RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application, claims 9-13 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s election. Amendments to the claims filed on 12/23/2025 have been entered in the above-identified application.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maier et al. (WO 2019/180118) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/29/224) in view of Tokita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,458,897).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Maier et al. discloses a polyolefin aqueous dispersion containing 50-100 wt% of an aqueous dispersions including 30-90 wt% of a copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid. (Abstract). The viscosity of the composition is disclosed to fall within the range of 30-800 mPa*s (page 8, lines 1-6). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Maier et al. discloses neutralizing the ethylene-(meth)acrylic acid copolymer dispersion material but does not disclose the degree of neutralization as claimed. (page 7, line 11-14).
Tokita et al. teaches an aqueous dispersion comprising an ionomer resin neutralized with a divalent metal. (Abstract). The ionomer resin dispersion inclues an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid (col. 3, lines 25-45) and having a degree of neutralization in the range of 20-100% for forming a coating composition having improved corrosion resistance. (col. 4, lines 11-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to neutralize the copolymer of Maier et al. to a degree as disclosed in Tokita et al., which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to neutralize the copolymer to a degree as taught in Tokita et al. to form a composition which may be suitably used in a coating composition having improved corrosion resistance.
With respect to the limitation “neutralized with ammonia, an organic amine, or an alkali metal hydroxide”, Maier et al. discloses using a neutralizing compound in the form of ammonia, NaOH or KOH. (page 7, lines 12-14).
Furthermore, Tokita et al. teaches that the ionomer resin dispersion may be advantageously neutralized by the combination of both a divalent metal as well as a monovalent metal compound such as hydroxides of K or Na (i.e. alkali metals as claimed). (col. 6, lines 56-65).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6-7, Maier et al. discloses a copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid. (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Maier et al. discloses that the diameter of the average particle diameter of the in the range of 1 to 50 micrometers which substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 10 micrometers. (page 8, lines 1-6). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Maier et al. discloses a coating (i.e. a laminate) including the aqueous dispersion. (page 1, lines 7-13). Maier et al. does not disclose that the aqueous dispersion is usable with a paper substrate in particular.
Tokita et al. teaches forming a laminate (coating on a substrate) using the aqueous dispersion. (see col. 10, lines 24-31). The substrate may be a paper substrate. (col. 14, lines 41-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the aqueous dispersion of Maier et al. onto a paper substrate in view of the disclosure in Tokita et al. that ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid aqueous dispersions have know industrial applicability to being used as a coating or sealing materials for paper substrates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the dispersion taught in Maier et al. onto a paper substrate to form a laminate to produce a product having commercial and industrial applications.
Regarding claim 14, Maier et al. discloses using a neutralizing compound in the form of ammonia, NaOH or KOH. (page 7, lines 12-14).
Furthermore, Tokita et al. teaches that the ionomer resin dispersion may be advantageously neutralized by the combination of both a divalent metal as well as a monovalent metal compound such as hydroxides of K or Na (i.e. alkali metals as claimed). (col. 6, lines 56-65).
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tokita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,458,897).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Tokita et al. teaches an aqueous dispersion comprising an ionomer resin neutralized with a divalent metal. (Abstract). The ionomer resin dispersion includes an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid (col. 3, lines 25-45) and having a degree of neutralization in the range of 20-100% for forming a coating composition having improved corrosion resistance. (col. 4, lines 11-20). Tokita et al. teaches that neutralization can be performed by a combination of divalent and monovalent materials including alkali metal hydroxides such as NaOH or KOH. (col. 6, lines 56-65). Tokita et al. further discloses that the aqueous dispersion has a viscosity of 30-2,000 mPa.s (col. 7, lines 23-31). While Tokita et al. does not explicitly teach that the viscosity is measured at 25oC as claimed, given that the reference teaches that the viscosity is an important parameter for forming a coating, the implication would be that the viscosity is measured at room temperature for performing the coating. Alternatively to the implied temperature disclosure in the reference, given that Tokita et al. recognizes the result effective nature of viscosity for impacting the ability to form a coating with the aqueous dispersion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the viscosity at 25oC as claimed in order to more easily form a coating composition using the aqueous dispersion taught by Tokita et al.
With respect to the content of the ionomer resin content in the aqueous dispersion, Tokita et al. teaches that the dispersion includes the ionomer resin (A), an epoxy compound (B) and a reaction product (C) thereof. (col. 7, lines 36-46). The total amount in the dispersion of the 3 compounds is in the range of 5-50% by weight wherein the ionomer resin is included in an amount of 50% or more (up to 99%) relative to the sum of (A), (B) and (C). (col. 8, lines 4-6 and lines 7-12). Therefore, the content of the ionomer resin in the aqueous dispersion would like in the range of 2.5% by weight (50% of 5%) or more up to and close to 50% (99% of 50%), which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claims 2-3, Tokita et al. discloses that the ionomer is an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid (col. 3, lines 25-45) wherein the carboxylic acid includes acrylic, methacrylic, maleic, fumaric, itaconic, crotonic, isocrotoic acids as well as esters thereof. (col. 3, lines 35-53).
Regarding claim 6, the ionomer resin dispersion includes an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid (col. 3, lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 7, the ionomer resin dispersion includes an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid (col. 3, lines 25-45) and the carboxylic acid may be (meth)acrylic acid. (col. 3, lines 35-53).
Regarding claim 8, Tokita et al. teaches forming a laminate (coating on a substrate) using the aqueous dispersion. (see col. 10, lines 24-31). The substrate may be a paper substrate. (col. 14, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 14, Tokita et al. teaches that neutralization can be performed by a combination of divalent and monovalent materials including alkali metal hydroxides such as NaOH or KOH. (col. 6, lines 56-65).
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 12/23/2025 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 09/23/2025 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Tokita et al. would have taught away from neutralizing the aqueous dispersion of Maier et al. with an ammonia, an organic amine or an alkali metal hydroxide in view of the disclosure in Tokita et al. that using such neutralizing agents results in insufficient corrosion resistance as a rust-preventative treatment. (col. 1, lines 54-61).
These arguments are not persuasive because Tokita et al. teaches that the ionomer resin dispersion may be advantageously neutralized by the combination of both a divalent metal as well as a monovalent metal compound such as hydroxides of K or Na (i.e. alkali metals as claimed). (col. 6, lines 56-65). Therefore, Tokita et al. does not teach away from the using of alkali metal hydroxides so long as they are used in combination with divalent neutralizing agents. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to neutralize the resin of Maier et al. with an alkali metal hydroxide, consistent with the disclosure of Tokita et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 04/02/2026