DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/7/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. There is no copy of the foreign patent document CN 102089394 provided.
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.
Claim(s) 23-24, 29-32, 36-38, 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan (CN 103669005). As the CN document is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
Yan teaches a composition of 30-60 wt% a carboxylated styrene-butadiene latex, 30-60 wt% styrene-acrylic emulsion, and 5-10 wt% crosslinking agent (¶13-15) where the components are mixed together.
The instant specification states that “latex” generally refers to emulsion polymers. See instant specification, pg. 1, ¶ 2. Therefore, the emulsion having the styrene-acrylic polymer meets the claimed limitation ‘styrene-acrylic latex’.
Styrene-butadiene polymers fall within the scope of rubber latex as taught by ¶ 73 of the instant specification.
Yan teaches an example where 50 kg of a carboxylated styrene-butadiene latex (corresponding to the claimed rubber latex) has a Tg of -30˚C is mixed with 50 kg of styrene acrylic emulsion (corresponding to the claimed styrene-acrylic latex) (¶27) which includes styrene (meeting claims 30-31) and hydroxymethylacrylamide (¶27) (meeting claim 32).
Yan teaches using the composition as a coating (¶28) which includes titanium dioxide (¶27) which is a pigment or filler and meets claims 37-38.
To the extent that a film and a coating are structurally the same, the coating of Yan meets claim 41. As Yan teaches a coating formed from the same components as claimed, the resulting coating of Yan has the same physical properties as the instant claims, including the elongation at break of claim 42. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 23, 29-32, 36-37, 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner (US 5,650,458).
Wagner teaches an example which uses 9.6 wt% styrene/butadiene rubber latex and 5.2 wt% styrene/acrylic latex (col. 3, ln. 20-30). This gives a ratio of styrene/acrylic latex to rubber latex of about 65:35 and meets the range of claim 23. Wagner teaches the components are mixed together.
Wagner teaches an example of the stryrene/acrylic latex is a terpolymer of methylstyrene, styrene, and acrylic acid (col. 2, ln. 53-56). Acrylic acid is a crosslinkable monomer.
Wagner teaches the compositions are used in a coating (col. 1, ln. 1-10) which include a plasticizer (col. 2, ln. 36-40).
To the extent that a film and a coating are structurally the same, the coating of Wagner meets claim 41. As Wagner teaches a coating formed from the same components as claimed, the resulting coating of Wagner has the same physical properties as the instant claims, including the elongation at break of claim 42. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 23, 29-32, 36-37, 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan (CN 105176210). As the CN document is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
Fan teaches a coating (¶ 8) and gives an example with 15 wt% butyl rubber latex and 35 wt% styrene acrylic latex mixed together (Table 1) which gives a ratio of 30:70 and meets claim 23.
Fan teaches the coating includes zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, or silicon dioxide (¶12) which are fillers and meet claim 37. To the extent that a film and a coating are structurally the same, the coating of Fan meets claim 41. As Fan teaches a coating formed from the same components as claimed, the resulting coating of Fan has the same physical properties as the instant claims, including the elongation at break of claim 42. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image1.png
981
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 23, 28-34, 36-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneda (US 4,975,473).
Kaneda teaches a coating composition comprising (A) a rubber latex and (B) a rubber latex or acrylic emulsion (abstract) where (A) is 6-18 pbw and (B) is 3-12 pbw (col. 3, ln. -) which gives a ratio of (A) : (B) which gives a range of 6:12 to 18:3, corresponding to 33:66 to 86:14 which meets the claimed range. Kaneda teaches examples of the latex (A) which include styrene and butadiene (col. 9, ln. 45-60) and examples of the latex (B) which include styrene and methacrylic acid (col. 9, ln. 60-68, col. 16, ln. 40-55). Kaneda teaches the gel content of the acrylic emulsion is not less than 50% (col. 3, ln. 10-15). Methacrylic acid is a crosslinkable monomer and meets claim 32.
The compositions of Kaneda include metal ions such as NaCl (col. 3, ln. 1-5) which meets the metal ion of claims 33, 44. Kaneda teaches a pigment may be present (abstract) which meets claim 37. Kaneda teaches ZnO (col. 3, ln. 3) which meets claim 38. Kaneda teaches clay can be present (col. 5, ln. 44-50) which meets claim 39. Kaneda teaches the coating forms a film (col. 35-43) which meets claim 41. As Kaneda teaches a coating formed from the same components as claimed, the resulting coating of Kaneda has the same physical properties as the instant claims, including the elongation at break of claim 42. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kaneda teaches emulsification polymerization of the polymers followed by mixing (col. 9, ln. 45-col. 10, ln. 50) which meets the steps of claim 43.
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) 25-26, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 103669005) in view of Duan (CN 110540615).
The discussion with respect to Yan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Yan does not explicitly recite the hard and soft phase of the acrylic latex.
Duan teaches a method of making styrene acrylate emulsions where monomers are combined to form an emulsifier solution and then added to an initiator solution (¶ 39-42) which results in polymers having a hard and soft phase (¶12) where examples of the soft phase has a Tg of about 53˚C and the soft phase has a Tg of about -16˚C (¶90). The process step meets step (i) of claim 43. The Tg meets claims 25-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process and Tg of Duan because it proves improved hardness due to the hard phase and improved adhesion due to the soft phase (¶12).
Claim(s) 25-26, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 5,650,458) in view of Duan (CN 110540615).
The discussion with respect to Wagner above is incorporated herein by reference.
Wagner does not explicitly recite the hard and soft phase of the acrylic latex.
Duan teaches a method of making styrene acrylate emulsions where monomers are combined to form an emulsifier solution and then added to an initiator solution (¶ 39-42) which results in polymers having a hard and soft phase (¶12) where examples of the soft phase has a Tg of about 53˚C and the soft phase has a Tg of about -16˚C (¶90). The process step meets step (i) of claim 43. The Tg meets claims 25-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process and Tg of Duan because it proves improved hardness due to the hard phase and improved adhesion due to the soft phase (¶12).
Claim(s) 25-26, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 105176210) in view of Duan (CN 110540615).
The discussion with respect to Fan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Fan does not explicitly recite the hard and soft phase of the acrylic latex.
Duan teaches a method of making styrene acrylate emulsions where monomers are combined to form an emulsifier solution and then added to an initiator solution (¶ 39-42) which results in polymers having a hard and soft phase (¶12) where examples of the soft phase has a Tg of about 53˚C and the soft phase has a Tg of about -16˚C (¶90). The process step meets step (i) of claim 43. The Tg meets claims 25-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process and Tg of Duan because it proves improved hardness due to the hard phase and improved adhesion due to the soft phase (¶12).
Claim(s) 25-26, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (US 4,975,473) in view of Duan (CN 110540615).
The discussion with respect to Kaneda above is incorporated herein by reference.
Kaneda does not explicitly recite the hard and soft phase of the acrylic latex.
Duan teaches a method of making styrene acrylate emulsions where monomers are combined to form an emulsifier solution and then added to an initiator solution (¶ 39-42) which results in polymers having a hard and soft phase (¶12) where examples of the soft phase has a Tg of about 53˚C and the soft phase has a Tg of about -16˚C (¶90). The process step meets step (i) of claim 43. The Tg meets claims 25-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process and Tg of Duan because it proves improved hardness due to the hard phase and improved adhesion due to the soft phase (¶12).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 103669005) in view of Miyawaki (US 2008/0245989).
The discussion with respect to Yan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Yan does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Miyawaki teaches acrylic emulsions used in coating films (abstract) where the acrylic copolymer has a Mw of 20,000-250,000 (¶90). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a Mw as taught by Miyawaki because it the Mw is more than 250,000, the compatibility with other polymers is insufficient and if it is less than 20,000, the emulsion does not have excellent stability when mixed with a coating material (¶ 90).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 5,650,458) in view of Miyawaki (US 2008/0245989).
The discussion with respect to Wagner above is incorporated herein by reference.
Wagner does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Miyawaki teaches acrylic emulsions used in coating films (abstract) where the acrylic copolymer has a Mw of 20,000-250,000 (¶90). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a Mw as taught by Miyawaki because it the Mw is more than 250,000, the compatibility with other polymers is insufficient and if it is less than 20,000, the emulsion does not have excellent stability when mixed with a coating material (¶ 90).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 105176210) in view of Miyawaki (US 2008/0245989).
The discussion with respect to Fan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Fan does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Miyawaki teaches acrylic emulsions used in coating films (abstract) where the acrylic copolymer has a Mw of 20,000-250,000 (¶90). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a Mw as taught by Miyawaki because it the Mw is more than 250,000, the compatibility with other polymers is insufficient and if it is less than 20,000, the emulsion does not have excellent stability when mixed with a coating material (¶ 90).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (US 4,975,473) in view of Miyawaki (US 2008/0245989).
The discussion with respect to Kaneda above is incorporated herein by reference.
Kaneda does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Miyawaki teaches acrylic emulsions used in coating films (abstract) where the acrylic copolymer has a Mw of 20,000-250,000 (¶90). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a Mw as taught by Miyawaki because it the Mw is more than 250,000, the compatibility with other polymers is insufficient and if it is less than 20,000, the emulsion does not have excellent stability when mixed with a coating material (¶ 90).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 103669005) in view of Ratering (US 2014/0018473).
The discussion with respect to Yan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Yan does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Ratering teaches latex based coating compositions having an acrylic emulsion component (abstract) where the acrylic emulsion copolymer includes comonomers such as diacetone acrylamide (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the comonomers because they provide enhanced film wet adhesion and anti-blocking performance (¶ 9).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 5,650,458) in view of Ratering (US 2014/0018473).
The discussion with respect to Wagner above is incorporated herein by reference.
Wagner does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Ratering teaches latex based coating compositions having an acrylic emulsion component (abstract) where the acrylic emulsion copolymer includes comonomers such as diacetone acrylamide (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the comonomers because they provide enhanced film wet adhesion and anti-blocking performance (¶ 9).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 105176210) in view of Ratering (US 2014/0018473).
The discussion with respect to Fan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Fan does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Ratering teaches latex based coating compositions having an acrylic emulsion component (abstract) where the acrylic emulsion copolymer includes comonomers such as diacetone acrylamide (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the comonomers because they provide enhanced film wet adhesion and anti-blocking performance (¶ 9).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (US 4,975,473) in view of Ratering (US 2014/0018473).
The discussion with respect to Kaneda above is incorporated herein by reference.
Kaneda does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Ratering teaches latex based coating compositions having an acrylic emulsion component (abstract) where the acrylic emulsion copolymer includes comonomers such as diacetone acrylamide (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the comonomers because they provide enhanced film wet adhesion and anti-blocking performance (¶ 9).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 103669005) in view of Liao (US 2018/0142118).
The discussion with respect to Yan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Yan does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Liao teaches coating compositions comprising an acrylic emulsion (abstract) which includes a crosslinkable monomer such as diacetone acrylamide (¶ 11, 15, 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the crosslinkable monomers such as diacetone acrylamide because it improves a coatings hardness, alcohol resistance, heat resistance, weatherability, and adhesion (¶ 30).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 5,650,458) in view of Liao (US 2018/0142118).
The discussion with respect to Wagner above is incorporated herein by reference.
Wagner does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Liao teaches coating compositions comprising an acrylic emulsion (abstract) which includes a crosslinkable monomer such as diacetone acrylamide (¶ 11, 15, 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the crosslinkable monomers such as diacetone acrylamide because it improves a coatings hardness, alcohol resistance, heat resistance, weatherability, and adhesion (¶ 30).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 105176210) in view of Liao (US 2018/0142118).
The discussion with respect to Fan above is incorporated herein by reference.
Fan does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Liao teaches coating compositions comprising an acrylic emulsion (abstract) which includes a crosslinkable monomer such as diacetone acrylamide (¶ 11, 15, 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the crosslinkable monomers such as diacetone acrylamide because it improves a coatings hardness, alcohol resistance, heat resistance, weatherability, and adhesion (¶ 30).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (US 4,975,473) in view of Liao (US 2018/0142118).
The discussion with respect to Kaneda above is incorporated herein by reference.
Kaneda does not explicitly recite claimed Mw.
However, Liao teaches coating compositions comprising an acrylic emulsion (abstract) which includes a crosslinkable monomer such as diacetone acrylamide (¶ 11, 15, 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the crosslinkable monomers such as diacetone acrylamide because it improves a coatings hardness, alcohol resistance, heat resistance, weatherability, and adhesion (¶ 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights