DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on November 21, 2025. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejection over Nagaoka is withdrawn, as applicants have amended to require the aqueous dispersion to require an anionic group-containing water-soluble polymer, which was not previously required by all claims.
The rejection over WO 2015/079919 in view of Nagaoka is deemed proper and is therefore maintained for the reasons set forth below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/079919 in view of Nagaoka (US 2011/0112229), as evidenced by Brown (US 2016/0264747); however, for convenience, the machine translation of WO ‘919 will be cited below.
WO ‘919 exemplifies an aqueous dispersion with an average particle size of 145 nm, the dispersion comprising the following (Example 15, a2-15):
100 parts (A) CPO-2, which is a maleic anhydride modified chlorinated polypropylene-ethylene copolymer having a molecular weight of 100,000, modified with 0.8 wt% maleic anhydride, which meets applicants’ (A);
3.6 parts (B) N,N’-dimethylethanolamine, which meets applicants’ (C);
5 parts (C-1) which is a styrene-acrylic monomer copolymer having an acid value of 240 mg KOH/g, which meets applicants’ (D); and
10 parts (E) polyoxyethylene lauryl ether.
WO ‘919 teaches polyoxyethylene alkylamines and polyoxyethylene alkylamides as functionally equivalent emulsifiers as component (E). Choosing a polyoxyethylene laurylamine or polyoxyethylene laurylamide in place of polyoxyethylene lauryl ether is prima facie obvious.
WO ‘919 does not teach or suggest the number of ethylene oxide units present in the polyoxyethylene alkylamines or polyoxyethylene alkylamides, as claimed.
Nagaoka teaches an aqueous dispersion resin composition comprising a modified polyolefin resin, a nitrogen based polyoxyalkylene emulsifier and a basic substance which can be used in paints, inks, adhesives or primers. Nagaoka teaches the nitrogen based polyoxyalkylene emulsifier to include polyoxyethylene alkylamides, teaching that when the amount of ethylene oxide units is less than 2, emulsification will not work and when the amount of units exceeds 50, emulsification failure will occur or the water resistance will deteriorate (p. 7, [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an emulsifier with 2-50 ethylene oxide units in the composition of WO ‘919, as Nagaoka teaches that an ethylene content of such provides emulsification without a reduction in water resistance.
WO ‘919 exemplifies the inclusion of 10 parts by weight of a film-forming aid butyl cellosolve, 8 parts by weight of an alkali swelling viscosity modifier ASE 60, and 1 part wetting agent AD01, based on 100 parts by weigh of the aqueous dispersion composition; however, these are optional additives, as WO ‘919 teaches that various additives can be blended and used. WO ‘919 does not require the presence of any other ingredients; therefore, the aqueous dispersion suggested by WO ‘919 meets the claimed “consisting of” limitation.
WO ‘919 in view of Nagaoka is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 4 and 5.
As to claim 3, WO ‘919 exemplifies an aqueous dispersion with an average particle size of 134 nm, the dispersion comprising the following (Example 4, a2-4):
100 parts (A) PO-2, which is a maleic anhydride modified polypropylene-butene copolymer having a molecular weight of 80,000, modified with 1.0 wt% maleic anhydride, which meets applicants’ (A);
3.6 parts (B) N,N’-dimethylethanolamine, which meets applicants’ (C);
5 parts (C-1) which is a styrene-acrylic monomer copolymer having an acid value of 240 mg KOH/g, which meets applicants’ (D); and
10 parts (E) polyoxyethylene lauryl ether.
WO ‘919 teaches polyoxyethylene alkylamines and polyoxyethylene alkylamides as functionally equivalent emulsifiers as component (E). Choosing a polyoxyethylene laurylamine or polyoxyethylene laurylamide in place of polyoxyethylene lauryl ether is prima facie obvious, and Nagaoka teaches that an ethylene content 2-50 ethylene oxide units provides emulsification without a reduction in water resistance.
WO ‘919 exemplifies the acid modification amount as 1.0 wt%, whereas the claimed invention requires the amount to be less than 1.0 wt%.
Please consider the following:
"A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties." Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a composition prepared with a maleic anhydride modified polypropylene-butene copolymer modified with 0.99 wt% maleic anhydride would be expected to possess similar properties to that of Example 4 of WO ‘919.
Additionally and/or alternatively, WO ‘919 teaches that the amount of modification of the acid is 0.1 to 10 wt%, where if the amount is too small, the sufficient dispersibility may be difficult; however, if it is too large, the water resistance of the coating may be adversely affected.
Modifying the polyolefin with an acid amount of less than 1.0 wt% is prima facie obvious, as this amount is clearly suggested by the teachings of WO ‘919.
WO ‘919 in view of Nagaoka is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1 and 3-5.
As to claim 2, WO ‘919 teaches that the modified polyolefin has a melting point of preferably 60-100°C, most preferably 70-90°C, the range of which overlaps with the claimed range of 60-85°C, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As to claim 6, WO ‘919 exemplifies the preparation of the modified polypropylene-butene copolymer as Tafmer XM7080, which as evidenced by Brown, has a butene content of 26% and a melting point of 83°C (p. 3, [0036]).
As to claims 7-11, WO ‘919 teaches the aqueous dispersion as suitable for use in paints, inks, sealants, primers or adhesives, as well as laminates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicants arguments regarding the “consisting of” language has been addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766