Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/265,682

An Aqueous Polymer Dispersion

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 07, 2023
Examiner
EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Wacker Chemie AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
551 granted / 789 resolved
+4.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
835
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§102
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 789 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 § 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. Claims 11-20 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 and claim 19, from which the balance of the claims depend, and claims 13-16, recite several broad recitations for the amounts of protective colloid, surfactants, further dispersant and the polycarboxylates, and the claims also recites several “preferable” narrower statements of these same ranges/limitations in the same claims. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is also noted that claim 17 recites several uses of the aqueous dispersion with no active steps for the uses. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as being anticipated by Zecha et al. (US 20120015201). In ¶‘s 19 and 34 and claim 1, Zecha et al. teaches aqueous ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) dispersions which are suitable as adhesives for bonding a variety of substrates, e.g. woven and non-woven fiber materials (¶’s 15 and 67), comprising ethylene vinyl acetate, 0.5 to 4 ppm (parts per hundred of monomer) of a protective colloid and 1 to 4 ppm of a nonionic emulsifier, amounting to a total of 1.5 to 8 of protective colloids and nonionic emulsifier and a ratio of protective colloid to surfactant (emulsifier) of 0.125 to 4, which also reads on the claimed 1.01-2 pphm. It is noted that the claimed dispersant is present in amounts less than or equal to 1 pphm, which include zero. Claim 16 identifying the dispersants is equally met as the dispersants are considered to be optional. Regarding claim 15, it is noted that the claimed thickeners are present in amounts less than or equal to 1 pphm, which include zero. Regarding Claims 17 and 18, the intended used claims do not further limit claim 11. It is also noted that no active steps are involved in these claims. Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) are met. Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (US 20170081544). In the Abstract, ¶ 9 and claim 1, Mueller et al. teaches an aqueous carpet coating dispersion comprise an ethylene vinyl ester copolymer, water and a stabilizing system, the stabilizing system comprising: 1-4 pphm (parts per hundred of monomer) of a nonionic surfactant and 0.5-4 pphm of polyvinyl alcohol (in ¶ 29 Mueller et al. teaches PVOH as a protective colloid, which is already well known); this amounts to the total of polyvinyl alcohol and surfactant of from 1.5 to 8 pphm, i.e. reading on applicant’s 3.4 pphm. The ratio of the protective colloid to nonionic surfactant is 0.5/4 to 4/1 , or pphm 0.125 to 4, which reads on applicant’s 1.01 to 2. In ¶ 47, Mueller et al. teaches the aqueous carpet coating dispersion to have additional conventional additives such as colorants (pigment/solid powders) and foaming agents. It is noted that the claimed dispersant is present in amounts less than or equal to 1 pphm, which include zero. Claim 16 identifying the dispersants is equally met as the dispersants are considered to be optional. Regarding claim 15, it is noted that the claimed thickeners are present in amounts less than or equal to 1 pphm, which include zero. Regarding Claims 17, 18 and 20, the intended use claims do not further limit claim 11. Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) are met. Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as being anticipated by Lunsford et al. (US 20050287336) In ¶ 26, Lunsford et al. teaches an aqueous carpet coating composition ethylene vinyl ester copolymers 2 to 5 pphm polyvinyl alcohol and 1 to 4 ppm anionic surfactant (emulsifier) wherein the combined amounts of the polyvinyl alcohol and anionic surfactant (emulsifier) is from 3 to 9 ppm, and the weight ratio of protective colloid to surfactant (emulsifier) is from 0.5 to 5, which reads on applicant’s 1.01 to 2. In ¶ 47, Mueller et al. teaches we aqueous carpet coating dispersion to have additional conventional additives such as fillers, colorants(pigment), and foaming agents. It is noted that the claimed dispersant is present in amounts less than or equal to 1 pphm, which include zero. Claim 16 identifying the dispersants is equally met as the dispersants are considered to be optional. Regarding claim 15, it is noted that the claimed thickeners are present in amounts less than or equal to 1 pphm, which include zero. Regarding Claims 17, 18 and 20, the intended used claims do not further limit claim 11. Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) are met. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7. 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. /KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 KCE
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590220
THERMOSETTING COMPOSITION, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING MOLDED ARTICLE USING THE SAME, AND CURED PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584028
CURABLE ORGANOPOLYSILOXANE COMPOSITION, AND OPTICAL MEMBER FORMED FROM CURED PRODUCT OF SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577460
Composition for production of coatings comprising improved phosphors
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577373
CARBODIIMIDE COMPOSITION, CURING AGENT COMPOSITION, COATING COMPOSITION AND RESIN CURED PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570851
LIQUIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+14.0%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 789 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month