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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/21/2026 has been entered.
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.
All outstanding rejections, except for those set forth below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 7/21/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 2020/0291249) in view of evidence provided by Ribi (US 9,528,004) and further in view of GB ‘162 (GB 974,162).
With respect to claims 1, 4, 12, and 15, Chamberlain discloses an aqueous coating composition comprising xanthan gum and a secondary rheology agent (i.e., rheology modifier) such as a clay, HASE, HEUR, and HMEA (abstract), a binder such as (meth)acrylic latex that can be modified with polar or acid groups inter alia (paragraph 0045-0048), defoamer such a mineral-oil based defoamer (paragraph 0070), preservatives and biocides (paragraph 0058), a wax such as MICHEMTM 21030 and 32535 emulsions (paragraph 0062), and coalescents (paragraph 0057). Sample 1 in Table 1 comprises attapulgite clay, acrylic latex, a defoamer, a biocide preservative, xanthan gum, a HEUR rheology agent, and water.
Suitable wax emulsions taught by Chamberlain are MICHEM 21030 which is an anionic polyethylene wax emulsion as evidenced by Ribi (col. 39, 57-58) and MICHEM 32535 which is a nonionic polyethylene wax emulsion as evidenced by Ribi (col. 39, lines 64-65).
While Chamberlain fails to exemplify or anticipate with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate a composition comprising modified acrylic, coalescent, and polyethylene wax in addition to the ingredients in Sample 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the combination of claimed ingredients for their known purpose given they are taught by Chamberlain as suitable. Case law holds that “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), citing Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976).
Chamberlain teaches that its aqueous coating composition is used in spray atomization because the xanthan gum reduces flow point (paragraph 0031 and 0107) but fails to disclose that the aqueous coating composition is a solid concentrate in a package that is dispersed in water prior to use by end user.
GB ‘162 discloses atomizing and spraying aqueous dispersion paint compositions to obtain dry powdered water-dispersible surface coating compositions which when needed can be redispersed in water to form a liquid coating composition (page 1, lines 13-26). Advantages include improved brightness, greater stability, and reducing bulk (page 2, lines 26-48). GB ‘162 teaches that its method requiring atomization allows for the preparation of dry powdered paint composition from all types of resin binders as well as plasticizers, coalescing agents (page 2, lines 16-25 and 49-72). GB ‘162 discloses preferred embodiments comprising polyvinyl acetate emulsions and dispersants, surfactant, and defoamer like also taught by Chamberlain (see Examples 1 and 5). Because GB ‘162 teaches forming a powder having low moisture content suitable for storage (page 3, lines 12-18), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to put the powder in a container or bag, i.e., a package, to not introduce water into the powder product.
Given that Chamberlain teaches that its composition is sprayable with atomization and further given that GB ‘162 teaches that similar aqueous compositions can be spray atomized to form an advantageous redisperisible powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dry Chamberlain’s aqueous coating composition to form a redispersible composition having improved brightness and stability and decreased bulk.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Chamberlain teaches adding dyes as an optional additive (paragraph 0058).
With respect to claim 3, Chamberlain teaches that the clay includes hectorite (paragraph 0036), which is smectite clay.
With respect to claim 5, the composition includes a mineral oil defoamer and a phosphate ester (i.e., nonionic) surfactant (paragraphs 0070-0073).
With respect to claim 7, while Chamberlain does not disclose a mixture of wax emulsions, it teaches separately adding an anionic and nonionic polyethylene wax emulsions. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a polyethylene wax comprising an aqueous anionic/non-ionic emulsion.
With respect to claim 8, the coalescent includes ester alcohol (paragraph 0057).
With respect to claim 9, Chamberlain teaches that the secondary rheology agent can be hydrophobically modified alkali-swellable emulsion (paragraphs 0035 and 0037).
With respect to claim 10, Chamberlain teaches adding glycols as an optional additive (paragraph 0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a glycol such as a propylene glycol. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
With respect to claim 11, Chamberlain discloses adding ammonium salts as surfactants (paragraph 0053) which form ammonia in water.
With respect to claim 14, while GB ‘162 does not teach that a gel concentrate is prepared, it is still advantageous to reduce the amount of water for reducing bulking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the aqueous composition of Chamberlain into a gel concentrate that is hydrated at the time of use.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 2020/0291249) in view of evidence provided by Ribi (US 9,528,004) and further in view of GB ‘162 (GB 974,162) and Hinton (US 3,065,123).
The discussion with respect to Chamberlain, Ribi, and GB ‘162 in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Chamberlain discloses adding a biocide preservative but fails to disclose a microbiocide that is a mixture of 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one.
Hinton discloses a process for control of microorganisms by adding to aqueous media 1,2-benzisothiazolone (col. 1, lines 46-61).
Given that Chamberlain teaches adding biocide preservatives to its aqueous composition and further given that Hinton teaches that 1,2-benzisothiazolone is a very effective for the control of micro-organisms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 1,2-benzisothiazolone as Chamberlain’s biocide. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Chamberlain is unfairly relied upon because it does not teach reducing water or drying to form a redispersible solid or gel.
The examiner agrees that Chamberlain does not disclose that its composition is formed into a packaged concentrate, however, this is why GB ‘162 has been relied upon. GB ‘162 discloses aqueous coating compositions and teaches atomizing and spraying aqueous dispersion paint compositions to obtain dry powdered water-dispersible surface coating compositions which when needed can be redispersed in water to form a liquid coating composition (page 1, lines 13-26). GB ‘162 teaches that its method requiring atomization allows for the preparation of dry powdered paint composition from all types of aqueous resin binders as well as plasticizers, coalescing agents, and other coating additives (page 2, lines 16-25 and 49-72). Advantages include improved brightness, greater stability, and reducing bulk (page 2, lines 26-48). GB ‘162 discloses preferred embodiments comprising polyvinyl acetate emulsions and dispersants, surfactant, and defoamer like also taught by Chamberlain (see Examples 1 and 5). Given the overlap in the composition between Chamberlain and GB ‘162 and further given Chamberlain utilizes a spray atomization technique, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a redispersible powder by atomization as taught by GB ‘162,.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights