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 with traverse of Group II (claims 8-10 and 14-19) in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that amended claim 8 requires a particular combination of a multilayer polymer and a composition for dispersing core shell particles. The composition has specially claimed properties which are not present in the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the sheared technical feature of Groups I-IV is the composition according to claim 1, not the powder composition in claim 8. The restriction is based on the fact that this sheared technical feature does not make contribution towards the prior art. Moreover, the prior art teaches the powder composition in claim 8 as stated in the 103 rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 14-19 are new. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending with claim(s) 1-7 and 11-13 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 8-10 and 14-19 is/are under examination in this office action.
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US 20220185934 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Guo teaches a composition comprising a multi-stage flexible acrylic resin and a branched polymer additive [abstract]. The ingredients are in powder form [0053, 0058].
The multi-stage flexible acrylic resin has a core-shell structure [0007]. Therefore, the multi-stage flexible acrylic resin meets the claimed multilayer polymer, as evidenced by the applicant [0002 spec.].
The branched polymer is a reaction product of reactants comprising one or more monoethylenically unsaturated ester monomers and a chain transfer agent [abstract]. The one or more monoethylenically unsaturated ester monomers include butyl acrylate, ethyl hexyl acrylate and ethyl acrylate [0027]. The branched polymer additive has number average molecular weight of no more than 20,000 g/mol [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select butyl acrylate, ethyl hexyl acrylate and ethyl acrylate as the monoethylenically unsaturated ester monomers in Guo’s composition, as these are expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
The examiner submits that the branched polymer reads on the claimed oligomer because its molecular weight overlaps the claimed molecular weight of less than 10,000 g/mol; and the one or more monoethylenically unsaturated ester monomers are the same as the claimed alkyl (meth)acrylate monomer in the instant application (see [0020] of specification).
The claimed glass transition temperature is a property of the oligomer product. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited glass transition temperature is expected to be present.
Regarding claim 9, Guo teaches that the amount of branched polymer in the composition is at least 1 or 3 or 5 or 10 weight percent; and up to 60 or 50 or 40 weight percent [0049]. These amounts fall within the claimed range of 1-98 wt%.
Regarding claims 14-17, Guo teaches that the number average molecular weight of the branched polymer additive can be 3000 or 4000 or 5000 g/mol [0047]. These meet the claimed Mn of less than 7,500 and 5,000. The claimed degree of polymerization (DP) is determined by the specific monomers forming the oligomer and the molecular weight of the oligomer. Since the Guo teaches the same monomers as stated above, the claimed DP is expected to be present.
Regarding claim 18, Guo teaches that the one or more monoethylenically unsaturated ester monomers include butyl acrylate, ethyl hexyl acrylate and ethyl acrylate, as stated above.
Regarding claim 19, Guo teaches 2-ethyl hexyl thioglycolate as the chain transfer agent [0029].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Molnar (US 6331580 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Guo teaches the powder composition in claim 8. Guo teaches the multi-stage flexible acrylic core-shell resin as the claimed multilayer polymer as stated above. Guo does not specifically teach that the multi-stage flexible acrylic resin comprises a methacrylate butadiene styrene core shell polymer.
Guo teaches that the powder composition is used in extruding, calendaring, and injection molding applications for a variety of indoor and outdoor flexible, transparent and weather resistant plastic materials [0002, 0054].
In the same field of endeavor, Molnar teaches methacrylate butadiene styrene core shell polymer (MBS) impact modifiers used for transparent plastics in extrusion, calendaring and injection molding [col. 3 lines 11-13, col. 11 lines 33-38]. The MBS provides enhanced impact properties and improved clarity and color in clear matrix polymer blends [col. 1 lines 27-30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Guo’s multi-stage flexible acrylic core-shell resin with Molnar’s MBS for the aforementioned benefits, since they are used for the same type of application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762