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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains 357 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
An aqueous dispersion comprising multistage polymeric particles and optionally a polyfunctional carboxylic hydrazide containing at least two hydrazide groups per molecule,
wherein the multistage polymeric particles are prepared by a multistage free-radical polymerization process comprising: (i) preparing a first polymer by a free-radical polymerization, followed by neutralizing the first polymer to a pH value of greater than 7.1; and (ii) preparing a second polymer in the presence of the neutralized first polymer obtained from step (i), to obtain the multistage polymeric particles comprising the first polymer and the second polymer at a weight ratio of the first polymer to the second polymer of from 27:73 to 60:40;
wherein the first polymer comprises, by weight based on the weight of the first polymer,
from 6% to 18% of structural units of an acid monomer, a salt thereof, or mixtures thereof; from 1.1% to 5% of structural units of a monoethylenically unsaturated silane functional monomer;
from zero to 10% of structural units of diacetone (meth)acrylamide;
greater than 0.5% of structural units of a multifunctional monomer containing two or more different ethylenically unsaturated polymerizable groups, and
60% or more of structural units of an additional monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer selected from a C1 to C2 alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid, a hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate, or mixtures thereof;
wherein the second polymer comprises, by weight based on the weight of the second polymer,
from zero to less than 0.5% of structural units of an acid monomer, a salt thereof, or mixtures thereof;
from zero to 10% of structural units of diacetone (meth)acrylamide;
and structural units of a monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer; and
wherein the second polymer has a glass transition temperature of from -25 to 10 °C, and the first polymer has a glass transition temperature of at least 50 °C higher than that of the second polymer;
provided that at least one of the first polymer and the second polymer comprises structural units of the diacetone (meth)acrylamide and the total concentration of structural units of the diacetone (meth)acrylamide is 1.1% or more, by weight based on the weight of the multistage polymeric particles.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junk et al. (US 20160145430 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Junk et al. disclose in Example 1 a multistage polymer dispersion comprising a first polymer comprising 13.1 g of methacrylic acid monomers, 14.8 grams of diacetone acrylamide, 131.2 g of methyl methacrylate, and 524.8 g of butyl acrylate, equivalent to 1.9 wt% of acid monomers, 2.2 wt% of diacetone acrylamide, and 19.1 wt% of an additional monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer selected from C1 to C2 alkyl ester of methacrylic acid ([0078-0082], Table 2 and Table 3), thereby lying within the claimed range of diacetone (meth)acrylamide but lying outside the claimed range of acid monomer and additional monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer.
However, Junk et al. broadly teach the monomer composition comprises up to 10% of one or more acid monomers comprising an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid [0030-0033], thereby overlapping with the claimed range of acid monomers. Additionally, Junk et al. broadly teach the monomer composition comprises at least 50 wt% at least two different esters of ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids [0027-0028], there by overlapping with the claimed range of additional monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to acid monomer and additional monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer in the amounts taught by Junk et al.
Junk et al. do not disclose in Example 1 the first polymer comprises a monoethylenically unsaturated silane functional monomers and a multifunctional monomer containing two or more different ethylenically unsaturated polymerizable group as recited in the instant claims.
However, Junk et al. broadly teach the monomer composition employed in any polymerization stage may contain up to 10 wt% of other ethylenically unsaturated monomers such as an unsaturated silane comonomers [0034-0036], thereby overlapping with the claimed range of monoethylenically unsaturated silane functional monomers. Additionally, Junk et al. broadly teaches the monomer composition may also contain at least two non-conjugated ethylenically unsaturated groups in amount of up to 3% by weight may be added [0040], thereby overlapping the claimed range of multifunctional monomer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoethylenically unsaturated silane functional monomers and a multifunctional monomer containing two or more different ethylenically unsaturated polymerizable group in the amounts taught by Junk et al.
Junk et al. disclose a second polymer comprising 6.9 g of methacrylic acid, 2.6 grams of diacetone acrylamide, and 344 g of methyl methacrylate, equivalent to 1.1 wt% of acid monomers, 0.73 wt% of diacetone (meth)acrylamide, and structural units of a monoethylenically unsaturated nonionic monomer, thereby lying within the claimed range of diacetone (meth)acrylamide units but lying outside the claimed range of acid monomers.
However, Junk et al. broadly teach the monomer composition comprises up to 10% of one or more acid monomers comprising an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid [0030-0033], thereby overlapping with the claimed range of acid monomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the acid monomer in the amount taught by Junk et al.
Junk et al. disclose the first polymer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 106.6°C to -21.3°C and the second polymer has a Tg of -21.3, thereby lying within the claimed range of the glass transition temperature of the second polymer and overlapping with the claimed range of the first polymer has a Tg of at least 50°C higher than that of the second polymer. Furthermore, Junk et al. disclose the total amount of diacetone acrylamide in the multistage polymers is 1.68 wt% (calculated by adding the total amount of diacetone acrylamide divide by the total amount of monomers (14.8+2.6)/(13.1+14.8+131.2+524.8+6.9+2.6+344)), thereby lying within the claimed range.
Junk et al. disclose the aqueous dispersion of Example 1 comprises an aqueous adipic acid dihydrazide solution, thereby reading on the polyfunctional carboxylic hydrazide as recited in the instant claim.
Junk et al. is silent on the weight ratio of the first polymer to the second polymer.
However, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.).) In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized through routine experimentation the relative amounts of the first and second polymer to produce an aqueous dispersion having the desired minimum film forming temperature.
Junk et al. do not teach the multistage free radical polymerization process as recited in the instant claim.
However, the present claim is a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (MPEP § 2113 (quoting In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).) If the prior art teaches the same product as the product formed by the process recited in the claims at issue, the claims are unpatentable. However, if the process of the claims at issue results in a product that is different from the product taught by the prior art, then the prior art does not teach the invention recited in the claims at issue.
Regarding claim 2, Junk et al. do not disclose the aqueous dispersion of Example 1 comprises a multifunctional monomer as recited in the instant claim.
However, Junk et al. broadly teach diallyl maleate may be used as a monomer [0040], thereby reading on the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to add diallyl maleate as the multifunctional monomer to the first polymer as taught by Junk et al.
Regarding claim 3, Junk et al. disclose the total amount of diacetone acrylamide in the multistage polymers is 1.68 wt% (calculated by adding the total amount of diacetone acrylamide divide by the total amount of monomers (14.8+2.6)/(13.1+14.8+131.2+524.8+6.9+2.6+344)), thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Junk et al. broadly teach the monomer composition employed in any polymerization stage may contain up to 10 wt% of other ethylenically unsaturated monomers such as an unsaturated silane comonomers [0034-0036], thereby overlapping with the claimed range of monoethylenically unsaturated silane functional monomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the monoethylenically unsaturated silane functional monomer in the amount taught by Junk et al.
Regarding claim 5, Junk et al. broadly teaches the monomer composition may also contain at least two non-conjugated ethylenically unsaturated groups in amount of up to 3% by weight may be added [0040], thereby overlapping the claimed range of multifunctional monomer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a multifunctional monomer containing two or more different ethylenically unsaturated polymerizable group in the amount taught by Junk et al.
Regarding claim 6, Junk et al. broadly teach the monomer compositions may contain unsaturated silane comonomers as rejected above. Junk et al. teach the unsaturated silane comonomers correspond to a substituted silane of the structural Formula I shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
126
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R denotes an organic radical olefinically unsaturated in the w-position and R1 R2 and R3 which may be identical or different, denote the group —OZ, Z denoting hydrogen or primary or secondary alkyl or acyl radicals optionally substituted by alkoxy groups. Junk et al. further teach the radical R is preferably an ω-unsaturated alkenyl of 2 to 10 carbon atoms or an ω-unsaturated carboxylic acid ester formed from unsaturated carboxylic acids of up to 4 carbon atoms and alcohols of up to 6 carbon atoms carrying the Si group [0035-0036], thereby overlapping with formula (II) of the instant claim wherein R1, R2, and R3 are each independently selected from CH3, CH2CH3, CH2CH2CH3, CH(CH3)2, CH2CH2CH2CH3 or its isomers, or combinations thereof.
Junk et al. also teach silane compounds represent by structural Formula I such as vinylmethoxysilane and methacryloxypropyltrimethylglycolsilane may be used [0036], thereby reading on formula(II) wherein R1, R2, and R3 are CH3 and formula (III) wherein R4 is CH3 and R5, R6, and R7 are CH3, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, Junk et al. disclose the aqueous polymer dispersion has a minimum film forming temperature of 0°C (Table 3), thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Junk et al. disclose the aqueous dispersion of Example 1 comprises an adipic acid hydrazide solution, thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Junk et al. disclose the aqueous dispersion of Example 1 was used to form a high gloss lacquer, thereby reading on an aqueous coating composition of the instant claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junk et al. (US 20160145430 A1) in view of Balk et al. (US 20120252972).
The aqueous dispersion of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 9, Junk et al. disclose the process of preparing the aqueous dispersion of Example 1 comprises forming a first polymer from feed 1 and then forming a second polymer from feed 2 in the presence of a ammonium persulfate [0078-0082], thereby reading on the step (i) and step(ii). The step of admixing the multistage polymeric particles with a polyfunctional hydrazide is concerned optional and is rendered obvious.
Junk et al. is silent on the first polymer is neutralized to a pH value of greater than 7.1 as recited in step (i).
Balk et al. teach a method of forming a multistage aqueous polymer dispersion where in the polymer of the first stage is neutralized to a pH of at least 4.5 followed by free radical polymerization of monomers in a following stage (claim 1), thereby overlapping with the pH of instant claim 9. Balk et al. offer the motivation that neutralizing the first polymer stabilizes the polymer dispersion [0075]. Junk et al. is also concerned with the stability of the polymer dispersion [0049-0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to neutralize the first polymer to a pH as taught by Balk et al. with the process of forming an aqueous dispersion of Junk et al. with reasonable expectation that the aqueous polymer dispersion would be stabilized.
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
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights