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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 26 July 2024 and 22 December 2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-4 and 6-11) without traverse in the reply filed on 12 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 FR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
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.
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.
Claim1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McLeod (US-20190218419-A1) in view of Tangelder (AU 2010251208 B2).
With regard to claim 1, McLeod teaches a dielectical heating foamable composition (Abstract), wherein the composition comprises a mixture of a water-based polymer, a plurality of expandable microspheres and optionally, additives (para 0041); wherein the emulsion polymer is polyvinyl acetate, vinyl acetate ethylene copolymers, starch, polyvinyl alcohol, dextrin, etc., and mixtures thereof (para 0042) is a concentration of approximately 40 wt.% (para 0043). McLeod teaches the plurality of expandable microspheres in the concentration expands when exposing the composition to dielectric heating (para 0038) and at a concentration of approximately 50 wt.% (para 0048). McLeod further teaches optional additives, which can be exemplary fillers, specifically, pearl starch, physically modified starch, and chemically modified starch (para 0057, note McLeod teaches starch and dextrin within the polymer as well). Furthermore, McLeod teaches the incorporation of water throughout the method, as the mixture is uniformly heated and cooled (para 0034).
However, McLeod fails to explicitly teach a powder-based composition, polymer, nor does McLeod indicate the concentration of water in the composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Tangelder teaches a thermoplastic processable composition comprising flours such as starch (page 7, line 31), polymers in a form of water-redispersible polymer powder or as an aqueous polymer dispersion, optional plasticizers, fillers, and additives (Abstract). Tangelder teaches that polymers in form of powder are more storage stable and do not require the addition of preservatives, such as biozides, in contrast to respective dispersions (page 14, line 27-30). Tangelder further teaches the polymer can be homopolymers or copolymers containing vinyl acetate, vinyl esters, vinyl chloride, ethylene, and etc. (page 10, line 4-9), wherein the concentration is 5 to 30 wt.% of the composition (page 19, line 25-26). Tangelder teaches polymer powders are also advantageous from a procedural point of view, since polymers and water are charged independently from each other and their amounts can be adjusted as required in each special case (page 14, line 31-34). Tangelder further teaches the compositions are typically obtained in solid form, preferably in form of powders, agglomerated powders, pellets, flakes, granulates or in some cases dispersions (page 22, line 22-24).
Tangelder also teaches that the water in the composition can act as a plasticizer, with a concentration of 0.01 to 10 wt.% to aid formability of the composition (page 18, line 22-30). Tangelder further specifies the water content is reduced to less than 10 wt.%, more preferably at least 1.3 to 2 wt.% of the total composition, to prevent the polymers from fast deterioration and maintain tensible bars at good levels (page 24, line 25-30).
With regard to the powder-based polymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that polymers could be utilized in the form of a water-redispersible powder. The cited references disclose the use of the same or closely related polymeric materials, such as vinyl acetate, albeit presented in different physical forms. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect such modification would have been expected to provide practical advances, including improvement in the longevity, versatility, and stability of the base product described by McLeod, following the teachings of Tangelder.
With regard to the water concentration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to limit the water concentration. With respect to optimal dosing regimens, it is not inventive to discover such regimens by routine experimentation when general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP §2144.05(11). The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect such optimization would have been expected to aid the processability and formability of the base product described by McLeod, following the teachings of Tangelder.
With regard to claim 2, McLeod teaches that the polymer can include polyvinyl acetate, vinyl acetate ethylene copolymers, starch, dextrin, and mixtures thereof (para 0042).
With regard to claim 3, McLeod teaches that the heat expandable polymeric microspheres can have a hydrocarbon core and a polyacrylonitrile shell (para 0044).
With regard to claim 4, McLeod teaches the plurality of expandable microspheres with an initial expandable temperature range of approximately 80° C. to 110° C., and a maximum expandable temperature range of approximately 50° C. to 150° C (para 0063).
With regard to claim 6, McLeod teaches that the composition may also include any plasticizers, tackifiers, humectants, catalysts, fillers, pigments, dyes, stabilizers, rheological modifiers, accelerators, biocides, and mixtures of these (para 0053).
With regard to claim 7, McLeod teaches that aluminum nitrate, zirconium acetate, ammonium zirconyl carbonate can be accelerators (para 0055).
With regard to claim 8, McLeod teaches that the composition has solid levels of about 40 wt.% based on the emulsion polymer (para 0043). McLeod also teaches that starch and dextrin can be incorporated in the polymer (para 0042), which can misconstrue the true calculation of weight percentage of polymer to filler in the composition.
However, McLeod fails to teach a powder-based polymer overlapping lower concentrations.
As stated above, McLeod in combination of Tangelder teaches a powder-based polymer in the concentration.
With regard to claim 9, McLeod teaches that the expandable microspheres should preferably be about 1% to 50 wt.% of the composition (para 0048).
With regard to claim 10, McLeod teaches the additives range from approximately 0.05% to 15 wt.% of the composition (para 0053). However, McLeod teaches that starch and dextrin can be incorporated in the polymer (para 0042), which can increase the calculation of weight percentage of filler to the composition. The additive percentage overlaps the preferred claimed range.
With regard to claim 11, McLeod fails to teach the composition storage stability.
In the same field of endeavor, Tangelder teaches the bioplastic material can be used directly with or without packaging or storage (page 23, line 28-31) and has a 44-day biodegradability rating (page 27, line 1-16, Table 5, comparative example VI). As stated above, Tangelder teaches that polymers in form of powder are more storage stable in contrast to respective dispersions (page 14, line 27-34). Tangelder further teaches the temperature range of the dried composition from 20 to 70°C (page 22, line 25-26).
With regard to the storage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to formulate polymers in the form of powder to succeed in the overlapping ranges of temperatures and days. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect such optimization would have been expected to enhance the longevity and stability of the base product described by McLeod, following the teachings of Tangelder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761