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 .
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hintz (US-20050176834-A1) in view of Na (Thermal Stability of Poly (acrylonitrile-methyl acrylate) Copolymers) is withdrawn in view of amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments & Amendments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joy (US-20070088093-A1) in view of Palmer (US-20130047892-A1).
With regard to claim 1, Joy teaches a superabsorbent composition comprising superabsorbent particles (para.[0035]) comprising a polymerizable, unsaturated acid group-containing monomer (e.g., methacrylic acid, para. [0014]), a neutralization component (e.g., sodium hydroxide, para. [0004]), and an internal crosslinking agent (para. [0013]). Furthermore, Joy teaches the use of surfactants, such as anionic surfactants, to the surface of the polymer particles (paras. [0028–0029]). This disclosure reads on the claimed superabsorbent composition, which comprises superabsorbent polymer particles containing a crosslinked polymer of a partially neutralized (meth)acrylic acid water-soluble ethylene-based unsaturated monomer, an internal crosslinking agent, and a surface-localized additive.
However, Joy does not teach the claimed carboxylic acid-based additive.
In the same field of endeavor, Palmer teaches aqueous dispersion polymers comprising acrylic monomers, such as methacrylic acid (para. [0043]), salt buffers for neutralization (para. [0048]), and reactive surfactants (para. [0013]).
Furthermore, Palmer specifically teaches the use of reactive anionic surfactants, such as monododecyl maleate, which reads on the structural requirements of the claimed Chemical Formula 1 and 1-1. Palmer demonstrates that these reactive surfactants possess a polymerizable moiety capable of participating in free-radical emulsion polymerization reactions. Leading the resulting latex is incorporated into a coating (e.g., paint), the concentration of free surfactant is minimized, preventing interference with target coating properties and avoiding degradation of substrate adhesion (paras. [0013]–[0014]).
Additionally, Palmer describes a monomer emulsion composed of water-immiscible monomer droplets stabilized by the surfactant molecules, yielding empty micelles (colloidal surfactant vesicles), and monomer-swollen micelles (para. [0050]). This disclosure reads on the claimed surfactant capable of forming a micelle structure on the particles.
With regard to the carboxylic acid-based additive, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the surfactant of Joy in view of Palmer. Specifically, to another anionic surfactant such as monododecyl maleate as established in Palmer. Joy would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ an anionic surfactant to the surface of a superabsorbent polymer (para [0028]). Palmer would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ an anionic surfactant, specifically monododecyl maleate, to optimize micelle structures, improve coating properties, and reduce adhesion (paras. [0013 and 0050]). Collectively, these prior art references teach analogous component formulations, specifically combining methacrylic acid with an anionic surfactant. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try this modification in order to achieve the benefits of optimized micelle coating and adhesion. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of a micelle structure coating formed on the polymer’s surface. Specifically, Joy discloses the application of an anionic surfactant to the particles’ surface. Furthermore, Palmer teaches that an anionic surfactant, such as monododecyl maleate, forms a micelle structure. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 3-7, Joy does not explicitly teach the claimed carboxylic acid additive. However, Joy does teach that the surfactant can be anionic (para [0029]).
In the same field of endeavor, Palmer teaches monododecyl maleate (para [0014]), which corresponds to monododecyl maleate, A as C12H25, B1 as -OCO-, B2 as -CH=CH-, carboxylic acid-based additive, and Chemical Formulae 1-1.
As stated above, the combined teachings teach the carboxylic acid-based additive.
With regard to claim 8, Joy teaches that the surfactant is utilized in an amount from 0 to about 5 wt. % based on the weight of the polymer particle surface (see para. [0028]), which reads on the claimed range.
With regard to claim 9, Joy teaches that the superabsorbent polymers include internal crosslinking and surface crosslinking, wherein the surface crosslinking process occurs post-polymerization (paras. [0011] and [0025]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights