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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 18-21 and 23-26 were previously withdrawn. Claims 22 and 27 were previously canceled. Claim 1 was amended and support for the amendment is found in the Specification as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nowak et al. (US 2014/0162022 A1; hereafter as “Nowak”).
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 6-8, Nowak teaches a polymer coating ground into a powder [Example 6; ¶ 0141-0145], corresponding to the powder of Claim 1, comprising:
A hardened material comprising crosslinked polymer[¶ 0114; Claim 14] , corresponding to the polymer POW1 of Claim 1;
Wherein the matrix includes porous voids [¶ 0020], corresponding to the pores of Claim 1;
A total intruded volume of 2.0 mL/g as measured by mercury intrusion analysis [Fig. 6A; Example 6; ¶ 0141-0145], corresponding to a total intruded volume of:
at least 1.2 mL/g as measured by mercury porosimetry of Claim 1;
at least 1.35 mL/g as measured by mercury porosimetry of Claim 2;
at most 10 mL/g as measured by mercury porosimetry of Claim 3;
is between 1.35 mL/g and 10 mL/g of Claim 4;
A relative incremental intrusion between a pore size from 10 µm to 1 µm of approximately 10% [Fig. 6B; Example 6; ¶ 0141-0145], corresponding to a relative incremental intrusion between a pore size from 10 µm to 1 µm of at least 8% of Claim 1, and is at least 10% of Claim 8; and
A cumulative intrusion for a pore size above 10 µm is at least 1.2 mL/g [Fig. 6A; Example 6; ¶ 0141-0145], corresponding to a cumulative intrusion for a pore size above 10 µm is at least 0.9 mL/g of Claim 1.
However, Nowak does not explicitly teach an incremental intrusion between a pore size from 10 µm to 1 µm is at least 0.12 mL/g of Claim 1 and at least 0.15 mL/g of Claim 6, and an incremental intrusion between a pore size from 10 µm to 0.1 µm is at least 0.15 mL/g of Claim 7.
Nevertheless, Nowak teaches incremental intrusion between a pore size from 10 µm to 0.1 µm is between about 0 and about 0.08 mL/g [Fig. 6B; Example 6; ¶ 0141-0145], and an incremental intrusion between a pore size from 10 µm to 1 µm is between about 0 and about 0.08 mL/g [Fig. 6B; Example 6; ¶ 0141-0145].
The amount of 0.08 mL/g as taught by Nowak is substantially close to the lower range of at least 0.12 mL/g of Claim 1 and at least 0.15 mL/g of Claim 6, and at least 0.15 mL/g of Claim 7 as required by the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the amount of incremental intrusion as taught by Nowak would result in the same properties as the claimed ranges thereby rendering the claimed range obvious.
Regarding Claims 5, 10-11, 15, Nowak teaches:
a relative incremental intrusion for a pore size above 10 µm is about 63% [Fig. 6B; Example 6; ¶ 0141-0145], corresponding to a relative incremental intrusion for a pore size above 10 µm of at most 85% of Claim 5;
average density from about 0.1 to about 0.5 g/cm3 [Claim 7], corresponding to an apparent bulk density of the polymer powder POW1 is between 0.1 g/cm3 and 0.6 g/cm3 of Claim 10;
about 50 wt. % to about 80 wt. % of hardened material, such as crosslinked polymers [¶ 0107], corresponding to wherein the polymer powder POW1 comprises polymeric particles PAR1 that make up at least 50 wt. % of the polymer powder POW1 of Claim 11; and
A hardened material comprising crosslinked polymer[¶ 0114; Claim 14] , corresponding polymer of Claim 15.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak et al. (US 2014/0162022 A1; hereafter as “Nowak”) in view of Miyake et al. (US 2004/147668; cited in the IDS submitted on 05/17/2022; hereafter as “Miyake”).
Nowak teaches the porous polymer powder, incremental intrusion, relative incremental intrusion, and cumulative intrusion of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Nowak does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer powder POW1 has a volume median particle size D50 between 1 µm and 700 µm of Claim 9, and wherein the polymeric particles PAR1 have an average weight average particle size (diameter) between 15 nm and 900 nm of Claim 12.
Nevertheless, Miyake teaches a porous polymer powder [Abstract; Claim 1], with a particle size of 0.05 to 30 µm [¶ 0089] corresponding to a volume median particle size between 1 µm and 700 µm of Claim 9, and which overlaps a weight average particle size (diameter) between 15 nm and 900 nm (0.015-0.9 µm) of Claim 12.
Miyake also offers the motivation that said polymer powder has excellent storage stability and fluidity [Abstract].
Nowak and Miyake are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of porous polymers. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the particle size of Miyake with the porous polymer powder of Nowak, with the motivation of improving the powder stability and fluidity, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the particle size range taught by Miyake (0.05 to 30 µm) overlaps the instantly claimed range (0.015-0.9 µm) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak et al. (US 2014/0162022 A1; hereafter as “Nowak”) in view of Inoubli et al. (FR3046605A1; translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Inoubli”).
Nowak teaches the porous polymer powder, incremental intrusion, relative incremental intrusion, and cumulative intrusion of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 13-14 and 17, however, Nowak is silent to wherein the polymer powder POW 1 comprises a multistage polymer MSP1 in a form of core-shell of Claim 13, wherein the polymer powder POW1 comprises a multistage polymer MSP1 in a form of a core-shell particle and a (meth)acrylic polymer MP1 in a form of a polymeric particles of Claim 14 and wherein the polymer powder POW1 comprises a multistage polymer MSP1 and a (meth)acrylic polymer MP1 of Claim 17.
Nevertheless, Inoubli teaches a liquid composition comprised of a meth(acrylic polymer) and a multi-phase polymer [Paragraph 0001], wherein said multi-phase polymer is in the form of core-shell particles [Paragraph 0050-0052], corresponding to the multistage polymer core-shell particles of Claim 13 and the multistage polymer and (meth)acrylic polymer of Claims 14 and 17.
Inoubli also offers them motivation that it is possible to control the dispersion of core-shell particles with methacrylic polymers [Paragraph 0165].
Nowak and Inoubli are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of polymeric particles. In particular, Nowak and the claimed invention are in the same field of porous polymeric particles, and Inoubli and the claimed invention are in the same field of multistage polymers.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multistage polymer of Inoubli with the polymer powder of Nowak, with the motivation of better controlling the dispersion of the core-shell particles, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, however, Nowak is silent to wherein the multistage polymer MSP1 has a multilayer structure comprising at least one stage (SA1) comprising a polymer (A1) having a glass transition temperature below 10° C., and at least one stage (SA2) comprising a polymer (A2) having a glass transition temperature over 60° C.
Nevertheless, Inoubli also teaches said polymer particles have a multi-layer structure [Paragraph 0055], corresponding to the multilayer structure. Inoubli further teaches at least one layer (A) comprising a polymer (Al) having a glass transition temperature below 0°C and another layer (B) comprising a polymer (B1) having a glass transition temperature above 60°C [Paragraphs 0058-0069], corresponding to stages SA1 and SA2 and the respective glass transition temperatures of Claim 16.
Inoubli also offers the motivation that said multi-layer structures have the advantage of an adequate particle size for the elastomer core for effective curing and the grafted shell in order to obtain adhesion and compatibility with a thermoplastic matrix [Paragraph 006].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multistage polymer and glass transition temperatures of Inoubli with the polymer powder of Nowak, with the motivation of improving adhesion and curing, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Double Patenting rejection based on the claims of U.S. Application 117/777293 (US 2022/0411544 A1) set forth in the previous Office action is no longer applicable since applicants submitted a terminal disclaimer on February 25, 2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/DORIS LING/
Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764