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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites that the crosslinking comprises a second surface crosslinking agent. However, this feature is already present in claim 18, from which claim 20 depends. As such, claim 20 does not further limit claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al. (WO 2017/200085) in view of Wada et al. (US Pat. 7,510,988). Note: A machine translation is being used for WO 2017/200085.
Considering Claims 1, 7, 13, and 17: Tomioka et al. teaches a superabsorbent particle comprising a base resin comprising a crosslinked polymer of acrylic acid based monomers having acid groups (pg. 3) and an internal crosslinking agent (pg. 4), where the based resin is surface crosslinked by a surface crosslinking agent in the presence of an inorganic acid (Abstract) that is preferably phosphoric acid (pg. 5). Tomioka et al. teaches the inorganic acid as being present in an amount of 0.01 to 1.2 parts (pg. 6). As the phosphoric acid is present during the surface crosslinking step, it would be incorporated into the surface crosslink layer.
Tomioka et al. teaches the surface crosslinking agent as being an epoxy compound (pg. 7). However, Wada et al. teaches using ethylene carbonate as a surface crosslinking agent for a water absorbent polymer (4:5-35), alone or with an epoxy compound (16:34-47). Tomioka et al. and Wada et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface crosslinked water absorbent polymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have to substituted the ethylene carbonate of Wada et al. for at least a portion of the epoxy compound, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wada et al. suggests, to provide good absorbency against pressure and liquid permeability against pressure (4:5-35).
Considering Claims 10 and 14: Tomioka et al. teaches the centrifuge retention capacity as being 29-40 g/g (pg. 9).
Considering Claim 22: Tomioka et al. teaches the superabsorbent polymer as being used to prepare an absorbent article (pg. 14).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al. (WO 2017/200085) in view of Wada et al. (US Pat. 7,510,988). Note: A machine translation is being used for WO 2017/200085.
Considering Claims 18 and 20: Tomioka et al. teaches a superabsorbent particle made by a process comprising crosslinking a base resin comprising acrylic acid based monomers having acid groups (pg. 3) and an internal crosslinking agent (pg. 4), drying, pulverizing, and classifying the hydrogel formed (Example 1) and surface crosslinking by a surface crosslinking agent in the presence of an inorganic acid (Abstract) that is preferably phosphoric acid (pg. 5). Tomioka et al. teaches the inorganic acid as being present in an amount of 0.01 to 1.2 parts (pg. 6). As the phosphoric acid is present during the surface crosslinking step, it would be incorporated into the surface crosslink layer.
Tomioka et al. teaches the surface crosslinking agent as being an epoxy compound (pg. 7). However, Wada et al. teaches using ethylene carbonate as a surface crosslinking agent for a water absorbent polymer (4:5-35), alone or with an epoxy compound (16:34-47). Tomioka et al. and Wada et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface crosslinked water absorbent polymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have to substituted the ethylene carbonate of Wada et al. for at least a portion of the epoxy compound, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wada et al. suggests, to provide good absorbency against pressure and liquid permeability against pressure (4:5-35).
Considering Claim 19: Tomioka et al. teaches surface crosslinking the hydrogel at 100 to 200 ºC (pg. 10).
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (JP 2015120847) in view of Wada et al. (US Pat. 7,510,988). Note: A machine translation is being used for JP 2015120847.
Considering Claims 1, 4, 13, and 17: Tsuji et al. teaches a superabsorbent polymer (Abstract) comprising a crosslinked polymer of acrylic acid (pg. 5) that is preferably neutralized (pg. 7) and an internal crosslinking agent (pg. 6); where the base resin is surface treated (pg. 9) with citronellol or menthol (pg. 10). Tsuji et al. teaches adding 25 g of 3% fragrance solution to 30 g of base resin (pg. 23-24). Thus the composition contains 0.75 g of fragrance and 30 g of base resin, or 2.5 parts per 100 parts.
Tsuji et al. teaches that the citronellol or menthol is absorbed into the surface layer of the superabsorbent polymer (pg. 8). Tsuji et al. does not teach that it is incorporated during the surface crosslinking. However, the instant claims are 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113. As the compounds are incorporated into the surface layer, the claim limitations are met despite the difference in process.
Tsuji et al. teaches surface crosslinking the particle with a diglycidyl/epoxy compound (pg. 21). However, Wada et al. teaches using ethylene carbonate as a surface crosslinking agent for a water absorbent polymer (4:5-35), alone or with an epoxy compound (16:34-47). Tsuji et al. and Wada et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface crosslinked water absorbent polymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have to substituted the ethylene carbonate of Wada et al. for at least a portion of the epoxy compound, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wada et al. suggests, to provide good absorbency against pressure and liquid permeability against pressure (4:5-35).
Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuke et al. (JP 2011-231255) in view of Wada et al. (US Pat. 7,510,988). Note: A machine translation is being used for JP 2011-231255.
Considering Claims 1-3, 13, and 17: Kosuke et al. teaches a superabsorbent polymer comprising a base resin that is the reaction product of a acrylic acid salt (pg. 2) and an internal crosslinking agent (pg. 3); where part of the surface of the polymer is treated with guanidine carbonate (pg. 4). Kosuke et al. teaches that the guanidine compound can be added before surface crosslinking (pg. 5). Kosuke et al. teaches adding the guanidine as being 2 to 10 parts per 100 parts of the base resin (pg. 4). As the guanidine compound is present during the surface crosslinking step, it would be incorporated into the surface crosslink layer.
Kosuke et al. teaches surface crosslinking the base resin with a diglycidyl/epoxy compound (pg. 3). However, Wada et al. teaches using ethylene carbonate as a surface crosslinking agent for a water absorbent polymer (4:5-35), alone or with an epoxy compound (16:34-47). Kosuke et al. and Wada et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface crosslinked water absorbent polymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have to substituted the ethylene carbonate of Wada et al. for at least a portion of the epoxy compound, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wada et al. suggests, to provide good absorbency against pressure and liquid permeability against pressure (4:5-35).
Considering Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15: Kosuke et al. teaches the superabsorbent as having a water retention 43 g/g and an absorption under pressure of 23 g/g (Table 1).
Considering Claim 22: Kosuke et al. teaches the absorbent as being used in a sanitary/hygiene article (pg. 1).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuke et al. (JP 2011-231255) in view of Wada et al. (US Pat. 7,510,988). Note: A machine translation is being used for JP 2011-231255.
Considering Claims 18 and 20: Kosuke et al. teaches a superabsorbent polymer prepared by a process comprising polymerizing a base resin that is the reaction product of a acrylic acid salt (pg. 2) and an internal crosslinking agent (pg. 3); drying, pulverizing, and classifying the base polymer (pg. 5 and 7); treating part of the surface of the polymer with guanidine carbonate (pg. 4); and surface crosslinking the base resin, where the guanidine compound can be added before surface crosslinking (pg. 5). Kosuke et al. teaches adding the guanidine as being 2 to 10 parts per 100 parts of the base resin (pg. 4). As the guanidine compound is present during the surface crosslinking step, it would be incorporated into the surface crosslink layer.
Kosuke et al. teaches surface crosslinking the base resin with a diglycidyl/epoxy compound (pg. 3). However, Wada et al. teaches using ethylene carbonate as a surface crosslinking agent for a water absorbent polymer (4:5-35), alone or with an epoxy compound (16:34-47). Kosuke et al. and Wada et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface crosslinked water absorbent polymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have to substituted the ethylene carbonate of Wada et al. for at least a portion of the epoxy compound, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wada et al. suggests, to provide good absorbency against pressure and liquid permeability against pressure (4:5-35).
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al. (US 2007/0123658).
Considering Claims 1, 13, and 17: Torii et al. teaches a superabsorbent polymer comprising a base reain comprising a crosslinked polymer of acrylic acid, its salt and an internal crosslinking agent (¶0042; 0018); where the particles are surface crosslinked by a surface crosslinking agent (¶0101-104) in the presence of 0 to 10 parts per 100 parts of the base resin of an acid (¶0106). As the acid is present during the surface crosslinking step, it would be incorporated into the surface crosslink layer.
Torii et al. teaches alkylene carbonate as being a species of surface crosslinking agent (¶0104) and gallic acid as being a species of the acid (¶0106). Torii et al. does not teach the combination of gallic acid and an alkylene carbonate with sufficient specificity. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have tried the combination of gallic acid and alkylene carbonate, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Torii et al. suggests, it is one of a finite number of identified combinations for the surface crosslinking step.
Considering Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15: Torii et al. teaches a centrifuge retention capacity of greater than 29 g/g and an absorbency under pressure of 20 g/g or more (¶0023-24).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al. (US 2007/0123658).
Considering Claims 18 and 20: Torii et al. teaches a superabsorbent polymer comprising a base reain comprising a crosslinked polymer of acrylic acid, its salt and an internal crosslinking agent (¶0042; 0018); where the particles are surface crosslinked by a surface crosslinking agent (¶0101-104) in the presence of 0 to 10 parts per 100 parts of the base resin of an acid (¶0106). As the acid is present during the surface crosslinking step, it would be incorporated into the surface crosslink layer.
Torii et al. teaches preparing the superabsorbent polymers by crosslinking acrylic acid, its salt and an internal crosslinking agent to form the hydrogel polymer (¶080); drying, grinding, and classifying the particles (¶0086-91); and surface crosslinking the particles (¶0101).
Torii et al. teaches alkylene carbonate as being a species of surface crosslinking agent (¶0104) and gallic acid as being a species of the acid (¶0106). Torii et al. does not teach the combination of gallic acid and an alkylene carbonate with sufficient specificity. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have tried the combination of gallic acid and alkylene carbonate, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Torii et al. suggests, it is one of a finite number of identified combinations for the surface crosslinking step.
Considering Claim 19: Torii et al. teaches the crosslinking as occurring at 120 to 200 ºC (¶0112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that Tsuji et al. does not teach incorporating the compounds into the surface crosslink layer by a crosslinking polymerization step is not persuasive. Tsuji et al. teaches that the citronellol or menthol is absorbed into the surface layer of the superabsorbent polymer (pg. 8). Tsuji et al. does not teach that it is incorporated during the surface crosslinking. However, the instant claims are 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113. As the compounds are incorporated into the surface layer, the claim limitations are met despite the difference in process.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767