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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2024.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20110114535A, referred to herein as KR ‘535, in view of JP2018203997A, referred to herein as JP ‘997, in view of Kao (AKYPO Personal Care, 2016), hereinafter ‘Kao’.
Regarding Claim 1, KR ‘535 discloses a superabsorbent polymer composition comprising superabsorbent polymer particles comprising a crosslinked polymer of water soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomers having acid groups, and further comprising a first hydrophobic material, wherein the first hydrophobic material comprises stearic acid ([0180]: acrylic acid, an ethylenically unsaturated monomers having acid groups is integrated into a superabsorbent polymer), and a first hydrophobic material ([0199]: stearic acid is used as a hydrophobic material).
Further regarding Claim 1, while KR ‘535 does not disclose partially neutralizing the used acrylic acid monomer, it does disclose that the monomer may be made water soluble by the addition of acid and/or base ([0022]) – such addition of base would at least partially neutralize the acrylic acid. Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to add base to the monomer, thereby providing a partially neutralized monomer more water soluble for use in the inventive process of KR ‘535.
Further regarding Claim 1, KR ‘535 does not disclose the use of a second hydrophobic material, wherein the second hydrophobic material comprises laureth-6 carboxylic acid, laureth-11 carboxylic acid, or alkali metal salts thereof.
However, it is known in the art to utilize multiple hydrophobic components together in the formulation of a superabsorbent polymer composition. For example, JP ‘997, which discloses the synthesis of superabsorbent polymer analogous to that of the instant invention ([0001]), discloses the use of a surfactant including one or more of a nonionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, and an amphoteric surfactant ([0032]) – among these, it is disclosed that non-ionic and anionic surfactants are preferred, and among anionic surfactants, those chosen are preferably either hydrocarbon ether carboxylic acids having 8 to 24 carbon atoms, or their salts ([0044]). Further, lauryl ether salts are disclosed as a suitable anionic surfactant for such a use ([0041]). Further still, JP ‘997 discloses that the instant invention, through the utilization of surfactants within the inventive method, provides water absorbent resin particles that do not dissolve in absorbent liquid ([0010]), and further that the addition of surfactant positively influences the vortex and diaper performance of produced superabsorbent polymer particles ([0174]) thereby increases the utility of such particles.
Furthermore, while JP ‘997 does not explicitly disclose particularly suitable lauryl ether salts, and does not explicitly disclose the use of laureth-6 carboxylic acid, laureth-11 carboxylic acid, or alkali metal salts thereof, these compounds are industry-utilized anionic surfactants comprising hydrocarbon ether carboxylic acids having 8 to 24 carbon atoms. As shown by Kao, both laureth-6 carboxylic acid (trade name RLM 45 CA) and laureth-11 carboxylic acid (trade name RLM 100) are known in the art as anionic surfactants having the structure described by JP ‘997 (Page 2).
Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine lauryl ether salts as taught by JP ‘997 into the superabsorbent resin particles modified with stearic acid as taught by KR ‘535, as such a combination would increase the integrity of the particles in liquid and improve the vortex and diaper performance of the produced superabsorbent polymer particles, thereby increasing the effective utility of the produced material in applications for which it is known to be used. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize either laureth-6 carboxylic acid or laureth-11 carboxylic acid in such a modified process. These compounds have been shown to meet the surfactant criteria set forth by JP ‘977, and therefore the use thereof in the process of KR ‘535 would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence of criticality associated with the claimed compounds.
Further regarding Claim 1, while KR ‘535 in view of JP ‘997 does not disclose the first and second hydrophobic material are included at a mole ratio of 3:7 to 7:3, KR ‘535 discloses that the amount of the hydrophobic substance in the disclosed superabsorbent polymer particles (i.e., the molar amount of the first hydrophobic material as claimed) allows for the ideal vortex absorption rate and surface tension of liquids in contact with the produced superabsorbent polymer particles to be achieved ([0045]); further, JP ‘997 discloses that the amount of the surfactant in the disclosed superabsorbent polymer particles (i.e., the molar amount of Chemical Formula 2 as claimed) allows for the ideal dust generation resistance and water leakage resistance of an absorbent article produced using such particles to be achieved ([0109]). As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the amount of both the hydrophobic substance as disclosed by KR ‘535 and the amount of the surfactant as disclosed by JP ‘997 to be result-effective variables, as the amounts of these compounds have been recognized in the prior art to be critical in achieving the desired properties of produced superabsorbent polymer particles.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine, through routine experimentation, the amount of both the first and second hydrophobic compound that would achieve the desired vortex absorption rate and surface tension of liquids in contact with the produced superabsorbent polymer particles, in the case of the first compound, and the ideal dust generation resistance and water leakage resistance of an absorbent article produced using such particles, in the case of the second compound, thereby optimizing the ratio of these components. As the properties of the produced superabsorbent polymer particles are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the claimed compounds, the precise amounts thereof, and by extension the ratio of compound 1 to compound 2, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the claimed hydrophobic compounds in order to obtain superabsorbent polymer particles having ideal properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Further regarding Claim 1, KR ‘535 as modified above makes obvious a total weight of the first hydrophobic material and the second hydrophobic material is 0.2 to 0.5 based on 100 parts by weight of the superabsorbent polymer particles ([0108] of KR ‘535: the content of the hydrophobic material inside the absorbent particles is particularly preferably 0.1-1 wt% - as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) – as such, the instant claimed range is obvious over the prior art range).
Further regarding Claim 1, KR ‘535 as modified above does not disclose the following claimed properties: the superabsorbent polymer composition has an anticaking(A/C) efficiency calculated by Mathematical Formula 3 of 50% or more, and a wetting time of 1 to 5 seconds, the wetting time being defined as a total time for which a non-wetted superabsorbent polymer composition is observed at a top of a liquid, while putting 2g of the superabsorbent polymer composition in 50 mL of a saline solution at 23°C to 24°C, and stirring at 600 rpm with a magnetic bar of diameter 8 mm and length 30 mm): [Mathematical Formula 31] A/C(%)= W6/W5 x 100 wherein, W5 is a weight (g) of the superabsorbent polymer composition applied on a flask dish having a diameter of 10 cm, and W6 is a weight (g) of the superabsorbent polymer composition falling from the flask dish, after uniformly applying the superabsorbent polymer composition on the flask dish having a diameter of 10 cm, maintaining it in a constant temperature and humidity chamber at temperature of40±3 °C and humidity of 80+3% for 10 minutes, and then, turning the flask dish upside down on a filter paper and lightly tapping 3 times.
However, it is apparent that the product of the instant claims and the product of the prior art are made in a substantially identical way – in particular, both the instant claimed process and the process of KR ‘535 as modified above utilize the same reagents to form superabsorbent polymer particles in the same way, sharing both hydrophobic reagents, the same loading in the polymer thereof, the same monomer, the same surface chemistry, and similar surface treatments, as shown in the prior art rejection of Claims 1, 2 and 6 (below).
Further, the following is disclosed in the instant published specification: [0069]: “…the total weight of the first hydrophobic material and second hydrophobic material may be 0.01 to 1.0 part by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the superabsorbent polymer particles. If the total weight of the hydrophobic materials is too low in the composition, the effect of giving hydrophobicity by the hydrophobic materials may be insufficient, and thus, it may be difficult to inhibit caking, and if the total weight of the hydrophobic materials is too high, centrifuge retention capacity and absorbency under pressure of superabsorbent polymer may be deteriorated”; [0072]: “Thus, in case at least a part of the first hydrophobic material and second hydrophobic material exist on the surfaces of the superabsorbent polymer particles, compared to the case wherein all the hydrophobic materials exist inside of superabsorbent polymer particles, specifically, inside of crosslinked polymer, caking of the superabsorbent polymer particles during exposure to the air may be more effectively inhibited”; [0085]: “Thus, in case two kinds of hydrophobic materials satisfying specific Chemical Formulas are simultaneously used as explained above, a superabsorbent polymer composition having excellent absorption performance and anti-caking efficiency, wherein anti-caking (A/C) efficiency calculated by the Mathematical Formula 3 is 20% or more, and wetting time is 15 seconds or less, can be provided”.
It is noted that the “materials satisfying specific Chemical Formulas” referenced above refers to the claimed hydrophobic substances. In light of the above, it is clear that each of the claimed properties is influenced by the process of making, and in particular, critical elements for attaining the claimed properties are mutual to both the instant claimed process and that of KR ‘535 as modified above.
Given the similarities of the composition and the process of making between the prior art and the claimed invention, the instant fact pattern resembles that of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), wherein the court held that “…where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
Furthermore, it is noted that the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith, as held by the court in In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972) – as such, determinations of properties not disclosed by the prior art are made based on a preponderance of the evidence provided in both the prior art and the instant disclosure.
Therefore, based on the preponderance of the above evidence, with particular attention to the substantially identical method of making between the instant claim and the method suggested by the prior art, there is a reasonable prima facie basis to conclude that the superabsorbent particles produced by the process of KR ‘535 would exhibit the same properties as those claimed, including the claimed anticaking efficiency and wetting time, absent evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof now shifts to the Applicant to show that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product - see MPEP 2112(V).
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, KR ‘535 in view of JP ‘997 disclose at least a part of the first hydrophobic material and the second hydrophobic material exist on the surfaces of superabsorbent polymer particles (Claim 5 of KR ‘535).
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, KR ‘535 in view of JP ‘997 disclose compounds that meet the limitations of the claim upon which it depends – therefore, these compounds must also meet the instant claimed limitation, as compounds with identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties – see MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, KR ‘535 in view of JP ‘997 discloses a surface crosslink layer that is formed by additional crosslinking of the crosslinked polymer by a surface crosslinking agent, on at least a part of the surfaces of superabsorbent polymer particles ([0052] of KR ‘535).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/17/2025, are acknowledged.
With respect to arguments in regard to prior art rejections under section 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under section 103 now in view of Kao.
Further, the arguments of Applicant, as they may apply to the grounds of rejection above, are not considered persuasive.
Firstly, while Applicant argues unexpected results associated with the claimed process, such data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention such that it is persuasive of non-obviousness. Table 1 as presented in Applicant’s remarks does not show that unexpected results, including improved anti-caking and wetting times, only occur within the claimed conditions. Applicant’s data does not comprehensively show embodiments of the present invention in comparison to comparative examples outside the conditions claimed (e.g., no showings of the use of salts, no showings of the use of molar ratios of the claimed hydrophobic reagents outside the claimed range, etc.). Therefore, absent such evidence, such data is not persuasive of non-obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/LOGAN LACLAIR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738