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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 14, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reck (US 2002/0007005 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5, and 30, Reck describes coating compositions for preserving moldings (Abstract) and describes embodiments where 14 pbw of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) and 11 pbw acrylamide (AM) is used relative to 1450 pbw of total monomer (“ID4”; ¶ 114-118), equivalent to a AM/AMPS ratio of 0.79 and a total content of AMPS+AM of roughly 1.7 wt%.
The particular embodiments of Reck’s examples differ from the subject matter claimed in that the AM/AMPS ratio is outside the range claimed. In this regard, Reck teaches 0.5-5 wt% of sulfonic acid monomer (monomer c) and 0.5-5 wt% of monomer such as acrylamide/methacrylamide (monomer d) is used, whereby the total content of c+d is less than or equal to 3 wt% (¶ 64-69). Therefore, Reck implies embodiments where the d/c ratio spans 0.5 / 2.5 = 0.2 to 2.5 / 0.5 = 5, which overlaps the range claimed. Reck teaches the glass transition temperature observed spans between -10 and 50 degrees C (¶ 63), which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Reck suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Reck. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claims 8, 9, and 14, Reck teaches 0.5-5 wt% of sulfonic acid monomer (monomer c) and 0.5-5 wt% of monomer such as acrylamide/methacrylamide (monomer d) is used, whereby the total content of c+d is less than or equal to 3 wt% (¶ 64-69). Therefore, Reck suggests overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Reck suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Reck. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, the embodiment of Reck uses 1400 pbw of methyl methacrylate and butyl acrylate, 0 pbw vinyl aromatic monomer, and 0 pbw monomers with carboxylic acid functionality, relative to 1450 pbw total monomers (“ID4”; ¶ 114-118), equivalent to 96.6 wt% of alkyl ester monomers. Reck teaches coating compositions with diluted binder and antifoaming agent (¶ 159-162). An anti-fungal/anti-algal agent is not indicated.
Regarding Claim 29, Reck describes embodiments where 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS), acrylamide (AM), methyl methacrylate, and butyl acrylate is used (“ID4”; ¶ 114-118).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combined ratio and combined weight limitations of claim 1 are critical in procuring excellent efflorescence and hydrophobicity characteristics. Applicant refers to the specification and provided Declaration, the latter providing additional inventive/comparative data in support of the ranges being critical.
Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results is not found persuasive as the claims at issue are not commensurate in scope with the evidence Applicant relies upon in support of the unexpected results allegation. The examples are drawn to two specific monomers (AM and AMPS) and a specific polymer system (MMA/nBA). The evidence fails to illustrate the results alleged to be unexpected occurs throughout the scope of the claim and one of ordinary skill would be unable to ascertain a trend within the exemplified data to reasonably extend the probative value thereof to encompass the entire scope claimed.
The Examiner suggests “wherein the monomer of formula I is 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid or an alkali metal or ammonium salt thereof; wherein the at least one monomer having an amidic functionality is methacrylamide or acrylamide; and the monomer composition comprises methyl methacrylate and n-butylacrylate” to render the claims reasonably commensurate in scope.
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 STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights