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 Group I (claims 1-9 and 12) in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 1 wherein claim 1 recites, “iii. from 0.1-10.0 wt% of a silicate component A3” which is the same as a silica, therefore, claim 6 is redundant and the claim should be amended or canceled.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/180118 (hereinafter, MAIER) in view of HOEFLER (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0034123, hereinafter HOEFLER).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, and 8, MAIER teaches an aqueous polyolefin dispersion comprising from 50 to 100 wt% of an aqueous dispersion A comprising the following ingredients (Abstract; p. 2):
i. from 30 to 90 wt% of A1, a copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid or a mixture of different copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid,
ii. from 10 to 70 wt% of A2, another polymer, not being a copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid, or a mixture of other polymers, and
iii. from 0-15 wt% of additive (p. 6),
from 0 to 50 wt% of a compound B, where compound B (i.e., polyvinylpyrrolidone and polyethylene glycol (p. 6)) is a material dispersible or soluble in water and different from any of the ingredients of dispersion A wherein the wt% of A and B is based on the solid content of the whole aqueous polyolefin dispersion and the wt% of the ingredients of dispersion A is based on the solid content of dispersion A, the sum of the wt% of ingredients i to iii of dispersion is 100%.
- A2 is selected from the group consisting of copolymers of ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA) modified with maleic anhydride (pp. 2 and 5).
The aqueous polyolefin dispersion contains a premixing step of hybrid particles containing both A1 and A2 (p. 8) (reads on claim 8).
However, MAIER does not teach iii. from 0.1-10 wt% of a silicate component A3.
In the same field of endeavor of an aqueous polymer dispersion [0006], HOEFLER teaches the aqueous dispersion comprises silica particles to form an aqueous silica dispersion (Abstract). The dispersion contains 1 to 30 weight% of silica particles [0007] including amorphous silica [0013] (which is within the claimed range of 0.1-10 wt%). Silica is used to modify the physical properties or the appearance of articles and silica is used as a reinforcing agent to increase the strength and toughness of a base polymer, a filler to reduce the overall cost of a polymer formulation without adversely affecting the desired properties of the base polymer, as an additive to improve the abrasion resistance of surfaces, and as a flattening agent to reduce the surface of an article [0002].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the silica particles of HOEFLER with the aqueous polymer dispersion of MAIER for its art recognized function (e.g. modify the physical properties or the appearance of articles and silica is used as a reinforcing agent to increase the strength and toughness of a base polymer, a filler to reduce the overall cost of a polymer formulation without adversely affecting the desired properties of the base polymer, as an additive to improve the abrasion resistance of surfaces, and as a flattening agent to reduce the surface of an article) as taught by HOEFLER. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, MAIER teaches an aqueous polyolefin dispersion comprising from 50 to 100 wt% of an aqueous dispersion A comprising the following ingredients (Abstract; p. 2):
i. from 30 to 90 wt% of A1, a copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid or a mixture of different copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid. The copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid that is present in a polymer dispersion A has a content of (meth)acrylic acid based groups in the copolymer of at least 10 wt% based on the total weight of the copolymer (p. 4).
With regard to the claim limitations, “at least 60 wt% of A1 has a content of (meth)acrylic based groups in the copolymer of 11-30 wt%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, MAIER teaches an aqueous polyolefin dispersion comprising from 50 to 100 wt% of an aqueous dispersion A comprising the following ingredients (Abstract; p. 2):
ii. from 10 to 70 wt% of A2, another polymer, not being a copolymer of polyethylene and (meth)acrylic acid, or a mixture of other polymers. Examples include Orevac ®T9305 and Escorene FL 00328 (p. 6) which read on the A2 of the present invention as discussed in p. 5, lines 20-25 of the present specification.
With regard to the claim limitations, “at least 60 wt% of A2 has a content of (meth)acrylic based groups in the copolymer of 10-60 wt%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, as discussed above in paragraph 11 above, HOEFLER teaches the aqueous dispersion comprises silica particles to form an aqueous silica dispersion (Abstract). The dispersion contains 1 to 30 weight% of silica particles [0007] including amorphous silica [0013]. It is well-known that amorphous silica is a synthetically produced crystalline silicate.
Regarding claim 9, MAIER teaches the dispersion has a pH in the range of 7-10 (p. 9). More specifically, the pH is between 8.2-9.3 (Table 1; p. 11).
Regarding claim 12, MAIER teaches the aqueous polyolefin dispersion is used for heat sealing varnish (also known as coating) for aluminum foils (pp. 5 and 15 (Claim 10)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, EST.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights