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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed October 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Melchin (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the disclosure of Melchin is limited to carpet coating compositions applied to the back side of carpet, which Applicant alleges differs from the claimed paint which is applied to a surface as a top coating for aesthetic or ornamental purposes. With respect to the rejection of record in the previously mailed Office Action, it is the position of the Office that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. In the instant case, the structural limitations of the powder paint composition and the process steps of providing the same are met by the disclosure of Melchin. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). It is the position of the Office that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use (i.e., a paint) recited in the present claim does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which reads on or renders obvious the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Applicant further argues that Melchin is limited to carpet coating compositions and that the carpet coating composition set forth therein is a binder which is in contrast to the instantly claimed powder paint composition. Similarly to the above, the Office maintains that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use (i.e., powder paint) recited in the present claim does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which reads on or renders obvious the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use. However, it is noted that Weitzel, cited as pertinent prior art in the previous Office Action, teaches copolymers derived from vinyl ester, (meth)acrylic ester and optionally ethylene copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid as aqueous dispersions or redispersible polymer powders which are redispersible in water (Abstract), which are analogous to the polymer powders of Melchin, and further teaches that the aqueous polymer dispersions and the polymer powders which are stabilized by protective colloids and are redispersible in water are recognized within the art as useful in a variety of building material compositions, such as a binder (Melchin teaches that the carpet coating composition is a binder, see, e.g., Claim 10 of Melchin) or as a paint ([0040] of Weitzel). Thus, even if, as Applicant argues, Melchin is limited to carpet coating compositions and binders formed thereof, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have reason to predict that the polymer powders of Melchin are incapable of application as a paint. It is also noted that the disclosure of Melchin is not only limited to carpet coating as Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]).
Applicant argues that Melchin is non-analogous to the claimed invention as it is directed to solving a different technical problem and directed to a different field of endeavor. However, it is the position of the Office that Melchin is analogous art because it is directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, coating compositions based on powder copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloids. Melchin is also reasonably pertinent to problems associated with the storage and transport of aqueous coating compositions (see instant specification pg. 1, para. 3 of the instant specification, [0058] of Melchin).
Applicant’s arguments are considered fully responded to within the comments above and rejections below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melchin et al. (US20170321375, hereinafter referred to as “Melchin”).
As to Claim 21: Melchin teaches a water-redispersible polymer powder composition comprising a polymer powder that may be rendered water-redispersible via drying ([0034]) (i.e., providing a powder), further comprising fillers ([0045]) and pigments ([0047]). Melchin teaches that protective colloids may be used for stabilization ([0022]) wherein said protective colloid may be partially or fully hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol ([0023]). Melchin further teaches that the polymer powder may be based on one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers selected from the group comprising (meth)acrylic esters ([0009]-[0010]) including esters of branched or unbranched alcohols having 1 to 22 carbon atoms (e.g., methyl acrylate), which reads on the claimed (a1) acrylic esters of branched or unbranched alcohols having 1 to 12 carbon atoms. Melchin further teaches that additional auxiliary monomers are optional ([0013]). Thus, the polymers described by Melchin may be based on one ethylenically unsaturated monomer selected from esters of branched or unbranched alcohols having 1 to 22 carbon atoms (e.g., 100% methyl acrylate), which satisfies the claimed ranges (a1), (a2), (a3), and (a4), which only requires the presence of the monomer recited in (a1). It is also noted that Melchin teaches that the polymer may comprise one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers that yield overlapping amounts with the amounts recited for (a2), (a3), and (a4), in particular see para. [0017] which teaches overlapping amounts for the claimed:
(a2), wherein the polymer comprises 1 to 60 wt% of (meth)acrylic esters or styrene-acrylic ester copolymers ([0017] and [0019]) including copolymers of styrene (i.e., (a2) and methyl acrylate (i.e., (a1) ([0019]);
(a3), wherein the polymer comprises 1 to 50 wt% of one or more comonomers from the group of vinyl esters having 1 to 13 carbons ([0017]); and
(a4), wherein the polymer comprises an additional optional 0.1 to 10 wt% of auxiliary monomers ([0013]) wherein the auxiliary monomers may be ethylenically unsaturated monomers copolymerizable with the above monomers ([0014]),
and wherein the total weight of the comonomers in wt% add up to 100 wt% ([0017]).
The ranges for the monomers which read on the claimed (a1), (a2), (a3), and (a4) are encompassed by or overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Melchin suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for the synthesis of powder coating compositions that are water redispersible.
Melchin further teaches that one or more polyvinyl alcohols may be present wherein a first low molecular weight polyvinyl alcohol may have a degree of hydrolysis of 80 to 95 mol% and a Hoeppler viscosity (4% aqueous solution, determined using the Hoeppler method at 20 ˚C, DIN 53015) of 1 to 5 mPa ([0026]) and a second high molecular weight polyvinyl alcohol may have a degree of hydrolysis of 80 to 95 mol% and a Hoeppler viscosity (4% aqueous solution, determined using the Hoeppler method at 20 ˚C, DIN 53015) of >5 to 40 mPas ([0027]).
Melchin further teaches that the polymers are rendered water-redispersible by a drying process ([0034]) and further teaches preparation steps that comprise spray drying a mixture of the polymer and polyvinyl alcohols ([0118]) and subsequently admixing the powder with other constituents (e.g., calcium carbonate and kaolin fillers), each of which are based on dry powder ([0118]), which reads on the claimed mixing the individual constituents with one another in the form of finely divided powders thereof. Melchin does not teach an apparatus in which the powders are mixed (i.e., a powder mixer), however, the instant specification does not provide a description of the claimed powder mixer, and therefore, the apparatus utilized by Melchin to achieve mixing of the described powders is construed to read on the claimed powder mixer (i.e., any apparatus capable of or suitable for mixing powders).
Melchin does not explicitly teach that the polymer powder composition for coatings is a powdered paint composition. However, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets limitations of the claim. It is the position of the Office that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use (i.e., powder paint) recited in the present claim does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which reads on or renders obvious the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
As to Claim 23: Melchin teaches the process of claim 21 (supra).
Melchin does not explicitly teach that the polymer powder composition for coatings is a powdered paint composition used for producing aqueous emulsion paints. However, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets limitations of the claim. It is the position of the Office the purpose or intended use (i.e., producing aqueous emulsion paints) recited in the present claim does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which reads on or renders obvious the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use (note that Melchin contemplates that the polymer dispersions (i.e., the polymer based on one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers and the one or more polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid) are capable of forming aqueous dispersions (i.e., aqueous emulsions) ([0022])).
As to Claim 24: Melchin teaches the process of claim 21 (supra).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls. Therefore, even though Melchin does not describe the polymer film as a paint, the disclosure meets all of the recited structural and process step limitations. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets limitations of the claim.
As to Claim 25: Melchin teaches the process of claim 21 (supra).
Melchin contemplates that the polymer dispersions (i.e., the polymer based on one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers and the one or more polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid) are capable of forming aqueous dispersions (i.e., aqueous emulsions) ([0022])) and teaches exemplary coatings formed from the dispersion of the polymer powder by mixing with an amount of water ([0153]-[0157]).
As to Claim 26: Melchin teaches the process of claim 25 (supra).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls. Therefore, even though Melchin does not describe the polymer film as a “paint,” the disclosure meets all of the recited structural and process step limitations.
As to Claim 27: Melchin teaches the process of claim 21 (supra).
Melchin further teaches that the composition may comprise additives including wettings agents, dispersants ([0047]) and teaches exemplary dispersions used for coating/film formation that include a defoamer ([0153]-[0156]).
Claims 22 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melchin et al. (US20170321375, hereinafter referred to as “Melchin”).
As to Claim 22: Melchin teaches a water-redispersible polymer powder composition comprising a polymer powder that may be rendered water-redispersible via drying ([0034]) (i.e., providing a powder), further comprising fillers ([0045]) and pigments ([0047]). Melchin teaches that protective colloids may be used for stabilization ([0022]) wherein said protective colloid may be partially or fully hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol ([0023]). Melchin further teaches that the polymer powder may be based on one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers selected from the group comprising (meth)acrylic esters ([0009]-[0010]) including esters of branched or unbranched alcohols having 1 to 22 carbon atoms (e.g., methyl acrylate), which reads on the claimed (a1) acrylic esters of branched or unbranched alcohols having 1 to 12 carbon atoms. Melchin further teaches that additional auxiliary monomers are optional ([0013]). Thus, the polymers described by Melchin may be based on one ethylenically unsaturated monomer selected from esters of branched or unbranched alcohols having 1 to 22 carbon atoms (e.g., 100% methyl acrylate), which satisfies the claimed ranges (a1), (a2), (a3), and (a4), which only requires the presence of the monomer recited in (a1). It is also noted that Melchin teaches that the polymer may comprise one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers that yield overlapping amounts with the amounts recited for (a2), (a3), and (a4), in particular see para. [0017] which teaches overlapping amounts for the claimed:
(a2), wherein the polymer comprises 1 to 60 wt% of (meth)acrylic esters or styrene-acrylic ester copolymers ([0017] and [0019]) including copolymers of styrene (i.e., (a2) and methyl acrylate (i.e., (a1) ([0019]);
(a3), wherein the polymer comprises 1 to 50 wt% of one or more comonomers from the group of vinyl esters having 1 to 13 carbons ([0017]); and
(a4), wherein the polymer comprises an additional optional 0.1 to 10 wt% of auxiliary monomers ([0013]) wherein the auxiliary monomers may be ethylenically unsaturated monomers copolymerizable with the above monomers ([0014]),
and wherein the total weight of the comonomers in wt% add up to 100 wt% ([0017]).
The ranges for the monomers which read on the claimed (a1), (a2), (a3), and (a4) are encompassed by or overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Melchin suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for the synthesis of powder coating compositions that are water redispersible.
Melchin further teaches that one or more polyvinyl alcohols may be present wherein a first low molecular weight polyvinyl alcohol may have a degree of hydrolysis of 80 to 95 mol% and a Hoeppler viscosity (4% aqueous solution, determined using the Hoeppler method at 20 ˚C, DIN 53015) of 1 to 5 mPa ([0026]) and a second high molecular weight polyvinyl alcohol may have a degree of hydrolysis of 80 to 95 mol% and a Hoeppler viscosity (4% aqueous solution, determined using the Hoeppler method at 20 ˚C, DIN 53015) of >5 to 40 mPas ([0027]).
Melchin teaches wherein fillers may be admixed with dispersions formed from water and the polymer powders and that additives may be admixed at any stage ([0053]). Melchin further teaches that aqueous dispersions of the polymer powders may be dried via spray drying ([0034]) to form redispersible polymer powders. Furthermore, the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the process described by Melchin and the claimed process would both yield a final dried mixtures of powders having the claimed composition.
Melchin does not explicitly teach that the polymer powder composition for coatings is a powdered paint composition. However, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets limitations of the claim. It is the position of the Office that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use (i.e., powder paint) recited in the present claim does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which reads on or renders obvious the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
As to Claim 28: Melchin teaches the process of claim 22 (supra).
Melchin does not explicitly teach that the polymer powder composition for coatings is a powdered paint composition used for producing aqueous emulsion “paints.” However, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets limitations of the claim. It is the position of the Office the purpose or intended use (i.e., producing aqueous emulsion paints) recited in the present claim does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which reads on or renders obvious the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use (note that Melchin contemplates that the polymer dispersions (i.e., the polymer based on one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers and the one or more polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid) are capable of forming aqueous dispersions (i.e., aqueous emulsions) ([0022])).
As to Claim 29: Melchin teaches the process of claim 28 (supra).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls. Therefore, even though Melchin does not describe the polymer film as a paint, the disclosure meets all of the recited structural and process step limitations. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets limitations of the claim.
As to Claim 30: Melchin teaches the process of claim 22 (supra).
Melchin contemplates that the polymer dispersions (i.e., the polymer based on one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers and the one or more polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid) are capable of forming aqueous dispersions (i.e., aqueous emulsions) ([0022])) and teaches exemplary coatings formed from the dispersion of the polymer powder by mixing with an amount of water ([0153]-[0157]).
As to Claim 31: Melchin teaches the process of claim 30 (supra).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls. Therefore, even though Melchin does not describe the polymer film as a paint, the disclosure meets all of the recited structural and process step limitations. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02). Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets limitations of the claim.
As to Claim 32: Melchin teaches the process of claim 22 (supra).
Melchin further teaches that the composition may comprise additives including wettings agents, dispersants ([0047]) and teaches exemplary dispersions that include a defoamer ([0153]-[0156]).
The rejections set forth below are presented as alternative rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the claimed limitation of a step of applying the aqueous emulsion paint to at least a portion of an indoor wall or an outdoor wall” recited in claims 24, 26, 29, and 31.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melchin et al. (US20170321375, hereinafter referred to as “Melchin”) in view of Weitzel et al. (US20030065079, hereinafter referred to as “Weitzel”).
As to Claim 24: Melchin teaches the process of claim 23 (see above).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls. However, Melchin is not explicit in disclosing that the glass pane forms a portion of a wall.
Weitzel teaches copolymers derived from vinyl ester, (meth)acrylic ester and optionally ethylene copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid as aqueous dispersions or redispersible polymer powders which are redispersible in water (Abstract), which are analogous to the polymer powders of Melchin, and further teaches that the aqueous polymer dispersions and the polymer powders which are stabilized by protective colloids and are redispersible in water are useful in a variety of building material compositions, such as a binder (Melchin teaches that the carpet coating composition is a binder, see, e.g., Claim 10 of Melchin) or as a paint ([0040] of Weitzel). Weitzel further teaches that formulations based on the redispersible polymer powders may be applied to exterior walls ([0044]). Melchin and Weitzel are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, coating compositions (e.g., binders) based on powder copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloids. Melchin and Weitzel are reasonably pertinent to the problem of storage and transport of aqueous coating compositions (see instant specification pg. 1, para. 3 of the instant specification, [0058] of Melchin, ([0006] and [0073] of Weitzel). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that polymer powders stabilized with protective colloids are capable of use as a binder (as in Melchin) or as a paint, based on the disclosure of Weitzel ([0040]) and would furthermore (1) have reasonable expectation of success as Melchin discloses that the polymer powders described therein are capable of forming films on surfaces ([0153]-[0157]) and (2) have expected the resultant paint to benefit from the improvements to storage and transportation contemplated by Melchin ([0058]).
As to Claim 26: Melchin teaches the process of claim 25 (see above).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls.
However, Melchin is not explicit in disclosing that the glass pane forms a portion of a wall.
Weitzel teaches copolymers derived from vinyl ester, (meth)acrylic ester and optionally ethylene copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid as aqueous dispersions or redispersible polymer powders which are redispersible in water (Abstract), which are analogous to the polymer powders of Melchin, and further teaches that the aqueous polymer dispersions and the polymer powders which are stabilized by protective colloids and are redispersible in water are useful in a variety of building material compositions, such as a binder (Melchin teaches that the carpet coating composition is a binder, see, e.g., Claim 10 of Melchin) or as a paint ([0040] of Weitzel). Weitzel further teaches that formulations based on the redispersible polymer powders may be applied to exterior walls ([0044]). Melchin and Weitzel are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, coating compositions (e.g., binders) based on powder copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloids. Melchin and Weitzel are reasonably pertinent to the problem of storage and transport of aqueous coating compositions (see instant specification pg. 1, para. 3 of the instant specification, [0058] of Melchin, ([0006] and [0073] of Weitzel). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that polymer powders stabilized with protective colloids are capable of use as a binder (as in Melchin) or as a paint, based on the disclosure of Weitzel ([0040]) and would furthermore (1) have reasonable expectation of success as Melchin discloses that the polymer powders described therein are capable of forming films on surfaces ([0153]-[0157]) and (2) have expected the resultant paint to benefit from the improvements to storage and transportation contemplated by Melchin ([0058]).
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melchin et al. (US20170321375, hereinafter referred to as “Melchin”) in view of Weitzel et al. (US20030065079, hereinafter referred to as “Weitzel”).
As to Claim 29: Melchin teaches the process of claim 28 (see above).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls.
However, Melchin is not explicit in disclosing that the glass pane forms a portion of a wall.
Weitzel teaches copolymers derived from vinyl ester, (meth)acrylic ester and optionally ethylene copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid as aqueous dispersions or redispersible polymer powders which are redispersible in water (Abstract), which are analogous to the polymer powders of Melchin, and further teaches that the aqueous polymer dispersions and the polymer powders which are stabilized by protective colloids and are redispersible in water are useful in a variety of building material compositions, such as a binder (Melchin teaches that the carpet coating composition is a binder, see, e.g., Claim 10 of Melchin) or as a paint ([0040] of Weitzel). Weitzel further teaches that formulations based on the redispersible polymer powders may be applied to exterior walls ([0044]). Melchin and Weitzel are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, coating compositions (e.g., binders) based on powder copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloids. Melchin and Weitzel are reasonably pertinent to the problem of storage and transport of aqueous coating compositions (see instant specification pg. 1, para. 3 of the instant specification, [0058] of Melchin, ([0006] and [0073] of Weitzel). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that polymer powders stabilized with protective colloids are capable of use as a binder (as in Melchin) or as a paint, based on the disclosure of Weitzel ([0040]) and would furthermore (1) have reasonable expectation of success as Melchin discloses that the polymer powders described therein are capable of forming films on surfaces ([0153]-[0157]) and (2) have expected the resultant paint to benefit from the improvements to storage and transportation contemplated by Melchin ([0058]).
As to Claim 31: Melchin teaches the process of claim 30 (see above).
Melchin teaches applying aqueous dispersions of the powdered polymer as a polymeric film onto a glass pane ([0153]-[0157]). Glass pane is construed to represent a transparent sheet of glass, which is commonly used in windows, which are known to form “at least a portion” of indoor/outdoor walls.
However, Melchin is not explicit in disclosing that the glass pane forms a portion of a wall.
Weitzel teaches copolymers derived from vinyl ester, (meth)acrylic ester and optionally ethylene copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid as aqueous dispersions or redispersible polymer powders which are redispersible in water (Abstract), which are analogous to the polymer powders of Melchin, and further teaches that the aqueous polymer dispersions and the polymer powders which are stabilized by protective colloids and are redispersible in water are useful in a variety of building material compositions, such as a binder (Melchin teaches that the carpet coating composition is a binder, see, e.g., Claim 10 of Melchin) or as a paint ([0040] of Weitzel). Weitzel further teaches that formulations based on the redispersible polymer powders may be applied to exterior walls ([0044]). Melchin and Weitzel are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, coating compositions (e.g., binders) based on powder copolymers stabilized with a polyvinyl alcohol protective colloids. Melchin and Weitzel are reasonably pertinent to the problem of storage and transport of aqueous coating compositions (see instant specification pg. 1, para. 3 of the instant specification, [0058] of Melchin, ([0006] and [0073] of Weitzel). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that polymer powders stabilized with protective colloids are capable of use as a binder (as in Melchin) or as a paint, based on the disclosure of Weitzel ([0040]) and would furthermore (1) have reasonable expectation of success as Melchin discloses that the polymer powders described therein are capable of forming films on surfaces ([0153]-[0157]) and (2) have expected the resultant paint to benefit from the improvements to storage and transportation contemplated by Melchin ([0058]).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571) 272-1197. 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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767