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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/3/2025 has been entered.
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
A Declaration from one of the inventors of the application, Matthias Junk, has been received on 12/3/2025. The Declaration is addressed within the “Response to Arguments” section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 14 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.
Claim 1 refers to a polymer dispersion formed from a monomer composition, and then proceeds to refer to particular quantities of monomers with respect to the total amount of a monomers in the polymer dispersion (emphasis added). The monomers at issue react to form polymers within the resulting dispersions via polymerization. It is unclear whether applicant means to indicate the monomer concentrations are relative to the monomers used to create polymer (i.e. the “monomer composition” of claim 1) or if the monomer content is referring to unreacted monomer impurities. In the interest of compact prosecution, the former interpretation is taken for the purpose of applying prior art.
As claims 2, 4-10, and 14 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issues discussed above.
Claims 2, 10, and 14 refers to the polymer dispersion comprising monomers. Claims 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 refers to monomer contents based on the total amount of monomers in the polymer dispersion (as opposed to the monomer composition used to create the polymer dispersion). Consistent with the discussion above, it is unclear whether applicant means to indicate the monomers are relative to the monomers used to create polymer (i.e. the “monomer composition” of claim 1) or if the recitations are referring to compounds present in unreacted form as is literally being recited within the claims. Are the various recitations (e.g. acid monomers, vinyl aromatic monomers) trying to limit the scope of the chemical makeup of the polymer within the dispersions or the quantity of monomer impurities present? In the interest of compact prosecution, the former interpretation is taken for the purpose of applying prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinecke (U.S. Pat. No. 4,558,092).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Reinecke teaches polymer dispersions (Abstract) suitable for use within coating composition (Col. 5, Line 65 to Col. 6, Line 17). Examples are taught where 27 g of methacrylamide and 18 g of 2-acrylamido-2,2-dimethylethanesulfonic acid relative to 982.4 pbw monomers (Example 1), equivalent to a methacrylamide/sulfonic acid ratio of 1.5 and a total methacrylamide+sulfonic acid quantity of roughly 4.6 wt%.
The particular embodiments of Reinecke’s examples differ from the subject matter claimed in that the total quantities of amide+sulfonic acid exceeds 2.5 wt%. In this regard, Reinecke teaches amide monomer ranges from 0.5-5 wt% and sulfonic acid monomer ranges from 1.8 to 5 wt% (Col. 1, Line 51 to Col. 2, Line 6), inferring total quantities spanning 2.3-10 wt%. Thus, Reinecke suggests overlapping ranges. Reinecke teaches the second order transition (i.e. Tg) of the polymers do not exceed 20 degrees C (Col. 2, Lines 5-6), which touches 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 Reinecke suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Reinecke. See MPEP 2123.
The recitation “for preserving a molding” refers to an intended use of the coating composition. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Since there is no apparent difference in structure between the compositions claimed and those taught by the prior art, such compositions are seen to be capable of performing the intended use in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 2, Example 1 of Reinecke uses 900 pbw of 2-ethylhexylacrylate relative to 982.4 pbw total monomers, equivalent to roughly 91.6 wt%.
Regarding Claim 5, Reinecke uses 2-acrylamido-2,2-dimethylethanesulfonic acid, which is synonymous with 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid.
Regarding Claims 6 and 9, the example of Reinecke uses a ratio of 1.5. Therefore, the preferred embodiments of Reinecke differ from the subject mater claimed in that they are just outside the range of greater than 1.5. In this regard, Reinecke teaches amide monomer ranges from 0.5-5 wt% and sulfonic acid monomer ranges from 1.8 to 5 wt% (Col. 1, Line 51 to Col. 2, Line 6), inferring ratios spanning amide/sulfonic acid of 5/1.8 = 2.8 to 0.5/5 = 0.1. Therefore, Reinecke 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 Reinecke suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Reinecke. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 10, Reinecke does not describe the use of vinyl aromatic monomers within the monomer mixtures or anti-fungal/anti-algal preservatives within the coating compositions (Examples; Col. 7, Line 64 to Col. 8, Line 16). While the examples possess significant quantities of carboxylic acid monomer, Reinecke teaches such monomers span 0-5 wt% (Col. 3, Lines 26-34). 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 Reinecke suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Reinecke. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reck (US 2002/0007005 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4-7, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant indicates the monomer content refers to unreacted monomers. This is not found persuasive. The examiner finds no indication within the specification that the recited amounts are meant to correspond to unreacted monomer impurities, particularly in view of the examples which appear to calculate the total quantities based on the total amount of monomers in the monomer composition used to create dispersion.
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.
First, the ratio claimed is 1:1 to infinity, but only 1.7-5.9 is illustrated within the examples. Comparative example 4 of the provided Declaration shows a ratio of exactly 1 failing to yield the results Applicant regards as unexpected. It therefore stands to reason the results alleged to be unexpected does not occur over the range claimed (it would not be expected to be present at the lower limit of “greater than 1” since it clearly isn’t present at a 1:1 ratio in the instance provided within the Declaration). Also, there is no evidence the results alleged to be unexpected occurs throughout the entirety of the 5.9 to approaching infinity range.
Second, 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.
Conclusion
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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