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 appl icant 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 1, from which the balance of the claims depend, and claims 13-16, recite several broad recitations for the amounts of protective colloid, surfactants , etc. , and the claim s also recite several “preferable” narrower statement s of the se same range s /limitation s 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term s “ partially hydrolysis polyvinyl alcohol” and “fully hydrolysis polyvinyl alcohol ” in claim s 12-16 appear to be used by the claim s to mean “ partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol” and “fully hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol ” , respectively, while the terms have no accepted meaning . This may also be as a result of a literal translation into English from a foreign document with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Either way, t he term s are indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term s . Correction is required . Claim 13 recites the limitation " wherein a total amount of the component (b1) of partially hydrolysis polyvinyl alcohol and the component (b2) of fully hydrolysis polyvinyl alcohol is less than or equal to 3.4pphm " in claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the total amount of the one or more protective colloids ( component (b) ) is less than or equal to 2.2 pphm . It is also noted that claim s 17 -20 recite 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 -13 and 15 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( (a)(1)/( a )(2) ) as being anticipated by Zecha et al. (US 201 3/0131261 ) . In ¶ ‘s 34 , 80, and 81 and claim 1, Zecha et al. teaches an aqueous ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) dispersion which are suitable for bonding a variety of substrates, e.g. woven and non-woven fiber materials ( ¶ 5 ) , comprising: ethylene-vinyl ester copolymers; protective colloids , including a mixture of partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol and fully hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol (See ¶ 75) ; and preferably no surfactants (emulsifiers)( see ¶ 104); wherein a total amount of the protective colloids is between 1-7 pphm (p arts per hundred of monomer) . Thus, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( (a)(1) / ( a )(2) ). 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zecha et al. (US 201 3/0131261 ) . Although Zecha et al. do not expressly exemplify the ratio of partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol and fully hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol in the mixture, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have equivalent amounts (i.e. ratio of 1) of the two polyvinyl alcohols in the mixture. I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to use equivalent amounts of both polyvinyl alcohols, and one ordinary skill in that art would be able to adjust the ratio of the polyvinyl alcohols as needed , motivated by a reasonable expectation of success. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1099 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Jones can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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