DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 11 August 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are pending, with claims 1, 2, and 14 withdrawn. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-13 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.
Claim 7 recites that the resin composition comprises particles (A) and resin (B). It is unclear at what step of the method this resin composition arises. The method provides a mixing step that includes separating the mixture into coagulate and water component, but does not say whether either of these is the resin composition as recited further below. The claim recites a further separating step which appears similar to the earlier separation described in the mixing step, and which provides a resin composition which is a coagulate. It is unclear whether this separating step is the same one previously recited in the paragraph describing the mixing step, and whether “a resin composition” in that separating step is the same as “the resin composition” previously recited. This ground applies to dependent claims 8-10.
Examiner suggests setting forth the steps in sequential order, identifying the resin composition produced from the appropriate step, and then characterizing the resin composition. For the purposes of applying prior art, it is presumed that the newly amended separating step is the same as the separation described in the mixing step paragraph.
Claim 10 recites “a separating step”. It is unclear whether this is the same separation step as set forth in claim 7. If it is, this limitation should be removed.
Claim 11 recites characteristics of “the resin composition”. However, the claim nowhere recites at what step the resin composition is produced, whether it is the coagulate from the coagulating step, the post-rinsing coagulate, or something else. This ground applies to dependent claims 12 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,284,912 (“Sato”) as evidenced by US 3,864,275 (“Kan”).
As to claims 3, 5, and 6, Sato teaches a method for forming a resin composition. Sato teaches forming grafted fine particles in a latex. By way of example, Example 1 of Sato forms a latex of seed particles of a polymer with other monomers polymerized, thus grafted, thereon, using styrene, divinylbenzene, acrylonitrile as grafted monomers (8:1-40).
Sato teaches mixing the latex with an epoxy resin Epikote 828 (11:8-15). While the viscosity is not stated, it is known, as evidenced by Kan, 8:16-19, that Epikote 828 is a liquid epoxy resin having viscosity in the recited range. Sato teaches kneading using a shearing mixer, thus applying shearing stress to the mixed composition, at room temperature as required by claim 6 (11:15-18). Sato teaches the components are mixed in the ratio recited by claim 5 (Table 3, example 5). While Sato does not discuss the size of coated particles with respect to the size of the starting latex particles, and the amount of resin with respect to the latex particles, it is presumed that the resulting latex meets these characteristics, because of the same steps and same proportion of fine particle latex and liquid resin. As such, while not specifically recited, these characteristics would be obvious as resulting from the recited process.
Sato teaches separating the water from the resin portion (11:20-25). While it is not specified that the water and resin are latex and coagulate, Sato teaches the composition formed by mixing latex and resin may be coagulated, and thus separation into latex and coagulate is at least an obvious modification (7:45-50; 11:20-25). While the amount of particles and resin in the remaining latex is not specified, it is presumed to meet the recited limitation, as the goal of the process of Sato is to obtain particles dispersed in the resin portion, and as such, the amount of particles and resin in the remaining latex to be minimal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Sato teaches a similar method of mixing shearing, and separating resin composition from water, neither Sato nor Maizuru, previously recited, teach or suggest an additional step of adjusting to the recited water content of the coagulate, under the presumption that this coagulate is the resin composition as claimed in claims 7 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the application of Sato to now amended claim 3, alleging that Sato only teaches coagulation of latex prior to mixing with epoxy resin. This is not correct. While Example 1 does teach a direct coagulation of a polymer latex to a crumble prior to mixing with epoxy resin, the rejections over Sato refer to Example 5, in which the latex used in example 1 was mixed with epoxy resin and then separated from water.
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
