DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered.
No claims have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 4-15 and 25-26 are currently pending and under examination.
All previous rejections are withdrawn, as JP ‘672 teaches chlorinated paraffin, which is not the same as applicants’ claimed chlorinated polyolefin. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is proposed below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 25-26 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.
The phrase “substantially free of VOCs” in claims 25-26 is used by the claim to mean “less than 0.01 wt% VOCs”, as evidenced by paragraph 13 of the instant specification. Applicants exemplify the coalescent as Texanol. Since the methods of VOC classification vary by region, the VOC content of Texanol also varies, as evidenced by EASTMAN (Standing the Test of Time: Eastman Texanol ester alcohol – The premier coalescent, Eastman, 2011, 16 pages).
US 2009/0198002 discloses the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US 2006/0205907 discloses the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
242
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The phrase “substantially free of VOCs” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define how the VOCs are determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11-13 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2024/0101876) in view of Bulick (US 2019/0316011), and further in view of Power (US 2013/0209792) and JP ‘672, as evidenced by Advanced Polymer (AdvaBond 7200, Advanced Polymer, 2026, 1 pages) and Kraton (Aquatac E6180 Dispersion, Kraton, 2025, 2 pages).
Xia teaches a water-based humidity resistant adhesive composition for bonding comprising the following (p. 2, [0017]-[0020]):
(i) about 30-80 wt% acrylic copolymer emulsion;
(ii) about 2-40 wt% of an adhesion promoter of a water-based chlorinated or anhydride modified polyolefin, exemplified as Avabond 7200, which as evidenced by Advanced Polymer is a waterborne, chlorinated, maleic anhydride modified polyolefin adhesion promoter;
(iii) about 0-25 wt% of carboxylated styrene-butadiene emulsion; and
(iv) about 0-55 wt% of at least one additive, which includes 10-45 wt% of a tackifier emulsified in water (p. 5, [0080]-[0083]), exemplified as Aquatec E6180, which is a rosin ester (p. 7, [0099]).
The acrylic copolymer emulsion meets applicants’ first emulsion polymer, the carboxylated styrene-butadiene emulsion meets applicants’ second emulsion polymer, the tackifier meets applicants’ rosin ester dispersion, and the adhesion promoter meets applicants’ chlorinated maleic anhydride modified polyolefin dispersion, with overlapping ranges, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Xia exemplifies the combination of the acrylic copolymer emulsion (Flexcryl 1625) and the carboxylated styrene-butadiene emulsion (Rovene 5049) in an amount of about 61 wt% of the adhesive composition (Example 3).
Xia does not teach or suggest the inclusion of an isobutyrate coalescent as claimed.
Bulick teaches aqueous adhesive compositions for bonding a roofing membrane, such as TPO, and a roofing substrate, such as plywood (p. 7, [0055]), comprising about 0.5-10 wt% of a coalescent such as TEXANOL (p. 7, [0058]), which is also known in the art as 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate.
Xia similarly teaches the desire for the adhesive to bond a sheet membrane to a substrate, where the sheet membrane includes TPO and the substrate includes wood (p. 6, [0092]-[0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included about 0.5-10 wt% of a film forming coalescent, such as Texanol or 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol mono(2-methylpropanoate), in the adhesive composition of Xia, as Bulick teaches that this is a common additive used in water-based acrylic adhesive compositions for bonding roofing membranes and roofing substrates.
Additionally, Power teaches a waterborne coating composition which includes a chlorinated polyolefin and an acrylic hybrid resin which promotes adhesion of a paint to a plastic substrate, teaching that the inclusion of a coalescent, such as Texanol (2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol mono(2-methylpropanoate)), teaching that the coalescent is used to promote wetting of the plastic surface to be coated with the mixture. Xia allows for the inclusion of wetting agents as suitable additives (p. 5, [0077]).
Even further, JP ‘672 teaches a moisture proof adhesive compositions for preparing building materials which can be applied to materials such as plywood and plastics such as polyolefins, where 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol mono(2-methylpropanoate) as a film forming aid can be appropriately added, exemplifying the amount as about 6-8 parts based on 100 parts of solid content of the adhesive. JP ‘672 shows that the inclusion of the film forming material improves the moisture resistance of the adhesive. Compare Example 4 (without the film forming aid) with the other examples.
Xia similarly desires an adhesive which possesses humidity resistance, where humidity is a measure of the moisture in the air, suggesting the desire for the adhesive to possess moisture resistance as well.
Xia in view of Bulick and further in view of Powers and JP ‘672 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-2 and 14.
As to claims 5 and 7, Xia exemplifies a peel strength of the adhesive when the composition is used to bond plywood and TPO of 16.6 pli when measured at 72°F for 28 days and 11.3 pli when measured at 140°F for 28 days. Xia does not measure the peel strength after 5 months. Xia teaches that the adhesive meets or exceeds the industrial requirements of adhesion. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would be expected to meet the claimed adhesion tests or peel strengths, as claimed.
As to claim 6, Xia teaches that the roof substrate can include metal, again teaching that the adhesive meets or exceeds the industrial requirements of adhesion. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would be expected to meet the claimed adhesion tests or peel strengths, as claimed.
As to claims 11 and 25-26, Xia desires the preparation of an adhesive using non-VOC materials.
As to claim 12, Xia teaches fillers as optional (p. 6, [0090]).
As to claim 13, Aquatac E6180 has a viscosity of 200-600 mPas (or cps) and is alkyl phenol-free, as evidenced by Kraton.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2024/0101876) in view of Bulick (US 2019/0316011), and further in view of Power (US 2013/0209792) and JP ‘672, as evidenced by Advanced Polymer (AdvaBond 7200, Advanced Polymer, 2026, 1 pages) and Kraton (Aquatac E6180 Dispersion, Kraton, 2025, 2 pages), as applied above to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11-13 and 25-26, and further in view of Binder (US 2023/0357611).
Xia in view of Bulick and further in view of Powers and JP ‘672 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11-13 and 25-26, as described above and applied herein as such, as Xia suggests a composition comprising two emulsion polymers, a rosin ester dispersion, and a chlorinated maleic anhydride polyolefin dispersion, and Bulick teaches acrylic adhesives comprising 0.5-10 wt% 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate coalescent as a film forming aid, where Powers teaches that the coalescent acts as a wetting agent for plastics and JP ‘672 teaches that the inclusion of such improves the moisture permeability of the adhesive.
Xia teaches that the adhesive composition can include pH adjustment agents, such as ammonia, and rheology modifiers (p. 5, [0084] and p. 6, [0089]), but does not teach the amount of the ammonia or the claimed hydroxycellulose.
Binder teaches acrylic based adhesive compositions comprising an acrylic based dispersion and a tackifier, teaching additives for the water-based adhesives to include 0-5 wt% thickeners, such as Cellosize, which is known in the art as hydroxyethyl cellulose (p. 5, [0072]). Binder also teaches the inclusion of 0-2 wt% of a neutralizing agent to control the pH and provide stability to the adhesive composition, which include aqueous ammonia solution (p. 5, [0073]). A standard ammonia solution is known in the art as comprising 28% ammonia.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used 0-5 wt% hydroxycellulose as thickener or rheology modifier and/or 0-2 wt% ammonia to adjust the pH of the adhesive of JP ‘672, as Binder teaches that these are suitable additives for water based acrylic/rosin based adhesives.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2024/0101876) in view of Bulick (US 2019/0316011), and further in view of Power (US 2013/0209792) and JP ‘672, as evidenced by Advanced Polymer (AdvaBond 7200, Advanced Polymer, 2026, 1 pages) and Kraton (Aquatac E6180 Dispersion, Kraton, 2025, 2 pages), as applied above to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11-13 and 25-26, and further in view of Cousino (US 2021/0395534).
Xia in view of Bulick and further in view of Powers and JP ‘672 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11-13 and 25-26, as described above and applied herein as such, as Xia suggests a composition comprising two emulsion polymers, a rosin ester dispersion, and a chlorinated maleic anhydride polyolefin dispersion, and Bulick teaches acrylic adhesives comprising 0.5-10 wt% 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate coalescent as a film forming aid, where Powers teaches that the coalescent acts as a wetting agent for plastics and JP ‘672 teaches that the inclusion of such improves the moisture permeability of the adhesive.
Cousino teaches water-based coatings comprising an acrylic emulsion, which may be exposed to water or moisture shortly after application, teaching that blisters or wrinkling from such may occur resulting in poor adhesion of the coating, resulting in peeling (p. 1, [0003]). Cousino teaches that the inclusion of 0.5-5 wt% of an epoxy silane oligomer composition to acrylic emulsions can improve early water resistance (p. 1, [0006]), where the oligomer has a molecular weight of about 500-2500.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added 0.5-5 wt% epoxy silane oligomer of Cousino to the composition of Xia, as Cousino teaches that the addition of such improves the early water resistance.
As to the viscosity of the epoxy silane, the epoxy silane oligomer of Cousino appears to be similar to the epoxy silane oligomer exemplified by applicants, VPS 4721, which has a viscosity of 700-1200 Mpas and a molecular weight of >2000 g/mol; therefore, the oligomer of Cousino inherently possesses a similar viscosity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach the claimed combination of a polyvinyl alcohol stabilized vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer dispersion in combination with another emulsion polymer, a rosin ester dispersion, chlorinated maleic anhydride modified polyolefin dispersion and an isobutyrate based coalescent, as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant invention have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766