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.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation, “…wherein step B is performed in the presence of…” (Claim 1, line 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term (i.e., step B).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation, “…method according to claim 1, wherein, step C) is performed by adding the second carboxylic acid…” (Claim 2, lines 1-2). This is in contradiction to claim 1 wherein the second carboxylic acid is added in step E.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation, “…the pH at the beginning of step B is…” (Claim 4, line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term (i.e., step B).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation “…wherein step B is conducted…” (Claim 11, line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term (i.e., step B).
Regarding claims 2 – 14, claims 2 – 14 all depend from the independent base claim 1, inheriting all of the limitations therein, and thus, claims 2 – 14 are similarly rejected as being indefinite.
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)(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.
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (US 7,323,510 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Fischer teaches methods for manufacturing polymer dispersions containing polymer A and a polymer dispersant B (Abstract). The dispersed polymer is derived from a monomer composition comprising ethylenically unsaturated cationic and non-ionic monomers (col. 5, lines 28-33). Fischer teaches acids (organic or inorganic) suitable for use in the invention, particularly carboxylic acids such as dicarboxylic, (poly)carboxylic and/or hydroxycarboxylic acids (col. 2, lines 23-29). Fischer details the composition mixture further comprising diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) as well as citric acid (cols. 9 & 10, Examples 1 & 2). DTPA reads on the limitations of the first carboxylic acid and citric acid reads on the second carboxylic acid.
Thus, Fischer teaches a polymer dispersion reading on all the limitations established by claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Fischer teaches compositions & methods for manufacturing water-in-water polymer dispersions containing polymer A and a polymer dispersant B (Abstract). Polymer A is manufactured via a monomer composition comprising cationic and/or non-ionic monomers (col. 5, lines 28-39). Ethylenically unsaturated monomers are preferably used as the polymeric dispersant B (col. 2, lines 63-67). The polymer dispersion is formed by subjecting the monomer composition to radical polymerization (col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 3). Particularly suitable acids suitable for use in the invention include carboxylic acids such as dicarboxylic, (poly)carboxylic and/or hydroxycarboxylic acids (col. 2, lines 23-29).
Fischer details the addition of diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) and citric acid (cols. 9 & 10, Examples 1 & 2). DTPA reads on the limitations of the first carboxylic acid and citric acid reads on the second carboxylic acid, as citric acid comprises 3 carboxylic acid groups and is absent of nitrogen. Fischer teaches the pH value of the solution is 5.0 (col. 10, Example 3, line 39) & (col. 13, Example 14, line 56).
Thus, a polymer dispersion obtained by following the teachings of Fischer (disclosed above) results in a polymer dispersion reading on all limitations established by claim 14.
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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fischer et al. (US 7,323,510 B2) in view of Bellmann et al. (US 8,476,391 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 13, & 14, Fischer teaches methods for manufacturing water-in-water polymer dispersions containing polymer A and a polymer dispersant B (Abstract). Polymer A is manufactured via a monomer composition comprising cationic and/or non-ionic monomers (col. 5, lines 28-39). Ethylenically unsaturated monomers are preferably used as the polymeric dispersant B (col. 2, lines 63-67). The polymer dispersion is formed by subjecting the monomer composition to radical polymerization (col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 3), followed by the addition of a water-soluble acid (col. 2, lines 4-6). Particularly suitable acids for this step include carboxylic acids such as dicarboxylic, (poly)carboxylic and/or hydroxycarboxylic acids (col. 2, lines 23-29).
During manufacturing of said polymer dispersion, Fischer details diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) was added to the mixture, followed by the addition of citric acid (cols. 9 & 10, Examples 1 & 2). DTPA reads on the limitations of the first carboxylic acid and citric acid reads on the second carboxylic acid, as citric acid comprises 3 carboxylic acid groups and is absent of nitrogen. Fischer teaches a pH value of the solution is 5.0 (col. 10, Example 3, line 39) & (col. 13, Example 14, line 56), however, is silent on suitable pH ranges.
In the same field of endeavor, Bellmann teaches methods for manufacturing water-in-water polymer dispersions containing polymer A and a polymer dispersant B (Abstract). Bellman discloses similar compositions to that of their own and Fischer’s typically have pH values from 2 – 5 (col. 1, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to follow the teachings of Fischer and incorporate the teachings disclosed by Bellman, resulting in a method for manufacturing a polymer dispersion, ensuring the pH value during radical polymerization is within the range of 2 – 5, as both Fischer and Bellmann teach this condition is shown to be suitable for polymerization of similar reactants, abiding by the scope of Fischer’s. 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.
The modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann detailed above results in a method comprising steps reading on all limitations established by the independent base claim 1 and dependent claim 4. The resulting product reads on claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 2, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, Fischer teaches various temperatures at which citric acid (i.e., the second carboxylic acid) is added, ranging from 56°C (col. 13, Example 14, lines 56-64) up to 86°C (col. 11, Example 4, lines 8-13). Fischer is silent on adding citric acid at temperatures below 40°C as required by the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, following polymerization, Bellmann teaches a dilution step and discloses the dilution step as obligatory, as the invention would not be obtained otherwise (col. 8, line 67 – col. 9, line 2). Bellmann optimizes the dilution effect by controlling temperature of the reaction mixture, expressly stating it is particularly advantageous to effect subsequent dilution below 30°C (col. 15, Table 6, lines 15-16).
As Fischer also teaches dilution via polymeric dispersant B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to follow the teachings of Fischer, abiding by the disclosures of Bellmann, and employing temperatures below 30°C as a guide when stabilizing the polymerization mixture. As Bellmann addressed stability as a primary objective of the invention (col. 2, lines 39-42), in addition to Bellmann labeling the dilution step as obligatory, one skilled in the art would recognize the dilution step inherently affects stability in such a way that is beneficial to the invention. 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 in this way results in a method for manufacturing water-in-water polymer dispersions reading on all the limitations established by claim 2, wherein the second carboxylic acid (i.e., citric acid) is added at temperatures below 30°C.
Regarding claim 3, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, Fischer teaches the water-soluble acid may be organic or inorganic (col. 2, lines 23-25). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, Fischer discloses the addition of citric acid (cols. 9 & 10, Examples 1 & 2). Citric acid reads on the second carboxylic acid, as citric acid comprises 3 carboxylic acid groups and is absent of nitrogen. 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 claims 6 & 7, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, Fischer teaches monomers suitable for use in the monomer composition, including non-ionic, cationic and amphiphilic monomers, detailed below:
Non-ionic monomers abiding by a general formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
81
153
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
--- R1 is H or methyl,
--- R2 & R3 are H, C1-C5 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl.
Cationic monomers abiding by a general formula (II):
PNG
media_image2.png
84
165
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Y is
PNG
media_image3.png
88
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
--- R1 is H or methyl,
--- Z1 is O, NH, NR4 (where R4 is a C1-C4 alkyl),
--- Y is one of the depicted structures, wherein:
--- Y0 & Y1 are C2-C6 alkylene (possibly substituted with hydroxyl groups)
--- Y2 – Y7 are C1-C6 alkyl
--- Z is a halogen, acetate or SO4CH3
Amphiphilic monomers abiding by a general formula (III):
PNG
media_image4.png
85
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
--- Z1 is O, NH or NR4 (where R4 is a C1-C4 alkyl),
--- R1 is H or methyl,
--- R8 is C1-C6 alkylene,
--- R5 & R6 are C1-C6 alkyl,
--- R7 is C8-C32 alkyl, aryl &/or aralkyl,
--- Z is a halogen, pseudo-halogen, SO4CH3, acetate or abides by a general formula (IV):
PNG
media_image5.png
84
239
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
--- Z1 is O, NH or NR4 (where R4 is a C1-C4 alkyl),
--- R1 is H or methyl,
--- R10 is C8-C32 alkyl, aryl &/or aralkyl,
--- R9 is C2-C6 alkylene, and
--- n is an integer between 1 & 50.
The above teachings of Fischer are found in (col. 3, line 47 – col. 5, line 23; inclusively). 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. These teachings read on limitations established by instant claims 6 & 7.
Regarding claim 8, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, after detailing monomers abiding by general formula(s) (I) – (IV), Fischer elaborates, stating for the resultant dispersion of the invention, the monomers are employed in quantities of 5 wt.% - 60 wt.% (col. 5, lines 40-43). 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 9, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, for the polymeric dispersant Fischer gives particular preference that it is 100 wt.% cationic monomers (col. 2, lines 65-66). Fischer teaches cationic monomers abide by a general formula (II) as detailed below
Cationic monomers abiding by a general formula (II): (col. 4, lines 7-39)
PNG
media_image2.png
84
165
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Y is
PNG
media_image3.png
88
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
--- R1 is H or methyl,
--- Z1 is O, NH, NR4 (where R4 is a C1-C4 alkyl),
--- Y is one of the depicted structures, wherein:
--- Y0 & Y1 are C2-C6 alkylene (possibly substituted with hydroxyl groups)
--- Y2 – Y7 are C1-C6 alkyl
--- Z is a halogen, acetate or SO4CH3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select formula (II) as the monomer and employ it in the capacity that it constitutes 100 wt.% of the polymeric dispersant. 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 10, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, Fischer teaches the polymeric dispersant is preferably 100 wt.% cationic monomer units derived from various ammonium salts (col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 10). In an embodiment, polytrimethylammoniumpropylacrylamide chloride (i.e., DIMAPA quat) was employed in this capacity (col. 9, line 58-64). This aligns with the particularly preferred cationic monomer identified by the inventors (Specification, p. 15, [0054]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, Fischer teaches the sequential addition of ingredients (col. 9, line 21, Example 1 – col. 10, line 15, Example 2).
Regarding claim 12, maintaining the modification of Fischer in view of Bellmann previously detailed, Fischer teaches cationic monomers abide by a general formula (II) as detailed below: (col. 4, lines 7-39)
PNG
media_image2.png
84
165
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Y is
PNG
media_image3.png
88
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
--- R1 is H or methyl,
--- Z1 is O, NH, NR4 (where R4 is a C1-C4 alkyl),
--- Y is one of the depicted structures, wherein:
--- Y0 & Y1 are C2-C6 alkylene (possibly substituted with hydroxyl groups)
--- Y2 – Y7 are C1-C6 alkyl
--- Z is a halogen, acetate or SO4CH3
When Y0 or Y1 is a C2-C6 alkylene, said cationic monomer will have 2 or 3 or 4 ethylenically unsaturated groups. 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.
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