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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 11/19/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 11/19/2025. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to distinguish between the first and second multistage polymer particles, and claims 12-20 are new. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
37 CFR 130(a) Declaration
It is noted that the declaration filed on 11/19/2025 is improperly filed as a 37 CFR 130(a) declaration. Statements regarding the application in a declaration should be filed as a 37 CFR 132 declaration. The declaration has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11-14, and 16 are objected to because of the following reasons:
Objections to claims 1, 6, and 11 were previously set forth in Office action mailed on 8/25/2025 but not addressed in the last claim amendment.
With respect to claim 1, line 16, the term “the core” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “water-occluded core.”
With respect to claim 1, line 20, the term “the first polymer particles” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “first multistage polymer particles.”
With respect to claim 1, line 22, the term “the second polymer particles” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “second multistage polymer particles.”
With respect to claim 5, line, 6, the term “the binder” is inconsistent with previous recitation “film forming polymeric binder.”
With respect to claim 6, line 2, the term “the core” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “water-occluded core.”
With respect to claim 11, line 4, the term “the core” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “water-occluded core.”
With respect to claim 12, line 17, the term “the polymeric binder” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “film forming polymeric binder.”
With respect to claim 12, line 22, the term “the first polymer particles” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “first multistage polymer particles.”
With respect to claim 12, line 24, the term “the second polymer particles” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “second multistage polymer particles.”
With respect to claim 13, last line, the term “the core” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “water-occluded core.”
With respect to claim 14, line 2, the term “the shell” is inconsistent with previous recitation “polymeric shell,” and the term “the core” is inconsistent with previous recitation of “water-occluded core.”
With respect to claim 14, lines 7-8, “a monoethylenically unsaturated aromatic compounds” should be either singular or plural.
With respect to claim 16, last line, the term “the binder” is inconsistent with previous recitation “film forming polymeric binder.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardman (US 8,445,559) in view of Chip (US 4,920,160).
With respect to claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 17, and 18, Bardman discloses core-shell polymeric particles for use in conventional aqueous coating compositions (col. 8, lines 53-64), wherein Bardman’s core-shell polymer particles read on claimed “second multistage polymer particles.” These core-shell polymer particles include a core including at least one void (i.e., claimed water-occluded core), a first polymeric shell having a Tg greater than 50°C, and a second polymeric shell having Tg of -60 to 50°C—wherein the weight ratio of the second shell to the total of the remaining particle is 0.5:1 to 3:1 (col. 25, lines 1-19) and the overall size is 70 nm to 4.5 µm (col. 7, lines 1-5). Example 1 of the multistage particle reads on claimed second multistage polymer particles is derived from 1 part weight core, 12 parts by weight first shell, and 15 part by weight second shell (col. 14, Table 6.1)—which provides for a weight ratio of core to first polymeric shell (claimed polymeric shell) is 1:12.
Bardman teaches that organic pigments such as those having one or more voids can be included (col. 8, lines 15-18) as disclosed in US 4,920,160 (i.e., Chip).
Chip discloses core/sheath polymeric particles which are used as opacifying agents in aqueous coating compositions (abstract; col. 4, lines 67-68). These core/sheath polymeric particles do not include a second shell of a film forming polymeric binder. The core/sheal polymeric particles of Example 9 has Tg of sheath of 85.1°C and is prepared from 90 wt % styrene and 10 wt % butyl acrylate. Chip teaches that the core/sheath polymeric particles have size of 200-2000 nm (col. 8, lines 31-32), e.g., 504 nm (col. 6, lines 43-44).
Given that Bardman refers to Chip regarding adding organic opacifying pigments and further given that those pigments taught by Chip read on claimed first multistage polymer particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a mixture of Bardman’s polymers and Chip’s polymer particles.
Bardman is silent regarding the relative amount of its multistage polymer and the organic opacifying pigment, however, they are both used to opacify coating compositions. It is the examiner’s position that the amounts of each are result effective variables because changing them will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate relative amounts of Bardman’s multistage polymer and the organic opacifying pigment taught by Chip, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired opacity and binding ability of the final coating.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, Chip teaches that the Tg of the sheath is 60-100°C (col. 3, lines 41-44). The exemplified sheath material from the Table in column 7 includes 70/30 to 95/5 styrene to butylacrylate comonomer.
With respect to claim 4 and 15, Chip teaches that methyl methacrylate can be used with aromatic monomer styrene to form the sheath (col. 3, lines 45-51). The styrene monomers are used in an amount of up to 97 mol % (col. 3, lines 52-61).
With respect to claims 8-10, 19, and 20, Bardman teaches that additives such as rheology modifiers, dispersants (surfactants), antifoaming agents, and inorganic pigments such as zinc oxide can be added (col. 7, lines 65-66; col. 8, lines 39-52). Titanium dioxide is not mandatorily present and therefore Bardman teaches 0 wt % of titanium dioxide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: neither Bardman nor Chip discloses or fairly suggests that the claimed polymeric shell of either the first or second multistage polymer particles include 89-93 wt % styrene, 4-5 wt % methyl methacrylate, 0.9-2 wt % cyclohexyl methacrylate, 2-3 wt % methacrylic acid, and 0.1-0.5 wt % allyl methacrylate in combination with a core comprising a salt of methacrylic acid and an acrylic binder having Tg of -20 to 15°C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
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 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