nonionic emulsifier having HLB of 18.5 being used for the polymerization (Synthesis Example 2).
Both Koppers and Araki disclose that a polymer latex obtained from aqueous emulsion polymerization of monomers which fit in the same categories. Therefore, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the nonionic emulsifier having HLB of 13 to 19 taught by Araki for the polymer latex polymerization of Koppers because Koppers discloses that the polymerization can be carried out by suitable surfactants, and Araki discloses that a nonionic emulsifier having HLB of 13 to 19 is a suitable non-ionic surfactant for obtaining the polymer latexes.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filling date of the instant application to have selected a nonionic emulsifier having overlapping HLB value with the claimed HLB value, i.e., 17 to 19 (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
The fact that Araki teaches the polymer latex comprising a protective colloid would not discourage one ordinary skilled artisan to utilize the non- non-ionic surfactant taught by Araki for a polymer latex which does not contain a protective colloid because Koppers teaches a protective colloid is an optional surfactant for the polymer latex (6:40-57), as such, one ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer that a protective colloid would not affect the function of a non-ionic surfactant for obtaining the polymer latexes.
Regarding Claim 2, Koppers teaches suitable vinyl aromatic monomers including styrene and α-methylstyrene ( 4:30-32).
Regarding Claim 3, Koppers teaches the vinyl aromatic compounds are present in the monomer
mixture in an amount of 25 to 70 wt.% based on the total weight of ethylenically unsaturated monomers
( claim 1 ), falling within the claimed 24 to 70 wt.% based on the total weight of ethylenically unsaturated
monomers.
Regarding Claim 4, Koppers teaches suitable conjugated dienes are 1,3-butadiene or isoprene
(4:25-27).
Regarding Claim 5, Koppers teaches that, based on the total weight of ethylenically unsaturated
monomers, the conjugated dienes are present in the monomer mixture in an amount of 25 to 70 wt.%
(claim 1), overlapping with the claimed 16 to 45 wt.%.
Regarding Claim 6, Koppers teaches the preferred hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate is 2-
hydroxyethyl acrylate (Example E2).
Regarding Claim 7, Koppers teaches based on the total weight of ethylenically unsaturated
monomers, the monoester of a C2-C 10-alkanediol with (meth)acrylic acid is present in the amount of 2.5
to 15 wt.% and exemplifies the amount of HEA being 5 wt.%, falling within the claimed 2 to 9 wt.%.
Regarding 8, Koppers teaches, based on the total weight of the ethylenically unsaturated
monomers, the acid monomers being 0 to 1 wt.%, overlapping the claimed no greater than 0 .01 wt.%.
Regarding Claim 11, Araki teaches that polyoxyethylene alkyl ether being preferred emulsifier.
Regarding Claim 12, Koppers teaches that both anionic emulsifier and nonionic emulsifier are
used for the polymerization ( 6: 60-65).
Regarding Claim 13, The example polymer latexes are not core/shell particles.
Regarding Claim 14, Koppers exemplifies a cementitious composition of total of 130.3 parts and containing 30 parts the polymer dispersion (18:1-20), therefore, the weight ratio of the polymer dispersion to the cementitious composition being 0.23, falling within the claimed 0.02 to 0.4.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 103 rejection dated 02/17/2026 at para. 8 based on Araki in view of Koppers is withdrawn because a protective colloid is an essential component of the polymer latex of Araki (claim 1 and examples) while the polymer latex of the instant claim 1 does not comprise a protective colloid.
The double patenting dated 02/17/2026 at para. 9 based on claim 3 of US10,836,876 in view of Araki is withdrawn because claim 3 of US10,836,876 does not claim the polymer latex comprising a non-ionic surfactant or emulsifier. And the instant Claim 1 claims the polymer latex does not comprise a protective colloid. One ordinary skilled artisan would not have been motivated before the effective filing date of the instant application to look into Araki, which the polymer latex requires a protective colloid, for incorporating a non-ionic surfactant.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments on Araki in view of Koppers and the double patenting are moot.
Applicant’s argument: claim 1 was amended to more specifically define the weight ratio of vinyl aromatic compounds to conjugated dienes as being at least 1.5: 1, in combination with the amount and type of the nonionic emulsifier for achieving the advantageous technical effects of the instant application. In view of the fact that neither Koppers nor Araki, alone or in combination, recognize such technical effects or point to the specific latex as defined in claim 1 for attaining these benefits, Applicant submits that the Examiner's position is based on improper hindsight and an overly broad assessment of the rationale provided by the asserted references to a person of ordinary skill in the art while simultaneously affording no significance to the technical effects achievable by the specific polymer latex of claim 1.
Examiner’s answer: Koppers discloses the weight ratio of vinyl aromatic compounds to conjugated dienes is 0.36 : 1 to 2.8 : 1, the average of the lower ratio and the upper ratio is 1.58:1, which is close to the claimed 1.5:1. The court has ruled that an overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection (MPEP 2144.05 I). Here, about 50% of the prior art range overlaps with the claimed range, therefore, an obviousness exists. As to Applicant’s argument that neither Koppers nor Araki, alone or in combination, recognize such technical effects or point to the specific latex as defined in claim 1 for attaining these benefits, without checking the merits of the argument, new functions or properties do not necessarily make the claim patentable (MPEP 2112 I.).
Applicant’s argument: the polymer latex to comprising 2 to 6 wt% based on total weight of monomers of
non-ionic surfactants having an H LB of 17 to 19 ties claim 1 more closely to the demonstrated
technical effects shown in the Examples of the present application.
Examiner’s answer: the Examiner does not agree with the argument that the technical effects are attributing to the claimed the polymer latex comprising 2 to 6 wt% based on total weight of monomers of
non-ionic surfactants having an H LB of 17 to 19, because the example 5 and comparative example 8 contain the same non-ionic surfactant having an H LB of 17.5 in the same wt.%.
Applicant’s argument: the combination of the specific type of surfactant with a specific polymer latex obtained from a mixture of ethylenically unsaturated monomers as specified in claim 1 achieved unexpected results as shown by Table 2.
Examiner’s answer: data have been fully considered; however, the instant data do not sufficiently support a finding of unexpected results. The showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP 716.02(d). In the present case, the polymer latexes were obtained from polymerization of styrene, butadiene, HEMA and acrylic acid which are only one species of vinyl aromatic compounds, conjugated dienes, hydroxyalkyl esters of ethylenically unsaturated acids and ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids, respectively. However, the instant claim 1 claims the genera. Therefore, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence used to support unexpected results.
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 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
Prosecution Insights