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 .
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 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.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van der Wielen et al. (US 2008/0227892 A1; hereinafter Wielen) in view of Hild et al. (WO 2020/223040; referenced herein via US 12,312,420 B2).
Regarding claims 1 & 2, Wielen teaches compositions comprising cellulose ether (CMC or HEC) in tandem with a network building polymer (Abstract) suitable for use as interior or exterior paints or coatings (p. 1, [0002]). Wielen teaches the latex component of the composition is preferably acrylic (p. 5, [0044], [0050]). Wielen also explicitly discloses the viscosity of the cellulose component in a 1 wt.% solution will be in the range of 10-50,000 mPas (p. 2, [0016]) and the cellulose ether content of their invention is in the preferable range of 0.1-1.0 wt.% (p. 6, [0054]). Wielen discloses the use of a thickening system comprising cellulose ethers (p. 2, [0014]), however, Wielen is silent on the cellulose ethers being branched/crosslinked as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Hild teaches crosslinked cellulose ethers (Abstract) that can be used as thickeners, binders, or film-forming agents that exhibit beneficial rheological behavior in a variety of applications (col. 1, lines 12-17). One advantage of Hild’s crosslinked cellulose ether (i.e., XCE) is increased viscosity allowing for reduced dosage without compromising performance (col. 12, lines 56-60). Hild recognizes the utility of XCE in a variety of applications as indicated above and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the economic advantage of employing a thickener requiring a reduced dosage compared to other materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the crosslinked/branched cellulose ether taught by Hild (i.e., XCE) as the cellulose ether component in the thickening system taught by Wielen, as it is recognized by the prior art as being suitable for use as a thickener (Hild: col. 1, lines 12-15) and enables for the use of reduced quantities to achieve comparable viscosity, leading to reduced formulation cost.
Incorporating the XCE taught by Hild, in amounts of 0.1-1.0 wt.% and the epoxy into the acrylic latex taught by Wielen, results in an exterior coating composition comprising an acrylic (latex) emulsion and branched/crosslinked cellulose ether with a viscosity of 10-50,000 mPas. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification of Wielen in view of Hild as detailed above reads on all limitations established by claims 1 & 2.
Regarding claim 3, maintaining the modification of Wielen in view of Hild previously detailed, Wielen’s inventive compositions comprise at least one binder and at least one pigment (p. 2, [0011]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claims 4 & 5, maintaining the modification of Wielen in view of Hild previously detailed, Wielen discusses the importance of the relationship between pigments and binders in such compositions (p. 1, [0002], [0003]). Suitable pigments include titanium dioxide, zinc oxide & iron oxide (p. 4, [0035]). Wielen teaches pigment and binder content(s) of the coatings to be present in particular amounts of 5-70 wt.% and 1-30 wt.%, respectively (p.6, [0054]). Thus, Wielen teaches suitable pigment:binder ratios ranging from 5:30 – 70:1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, maintaining the modification of Wielen in view of Hild previously detailed, Wielen teaches the cellulose ether content of their invention is in the preferable range of 0.1-1.0 wt.% (p. 6, [0054]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, maintaining the modification of Wielen in view of Hild previously detailed, Wielen explicitly discloses exterior coatings applied to a substrate(p. 1, [0002]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van der Wielen et al. (US 2008/0227892 A1; hereinafter Wielen) in view of Hild et al. (WO 2020/223040; referenced herein via US 12,312,420 B2) and Li et al. (US 2019/0153236 A1).
Regarding claim 8, maintaining the modification of Wielen in view of Hild previously detailed, homogenous application methods of exterior paints are known to those skilled in the art. Neither Wielen nor Hild teach the drying time as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches coating compositions (Abstract) suitable for use as an outdoor coating (p. 1, [0005]). Li teaches a binder composition comprising two acrylic emulsion copolymers, a crosslinking agent & a foaming agent (p. 2, [0013]-[0017]). The binder composition may further comprise rheology modifiers, such as cellulose ethers, in amounts of 0.005-3.0 wt.% (p 4 & 5, [0046]). Li teaches their inventive composition may have a drying time of 48 hours (p. 7, [0097]).
It would have been obvious to further modify Wielen in view of Hild (previously detailed) by following the process details disclosed by Li, as Li’s composition uses cellulose ethers for rheological control and is suitable for use in the same capacity as the coating compositions of Wielen & Hild. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Applying known methods of homogenous application of outdoor coatings, along with the teaching & modification of Wielen in view of Hild and Li reads on all limitations established by claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, maintaining the modification of Wielen in view of Hild & Li previously detailed, Wielen teaches the cellulose ether content of their invention is in the preferable range of 0.1-1.0 wt.% (p. 6, [0054]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van der Wielen et al. (US 2008/0227892 A1; hereinafter Wielen) in view of Hild et al. (WO 2020/223040; referenced herein via US 12,312,420 B2) and Li et al. (US 2019/0153236 A1) in further view of Beaudry et al. (US 2013/0105473 A1).
Regarding claim 9, maintaining the modification of Wielen in view of Hild and Li previously detailed, Li teaches the use of their inventive coating composition at ambient conditions, such as 5°C – 30°C (p. 7, [0097]). Neither Wielen, Hild, nor Li teach the relative humidity as required by the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Beaudry teaches compositions & methods of applying compositions suitable for use as coating systems (Abstract). Said compositions preferably further comprise at least one kind of clay anti-sag (i.e., CAS) agents (p. 1, [0002]). Beaudry discloses an organoclay of hydroxyethyl cellulose and bentonite clay as a suitable example of a CAS agent (p. 6, [0063]).
Beaudry teaches adding a CAS agent to coating compositions comprising acrylic emulsions (p. 5, [0050]), prevents undue sagging in humid environments and does not impact dry time to an undue degree (p. 3, [0023]). Coatings including said CAS agent can be used in environments with relative humidity ranging from 50-99% (p. 6, [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Wielen in view of Hild & Li, by incorporating a CAS agent (i.e., HEC/bentonite clay) taught by Beaudry into the inventive composition, to increase the range of environments in which the inventive coating may effectively be applied by enabling operating conditions to expand to 50-90% relative humidity (p. 6, [0057]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Modification of Wielen in view of Hild & Li, in further view of Beaudry as detailed above reads on all limitations established by claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762