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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species of Formula II in the reply filed on September 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11-13, 15, 16 and 22-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 11-13, 23 and 24, the double recitation of “and” in the Markush groups defining monomers iv) and x) is noted. Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 3, 4, 15 and 16, “and mixtures thereof” is redundant to the antecedently-recited “one or more”, the latter necessarily including mixtures of the recited monomers.
In claim 22, line 2, monomer “viii)” is recited as monomer “ix)” in claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 13, the phrases “preferably” and “most preferably” defining monomer xi) are indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 13, the phrases “preferably” and “most preferably” defining the pH in the polymerization of the first and second monomer mixtures renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 25, it is unclear how the “less 15°C” limitation, which has no lower limit, limits the antecedently y-recited “minimum” film forming temperature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0174905 (Bohling).
Bohling discloses multistage polymer particles comprising:
a) a first polymer containing polymerized units of i) 0.5 to 5.0 wt.% of a monomer containing phosphorous acid such as phosphoethyl methacrylate (PEM) (meets Applicants’ monomer v) and overlaps content thereof), ii) 0.75 to 5 wt.% of an acrylamide monomer such as diacetone acrylamide (DAAM) (meets Applicants’ monomer iv) and overlaps content thereof) and iii) additional ethylenically unsaturated monomers such as alkyl(meth)acrylates (BMA, BA, MMA) (meets Applicants’ monomer i)); and
b) a second polymer containing polymerized units of i) no more than 25 wt.% of the total monomer containing phosphorous acid such as phosphoethyl methacrylate (PEM) (meets Applicants’ monomer xi) and overlaps content thereof), ii) no more than 50 wt.% of the total acrylamide monomer such as diacetone acrylamide (DAAM) (meets Applicants’ monomer x) and overlaps content thereof) and iii) additional ethylenically unsaturated monomers such as alkyl(meth)acrylates (MMA, BA) (meets Applicants’ monomer vii)); wherein the first polymer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) determined via DSC from -50 to 30°C (overlaps Applicants’ first polymer Tg of -50 to 5°C) and the second polymer has a Tg from 50 to 125°C (overlaps Applicants’ second polymer Tg of 30 to 100°C) and the weight ratio of the first polymer to the second polymer is from 50:50 to 90:10 (overlaps Applicants’ weight ratio of 10:90 to 90:10) (e.g., abstract, [0006], [0009], [0012-0013], [0022], [0029], [0031], [0045], [0073], examples, claims).
In particular, Bohling sets forth multistage polymer particles per Example 1 (Table 2) comprising a first polymer containing 58.3% BMA (butyl methacrylate)/28.6% BA (butyl acrylate)/7.4% MMA (methyl methacrylate)/3.0% DAAM (diacetone acrylamide)/2.6% PEM (phosphoethyl methacrylate) and a second polymer containing 88.2% MMA/10.4% BA/1.3% AA (acrylic acid), wherein first polymer has a Tg of 5°C, the second polymer has a Tg of 96 and the weight ratio of the first polymer to second polymer is 65:35. As to the Tg measurements, it is not seen that the “DSC” Tg’s disclosed by Bohling differs from the presently claimed “Fox equation” theoretical Tg’s, which are also determined via DSC (specification page 24).
In essence, claim 1 differs from Bohling’s examples in that the monomer containing phosphorous acid is 0.1 to 1.9 wt.% in the first polymer and 0.1 to 5 wt.% in the second polymer and the first polymer contains less than 0.1 wt.% of other acid-containing monomers. With respect to the monomer containing phosphorous acid (PEM) content, it would have been within the purview of Bohling’s inventive disclosure [0006], and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use as low as 0.5 wt.% PEM in the first polymer and 25 wt.% of the total PEM in the second polymer in accordance with the desired gloss retention [0050]. With respect to the AA acid content, Bohling does not require the presence of an unsaturated acid other than the monomer containing phosphorous acid, and if present its amount can be as low as 0.05 (claim 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bohling’s Example 1 such that the first polymer contains a lower PEM amount, e.g., 1% (meets Applicants’ monomer v) content) and no AA (meets Applicants’ less than 0.1 wt.% other acid monomer proviso) and the second polymer contains about 0.33%, i.e., 25% of the total PEM, (meets Applicants monomer xi) content) with the reasonable expectation of success, absent evidence of unusual or unexpected results.
As to claims 2 and 14, Bohling’s multistage polymeric particles have two separate Tg’s.
As to claims 3 and 15, Bohling’s first polymer per Example 1 includes alkyl(meth)acrylates BMA, BA and MMA.
As to claims 4 and 16, Bohling’s second polymer per Example 1 includes alkyl(meth)acrylates BA and MMA.
As to claims 5, 6, 17 and 18, Bohling’s exemplifies PEM of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
63
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(meets formula (I) wherein R1 is CH3, X is (CH2)2 and Y is H).
As to claims 7, 8, 19 and 20, Bohling meets the embodiment wherein the lower limit of “up to 3 wt%” is zero.
As to claims 11, 12, 23 and 24, Bohling’s first polymer per Example 1 includes 3 wt.% DAAM. However, it would have been within the purview of Bohling’s inventive disclosure [0006], and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use as low as 0.75 wt.% DAAM in the first polymer and no more than 50 wt.% of the total DAAM in the second polymer in accordance with the desired properties. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bohling’s Example 1 such that the first polymer contains a lower DAAM amount, e.g., 0.75% (meets Applicants’ monomer iv) content) and the second polymer contains 0.75%, i.e., 50% of the total DAAM (meets Applicants monomer x) content), with the reasonable expectation of success, absent evidence of unusual or unexpected results.
As to claim 13, Bohling (examples) adds aqueous ammonia after the second monomer mixture is fed into the flask to obtain the targeted pH of 7 to 9. Thus, it is clear that both the first and second monomer mixtures are polymerized at a lower pH as presently claimed.
As to claim 25, Bohling discloses coating compositions (Tables 1/30 comprising a coalescing agent (ester alcohol Texanol), where films therefrom are formed at 23°C. Preferably, the coating compositions comprise no or a very low amount, e.g., 100 g/L or less, of VOCs [0068]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to prepare coating compositions per Bohling with a VOC level less than 50 g/L with the reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9, 10, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0174905 (Bohling) described hereinabove in view of US 2004/0054063 (Brown).
As to claims 9, 10, 21 and 22, Brown teaches that similar-such multistage polymeric particles comprising a first polymer and a second polymer may additionally contain functional groups such as acetoacetoxy groups, e.g., acetoacetoxy ethyl (meth)acrylate [0066], to enable the multistage polymer to attach to the surface of inorganic particles such as pigments (e.g., abstract, [0010], [0021], [0028-0029], [0061-0069], [0073], examples, claims). Thus, in Bohling's’ embodiments further containing inorganic pigment particles[0069-0070]/[0087], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate an acetoacetoxy group-containing monomer, such as acetoacetoxy ethyl (meth)acrylate, into Bohling’s first and second polymers to enable the multistage polymeric particles to be attached to the surface of the inorganic pigment particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765