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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/1/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The 8/1/2023 IDS contains foreign patent documents KR 2020046894 and KR 2020005688. While English descriptions of these documents has been provided (meeting 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) regarding concise explanation of relevance), the original copy has not been provided (failing to meet 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)).
The 8/1/2023 IDS contains non-patent literature document by Brandrup having pgs. 277-280. It is noted that only pg. 277 has been provided and a blank second page is present. A citation of pg. 277-280 should have 4 pages present, 277, 278, 279, and 280. As the citation does not align with the copy provided, the citation has been lined through.
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 3 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 3 recites “methacrylate acid”. This is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to a methacrylate ester (as indicated by the “methacrylate”) or to an methacrylic acid (as indicated by the “acid”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kainz (US 2020/0262942) as evidenced by Yang (US 2016/0186000).
Kainz teaches phosphorus containing polymer dispersion (abstract) where the polymer is formed by a two stage aqueous emulsion polymerization (¶1, 20) where the first stage includes monomers A1, A2, and A3 and monomer A2 is an unsaturated compound having a phosphorus group (¶1-4, 24-28).
Kainz teaches an example of the phosphorus containing monomer is Sipomer PAM 200 (¶28) which is used in the first polymerization stage of Example 1 (¶127). The second stage corresponds to the claimed final stage polymer. The instant specification provides evidence that the Sipomer PAM-200 used in Example 1 of Kainz meets the structural formula in claims 4-5. See instant specification, pg. 9, ln. 10-14.
Kainz teaches Example 1 uses Rhodofac RS610/A25 (¶ 127) which is a phosphorus containing dispersion aid (¶ 76-82) of polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphate, ammonium salt (see ¶154 of Yang). The ammonium salt of polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphate is an organophosphorus soap as it falls in the scope of the claimed organophosphorus soap described in the instant specification at pg. 7-8 containing an ammonium salt of a polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether phosphate.
Example 1 of Kainz uses 14.4 g Rhodofac RS610/A25 and 454.7 g monomers in the first stage and 145.4 g monomer in the second stage (¶127). This gives about 14.4 g organophosphorus soap per about 600 g monomers. As the monomers form the multistage polymer, the amount of organophosphorus soap is about 14.4 g per 600 g polymer, or 2.4 g per 100 g polymer, or about 2.4 wt%. This corresponds to about 24,000 ppm organophosphorus soap based on the multistage polymer. This falls in the range of claim 1. Example 1 of Kainz uses 14.4 g Rhodofac RS610/A25 and 454.7 g monomers in the first stage and 145.4 g monomer in the second stage (¶127). This gives an amount of first polymer of about 75 wt% and the amount of second polymer of about 25 wt% which meets claim 6.
The monomers used in stage 1 of Example 1 include styrene and the monomer used in stage 2 include styrene which meets instant claim 2.
Kainz teaches example 1 results in a particle with a particle size of 93 nm dispersed in water (¶129) which meets claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamido (US 2016/0177016) in view of Rohrbach (WO 2018/057313).
Takamido teaches a rubber graft copolymer (abstract) and gives an example where butadiene, styrene, and a phosphazine methacrylate are polymerized in a first step in the presence of sodium polyoxyethylene alkyl ether phosphate (¶ 93) and then grafted with methyl methacrylate and butyl acrylate to give a latex having a particle diameter of 160 nm (¶ 94). A phosphazine methacrylate is an organo-phosphorus monomer. Takamido teaches the rubber graft copolymer is used in amounts of about 5 wt% with polycarbonate (Table 1) (meeting claims 11-14).
Takamido does not explicitly state the amount of sodium polyoxyethylene alkyl ether phosphate used.
However, Rohrbach teaches polymer compositions containing phosphates (abstract) which includes multistage polymers and where the dried multistage polymer comprises 100 ppm or more of phosphorus (pg. 2, ln. 5-13) such as polyoxyethylene alkyl ether phosphate salts (pg. 6-7). These meet the organo phosphorus soap of claims 1 and 7.
It would have been obvious to use the amounts of Rohrbach because it provides improved heat stability when combined with a matrix resin (pg. 3, ln. 5-7, Table 1).
Takamido teaches the first stage can include butadiene (¶ 30) and the second stage (graft polymer part) includes styrene and methacrylic acid ester monomers (¶36-42) which meets claims 2-3.
Takamido teaches the rubber polymer part (first stage) is not less than 60 pbw and the graft copolymer part (final stage) is not more than 40 pbw (¶ 50) which overlaps the ranges in claim 6.
Takamido teaches the diameter is 50-500 nm (¶50) which meets the range of claim 8. Takamido teaches the graft polymer part is prepared with thee phosphazene monomer (¶ 36) which meets claim 10.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couffin (WO 2019/158609) in view of Rohrbach (US 2019/0270878).
Couffin teaches multistage polymer comprising a phosphorus moiety (abstract) where the first stage is polymerizing mixture A followed by a second stage for polymerizing mixture B (¶ 35) where mixture A or B comprising the phosphorus moiety (¶ 35). Couffin teaches the phosphorus is present in an amount of 350-2000 ppm (¶86-87) which corresponds to 0.035-0.2 wt% and meets claim 9. Couffin teaches the phosphorus moiety is in the first part (¶ 91) which meets claim 1. Couffin teaches the phosphorus moiety is in the second part (¶92) which meets claim 10. Couffin teaches phosphate group containing emulsifying agents (¶118) which corresponds to the claimed organophosphorus soap.
Couffin teaches the phosphorus moiety includes
PNG
media_image1.png
112
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where m is 1-8 (¶99-100) which meets claims 4-5.
Couffin teaches the first stage is made by polymerizing butadiene or (meth)acrylates (¶70-72) and the second stage includes polymerizing styrene and alkyl (meth)acrylates (¶ 75-76) including methyl methacrylate (¶77-80). This meets claims 2-3.
Couffin teaches the ratio of A/B is 10/90 to 95/5 (¶53) which overlaps the range of claim 6. Couffin teaches the resulting polymer particle has a particle size of 20-1000 nm, preferably 50-900 nm (¶56) which meets the range of claim 8.
Couffin does not explicitly recite the amount of organophosphorus soap.
However, Rohrbach teaches multistage polymers which contain one or more phosphate surfactant in an amount of 50 ppm or more based on the dry weight of the polymer (abstract). Rohrbach teaches using the composition in a polycarbonate matrix (¶41) where the amount of matrix to multistage polymer is 99:1 or higher (¶ 40) which meets claims 11-14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of phosphate surfactant because it improves heat stability (¶ 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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 (Lanee) 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764