DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 18 December 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-11 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 18 December 2025. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites a range for the calculated Tg of the shell polymer that is greater than the range recited in base claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0405084 A2 (“Miyakawa”) in view of US 2006/0288909 (“Naji”).
As to claim 1, 10, and 11, Miyakawa teaches a cement composition containing a polymer latex (abstract, 15:10-20). Miyakawa teaches the latex contains an emulsion polymer (4:33-34). Miyakawa teaches numerous examples having a core portion having Tg in the recited range. The core of these polymers is crosslinked, based on the presence of multifunctional acrylate monomers in the core composition (see table 2 for monomer content); as such, the core is considered to be rubbery. Both the core and shell monomers include multifunctional monomers, and it is therefore reasonable to presume the shell is at least partly grafted to the core. The same examples, table 2, show shells having acrylate monomers. While the shell Tg is not exemplified, Miyakawa teaches the shell Tg may be up to 50 degrees (3:5-10), which is within the recited range, and therefore that Tg is an obvious modification.
Miyakawa teaches a particle size of preferably 200 nm or less (7:13-18), with examples in the recited range (14:15-23).
Miyakawa teaches that the latex additive provides cement products, including cement, mortar, and concrete high flexural strength, water resistance, durability, and neutralization inhibition (2:25-35), and teaches articles made therefrom (8:3-15). Miyakawa recommends the use of 0.3 to 12 wt % of the polymer solids in the cement (7:18-23), which substantially overlaps the range of claim 1. Miyakawa teaches this amount provides durability, water resistance, and neutralization inhibition, without lowering compressive strength.
Miyakawa does not discuss fibers, but teaches the use of reinforcing materials generally (7:54-56) as additives. Naji teaches that fiber cement materials can be made of cement materials including additives such as reinforcing fibers, including cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol based fibers as required by claims 10 and 11 (para. 0045). As such, the use of fibers as a reinforcement for cement is an obvious modification known in the art for making reinforced cement products.
While Miyakawa does not discuss impact resistance, it is presumed that the use of the polymer in cement would improve impact resistance, given that Miyakawa teaches the same material.
As to claim 2, Miyakawa does not exemplify core shell emulsion polymer having a core Tg of -20 degrees C; however, Miyakawa generally teaches core Tg below 10 degrees C, and exemplifies polymers with Tg in the vicinity thereof, and as such, core shell polymers having a core Tg of -20 degrees C are an obvious substitution within the preferred core shell polymers of Miyakawa.
Miyakawa recommends the use of 0.3 to 12 wt % of the polymer solids in the cement (7:18-23), which substantially overlaps the range of claim 2. Miyakawa teaches this amount provides durability, water resistance, and neutralization inhibition, without lowering compressive strength.
As to claims 4 and 5, the examples show shells including methyl methacrylate (table 2).
As to claims 6 and 7, Miyakawa does not exemplify the recited particle size, but teaches generally that the particle size should be 200 nm or less for improving strength, water and weather resistance (7:13-16), which includes sizes within the ranges of claims 6 and 7. The use of core shell particles, therefore, including in the recited range, are in a preferred range taught by Miyakawa and are therefore an obvious modification.
As to claim 8, Miyakawa does not exemplify the recited core shell weight ratio. Miyakawa generally teaches that the ratio of core to shell polymer is in a preferable range from 35:65 to 90:10, which overlaps the recited range (2:53-55), so as to provide compression and flexural strength and water reduction effect, as well as water absorption and neutralization inhibition (3:1-4). As such, forming core shell particles, including in the recited ratio, are preferred ratios of Miyakawa for providing the desired effects to a cement composition.
As to claim 9, Miyakawa teaches and exemplifies multiply ethylenically unsaturated monomers in the core layer, but not the recited amount. However, Miyakawa generally teaches the use of 0.1 to 5 % by weight of crosslinkable monomers so as to improve strength and water resistance (3:52-58), and as such, the use of crosslinking multiply ethylenically unsaturated monomers, including in the recited amount, is an obvious modification suggested by Miyakawa.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,872,189 (“Bett”) in view of US 2005/0092210 (“Radtke”) as evidenced by US 2015/0259576 (“Yutou”).
The Office notes that this ground could be applied to at least claims 1 and 2, as well as claim 3. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the application of this ground is limited to those for which new ground is necessitated.
As to claim 3, Bett teaches the polymer is a core shell polymer (abstract).
Bett teaches the core has a Tg ranging from -30 to 25 degrees C (abstract), which includes the recited value of -20 degrees C; as such, while not exemplified, a core having the recited calculated Tg of –20 degrees Cis an obvious modification in the invention of Bett.
While Bett does not state the core is crosslinked rubber core, it is composed of styrene butadiene, which being multifunctional, would be expected to have crosslinking (2:25-35), and being rubber having Tg below room temperature.
Bett teaches a shell comprising styrene (vinyl) and acrylate monomers (3:24-35). Bett teaches the shell is bonded (grafted) to the core (abstract). Bett teaches a shell having Tg higher than 55 degrees C (abstract), which overlaps the recited range. The examples of Bett use a shell of styrene and methacrylic acid (8:25-30), which based on the values of styrene and methacrylic acid as evidenced by Yutou, para. 0097.
Bett teaches a particle size of the polymer between 0.1 and 0.3 micrometer, or 100 to 300 nm (4:32-34).
While not exemplified, Bett teaches the use of 1 to 10 % of the polymer in cementitious composition, which substantially overlaps the recited range (5:55-65). Bett teaches the use the polymer in cementitious composition, including coatings and adhesives. While Bett does not teach or suggest fibers, Radtke, that cement coatings with polymeric additives may incorporate fibers for improving moisture and provide reinforcement and flexibility (paras. 0025, 0033), the latter of which would be expected to improve impact resistance.
As such, the use of fibers in a cement composition of Bett is an obvious modification suggested by Radtke for improving properties of a cement coating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-11, applicant’s argument that Miyakawa teaches away from the invention is not correct, because Miyakawa clearly teaches the use of shell polymers of Tg 50 degrees C.
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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764