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 Objections
Claim 4 requires the matting agent while claim 1, from which claim depends, recites the matting agent as an optional limitation. It is suggested that claim 4 positively state wherein the process for preparing a container of paint requires step ii) in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 6 requires the opacifying pigment while claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites the opacifying pigment as an optional limitation. It is suggested that claim 6 positively state wherein the process for preparing a container of paint requires step i) in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 7 requires the matting agent while claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites the matting agent as an optional limitation. It is suggested that claim 7 positively state wherein the process for preparing a container of paint requires step ii) in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, it is suggested that PEM be written out as 2-phosphoethyl methacrylate in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, it is suggested that PEM be written out as 2-phosphoethyl methacrylate in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, it is suggested that PEM be written out as 2-phosphoethyl methacrylate in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (GB 2,292,695).
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor teaches a process for preparing a container of paint (page 6 columns 24-29 teaches paint from mixing tank 3 to item 15, which are then fed to item 60 as shown in figure 2) comprising the steps of: feeding into a mixing chamber (item 3) an aqueous dispersion of polymer particles from a pre-paint storage vessel (acrylic resin in tank 2) and an aqueous dispersion of opacifying pigment particles from a second pre-paint storage vessel (page 6 lines 13-16 teaches tank 5 having pigments in a water base) wherein each of the pre-paint storage tanks further comprise a rheology modifier (page 6 line 15 teaches thickeners which is considered reading on a rheology modifier for tank 5, resin in tank 2 is used to thicken the mixture); mixing the aqueous dispersions in the mixing chamber to form a fully blended paint (page 6 lines 22-26 teaches forming a homogenized paint in mixing tank 3); and dispensing the fully blended paint into a paint container (figure 2 item 60 shows paint being delivered). Regarding claim 1, O’Conner teaches a specific gravity range, pH range, and viscosity range to obtain the desired chemical and rheological properties (page 6 lines 22-26) but is silent to a particle size range. Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the particles in order to obtain the desired rheological properties of the paint since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, O’Conner teaches wherein one or more additive are fed into the mixing chamber from one or more separate additive shortage vessels including rheology modifiers (figure 1 shows a second tank item 2 that feeds to item 3, the acrylic resin is used to thicken paint and therefore considered a rheology modifier).
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (GB 2,292,695) in further view of Donlon (U.S. Publication 2022/0010148).
Regarding claim 3, O’Connor teaches an inline continuous flow mixing chamber (the mixing operation alternates between the mixing tanks 3 and 4, see page 8 lines 17-27 and figure 3). Regarding claim 3, O’Connor is silent to the surfactant and defoamer. Regarding claim 3, Donlon teaches using surfactant and defoamer for making a paint emulsion (paragraph 110 teaches using defoamers and surfactants). Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the paint mixing process of O’Connor with the surfactant and defoamer of Donlon in order to obtain the desired paint composition.
Regarding claim 4, O’Connor is silent to the matting agent. Regarding claim 4, Donlon teaches the use of a matting agent in a storage vessel (paragraph 3). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the paint mixing process of O’Connor with the matting agent of Donlon in order to obtain the desired paint composition.
Regarding claim 5, O’Connor teaches adding a colorant into a mixing chamber () from an additive storage vessel (second of items 2 tanks) and mixed with aqueous dispersion of the polymer particles (page 6 lines 13-16 teaches tank 5 having pigments in a water base) and dispensing the fully blended paint into the paint container (see figure 2 item 60). Regarding claim 5, O’Connor is silent to the matting agent to form a deep base paint. Regarding claim 5, Donlon teaches a matting agent (paragraph 3) to form a deep base paint (the addition of matte agent to the paint is considered reading on a deep base paint). Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the paint mixing process of O’Connor with the matting agent of Donlon in order to obtain the desired paint composition.
Regarding claim 6, O’Conner teaches wherein the aqueous dispersion of polymer particles from the first pre-paint storage tank (item 2) and the aqueous dispersion of the opacifying pigment from the second pre-paint storage tank (item 5) are fed into the mixing chamber (item 3) and mixed to form an aqueous dispersion of the polymer particles and opacifying pigment (the materials are mixed in item 3) which is dispersed into the paint container as the fully blended paint (see figure 2 item 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 10 are 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 and the above claim objections.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach a process of preparing a container of paint with the combination of the aqueous dispersion of polymer particles, wherein each of the pre-paint storage tanks further comprise a rheology modifier, the polymer particle average size range, surfactant, defoamer, opacifying pigment being TiO2, the acrylic latex, and the matting agent particle size range.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach a process of preparing a container of paint with the combination of the aqueous dispersion of polymer particles, wherein each of the pre-paint storage tanks further comprise a rheology modifier, the polymer particle average size range, the defoamer, surfactant, and the matting agent particle size range and the dispersion particles in an acrylic latex functionalized with PEM (2-phosphoethyl methacrylate).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach a process of preparing a container of paint with the combination of the aqueous dispersion of polymer particles, wherein each of the pre-paint storage tanks further comprise a rheology modifier, the polymer particle average size range, surfactant, defoamer, opacifying pigment being TiO2, the acrylic latex, and the dispersion particles in an acrylic latex functionalized with PEM (2-phosphoethyl methacrylate).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774