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 .
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 19 in the reply filed on December 8, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the written opinion found unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because Ono et al. (US 2004/0156809) cited in the previous restriction requirement does teach a mixer system comprising an aqueous pigment paste A comprising a titanium oxide pigment and an acrylic silicone copolymer [0166-0169], thereby reading on the instant claim.
If Group I is found to be allowable, Groups II-IV will be rejoined if they have the same allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on December 8, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 4, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the pigment paste A”. The claim should instead read “the at least one aqueous pigment paste A”.
Claim 3 recites “the pigment paste A”. The claim should instead read “the at least one aqueous pigment paste A”.
Claim 4 recites “the pigment paste A”. The claim should instead read “the at least one aqueous pigment paste A”.
Claim 4 recites “the nonionically stabilized acrylate copolymer is obtainable by”. The claim should instead read “the nonionically stabilized acrylate copolymer is obtained by”.
Claim 8 recites “the general formula (I) [X-SiR1a(OR2)3-a]”. The claim should instead read “the general formula (I) [X-SiR1a(OR2)3-a]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 and 19 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.
Claim 9 recites “The mixer system according to claim 1, wherein R1 and R2 are” which causes confusion. Claim 9 recites an R1 and R2, which is not present in claim 1. Does the applicant intend for claim 9 to depend on claim 8 instead? The examiner invites the applicant to clarify.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the dispersed polyol" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A mixer system for producing aqueous coating materials from at least one aqueous pigment paste A,
the at least one aqueous pigment paste A comprising at least one color pigment and at least one aqueous mixing clear resin component B,
wherein the at least one mixing clear resin component B comprises at least one aqueous dispersion (wD) comprising an acrylic-based multi-stage emulsion polymer,
wherein the acrylic-based multi-stage emulsion polymer is produced by successive radical emulsion polymerization of at least two mixtures (M) of olefinically unsaturated monomers,
wherein the mixture (M) applied in the last step of emulsion polymerization comprises at least one silane-containing olefinically unsaturated monomer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werner et al. (US 5204404 A).
Regarding claim 1, Werner et al. disclose a silver basecoat comprising an aluminum paste and a Latex D, wherein the Latex D is a multistage emulsion acrylic polymer comprising methyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and methacrylic acid monomers ([col 10, line 52-68], [col 11, line 1-68]), thereby reading on the mixer system comprising pigment paste A and clear resin B and aqueous dispersion wD comprising two mixtures (M) of olefinically unsaturated monomers. Werner et al. further disclose a gamma trimethoxylsilylpropyl methacrylate monomer [col 10, line 52-68], thereby reading on the silane-containing olefinically unsaturated monomer.
Regarding claim 7, 8, and 9, Werner et al. disclose the silane containing olefinically unsaturated monomer used to form Latex D is a gamma trimethoxylsilylpropyl methacrylate monomer ([col 10, line 52-68], [col 11, line 1-68]), thereby reading on the methacrylate of claim 7, general formula (I) of claim 8 when X is the olefinically unsaturated group bound to the silicon via a carbon atom, a is 0, and R2 is an alkyl, and R2 is a C1 alkyl group of claim 9.
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (US 5204404 A).
The mixer system of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 2, Werner et al. disclose a polyurethane dispersion is present in the example [col 11, line 40-55].
Werner et al. is silent on if the polyurethane dispersion is stabilized as recited in the instant claim.
However, Werner et al. teach the polyurethane dispersion is neutralized using a tertiary amine [col 5, line 14-33], thereby reading on an anionically stabilized binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an anionically stabilized binder as taught by Werner et al.
Regarding claim 6, Werner et al. teach Latex D is formed in two stages comprising two mixtures of olefinically unsaturated monomers.
Werner et al. do not teach Latex D encompasses three mixtures of olefinically unsaturated monomers.
However, Werner et al. broadly teach the silane acrylic copolymer can be a three stage acrylic silane graft copolymer [col 5, line 8-13]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an acrylic based emulsion polymer using successive radical polymerization of three mixtures as taught by Werner et al.
Claim 3, 4, 5, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (US 5204404 A) in view of Steffens et al. (WO 2021018594 as listed on IDS dated October 27, 2023).
The examiner refers to the US equivalent of Steffens et al., US 20220259446.
The mixer system of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 3 and 19, Werner et al. is silent on the properties of the anionically stabilized binder (a-2) as recited in the instant claim.
However, Werner et al. teach polyurethane dispersions as described in Drexler et al. US 4489135 (incorporated by reference in its entirety) [col 5, line 14-33]. Drexler et al. teach a polyurethane dispersion wherein the polyurethane has an acid number of 5 to 70, and a pH of 6-9 (abstract, [col 7, line 29-59]), thereby overlapping the claimed range of the acid number and pH as recited in the instant claim.
Werner et al. is silent on the dispersion comprising a polyol as recited in the instant claim 3 and 19.
Steffens et al. teach a mixing system for producing aqueous coating materials comprising a pigment paste A comprising an anionically stabilized binder which comprises a polypropylene glycol having an average molar mass of 500 to 1500 Da [0054], thereby overlapping the claimed range of instant claim 3 and 19. Steffens et al. offer the motivation that adding an alkylene glycol facilitates the dispersing of the neutralized anionically stabilized polyurethane polymer [0081]. Werner et al. is also concerned with anionically stabilizer polyurethane polymer dispersions [col 5, line 14-33]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the polypropylene glycol of Steffens et al. to the mixer system of Werner et al. with reasonable expectation that the stability of the anionically stabilized polyurethane will improve.
Regarding claim 4, Werner et al. do not teach the mixer system comprises a nonionically stabilized acrylate copolymer dispersion in water as recited in the instant claim.
Steffens et al. teach a mixing system comprising a nonionically stabilized acrylate copolymer obtainable by the reaction of (I) at least one anchor group monomer unit having at least one ionizable functional group, a functional group with active hydrogen, or a combination thereof, where
the ionizable functionality is other than a carboxylic acid group in which the carbonyl carbon is separated from the closest ethylenically unsaturated carbon by at least four atoms, the anchor group monomer units (a) contain no polyoxyalkylene groups, and one of the anchor group monomer units is copolymerized 1-(2-methacryloyloxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone; (II) 5 wt % to 45 wt %, based on the total weight of the monomers, of at least one monomer unit comprising a polyoxyalkylene group, a gamma-hydroxycarbamate group, a beta-hydroxycarbamate group, and a combination thereof; and (III) 1 to 50 weight percent, based on the total weight of the monomers, of at least one aromatic monomer unit [0083-0091], thereby reading on the instant claim. Steffens et al. offer the motivation that the addition of the nonionically stabilized acrylate copolymer dispersion lead to outstanding stabilization of color pigments [0103]. Werner et al. is also concerned with stability over time [col 2, line 17-34]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the nonionically stabilized binder of Steffens et al. to the mixer system of Werner et al. with reasonable expectation that the stability of the mixer system will improve.
Regarding claim 5, Werner et al. do not teach the aqueous mixing clear resin B further comprises at least one acrylate-based microgel dispersion as recited in the instant claim.
Steffens et al. teach the mixing system further comprises an acrylate based microgel having a glass transition temperature of 50°C - 60°C [0135], thereby reading on the acrylate based microgel of the instant claim. Steffens et al. offer the motivation that the use of the acrylate-based microgel dispersion leads to good mechanical properties, in particular the surface hardness of the aqueous coating material [0154]. Werner et al. is also concerned with the hardness of the coating composition [col 2, line 17-35]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the acrylate-based microgel dispersion of Steffens et al. with the mixer system of Werner et al. with reasonable expectation that the hardness of the aqueous coating formed will be improved.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (US 5204404 A) in view of Johnson et al. (US 6350526 B1).
The mixer system of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Werner et al. disclose the amount of silane in Latex D is 4.2 wt% [col 10, line 52-64], thereby lying outside the claimed range of 30 wt% to 80 wt%.
Johnson et al. teach a coating composition comprising an acrylosilane polymer comprising 5-70 wt% of a polymerized ethylenically unsaturated monomers containing reactive silane groups (claim 1), thereby overlapping the amount of silane containing olefinically unsaturated monomers of the instant claim. Johnson et al. offer the motivation that the coating composition provides a coating which is durable, has excellent adhesion, does not crack, does not deteriorate, and imparts a glossy appearance [col 2, line 23-33]. Werner et al. is also concerned with the finish and durability of the coating [col 2, line 17-35]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the amount of silane containing olefinically unsaturated monomers taught by Johnson et al. to the mixer system of Werner et al. with reasonable expectation that the properties of the coating formed will improve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763