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 .
Examiner’s Note
As discussed in the interview summary of January 20, 2026, Applicant’s argument is persuasive and the finality of the rejection mailed November 20, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claims 5 – 6, 8 – 14, & 17 – 19 have been withdrawn. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claims 1 – 4 & 15 – 16 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loleger et al. (JP H07-91397 B2) (1995), in view of Yoon et al. (*WO 2019/039800 A1), and Hatanaka et al. (US 2014/0242371 A1).
*US 2020/0384441 A1 is cited herein as the English language equivalent of WO 2019/039800 A1.
With regard to claim 1, Loleger et al. teach a hydrophilic gel film (“super absorbent polymer film”) comprising a hydrophilic polymer comprises a neutralized polymethacrylate (pgs. 7 & 13, Loleger’s claim 2), which is the product of polymerization of methacrylic acids (monomers) (pg. 13) and neutralization of the polymer (pg. 14). The gel film further comprises a humectant (“moisturizing agent”) such as glycerin, sorbitol, or polyethylene glycol (PEG) (pg. 14, Loleger’s claims 1 – 2 & 4), softeners such as triethyl citrate (pg. 16), and cellulose-based thickeners may be added to the gel film (pgs. 15 – 16). The polymers are formed in a dissolution process by adding a solvent (pgs.14 – 15 & 17).
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made (i.e., “polymerization…in the presence of a cellulose-based thickener and a moisturizing agent”). Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a polymer film comprising a cellulose-based thickener and a moisturizing agent that are not covalently bonded to the super absorbent polymer. The reference suggests such a product.
Examiner refers applicant to MPEP § 2113 [R - 1] regarding product-by-process claims. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method or production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product or 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) (citation omitted)
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218, USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Loleger et al. do not explicitly teach a moisture content of 1% to 15%.
However, Loleger et al. teach the optimum residual moisture content for a given gel film, as well as the amount of humectant, is determined in each by experiment and is also dependent on the type and amount of adjuvants and/or active substances possible added to the gel film (last paragraph of pg. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the amount of humectant, adjuvants and/or active substances in the gel film through routine experimentation in order to achieve a gel film with the optimum moisture gel. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Loleger et al. do not explicitly teach the presence of a polymerization initiator during the polymerization process to form the poly(meth)acrylate water absorbent polymer.
Yoon et al. teach a super absorbent polymer sheet formed by the polymerization reaction of (meth)methacrylate monomers in the presence of photopolymer initiator to form a hydrogel polymer (paragraphs [0037] – [0040]). A polymerization initiator is generally used for preparing a super absorbent polymer (paragraph [0054]), such as poly(meth)acrylate formed from (meth)acrylate monomers and comonomers (paragraphs [0023] – [0024]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoon et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use known methods of preparing the poly(meth)acrylate absorbing polymer in the gel film taught by Loleger, such the presence of a polymerization initiator to start the polymerization reaction.
Loleger et al. do not explicitly teach the presence of an internal cross-linking agent during polymerization.
Yoon et al. teach a super absorbent polymer sheet formed by the polymerization reaction of (meth)methacrylate monomers in the presence of internal cross-linking agents, such as polyol, to form a hydrogel polymer. The internal cross-linking agent bonds to the acrylic acid-based monomer and comonomer to form a flexible polymer structure and may contribute to increase the moisture content of the super absorbent polymer sheet due to its hygroscopicity (paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoon et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate an internal cross-linking agent into the composition during polymerization reaction to form cross-links between the monomer and comonomer units of the poly(meth)acrylate polymer taught by Loleger et al. for controlling the moisture content of the gel film.
Loleger et al. do not teach the tensile strength of the gel film.
Hatanaka et al. teach an acrylic-based resin (paragraph [0047]) foam sheet of thickness of 0.40 mm or less (paragraph [0023]) and a density of 0.03 to 0.30 g/cm3 (paragraph [0027]) for necessary tensile strength in the range of 0.5 to 15 MPa, more preferably 0.7 – 10 MPa, for preventing breakage and tearing (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hatanaka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness and porosity of the gel film taught by Loleger et al. to achieve a tensile strength in the range of 0.5 to 15 MPa for preventing breakage and tearing. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With regard to claim 2, as discussed above for claim 1, Hatanaka et al. teach an acrylic acid-based sheet that is tear resistant should preferably have a tensile strength of 0.5 to 15 MPa, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 10 MPa to 50 MPa.
With regard to claim 3, Loleger et al. do not teach the thickness of the gel film.
Yoon et al. teach the super absorbent polymer sheet may have thickness of about 100 µm (0.1 mm) or more and 10 cm (100 mm) or less, more preferably 1 cm (10 mm) or less (paragraph [0076]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.001 mm to 0.5 mm. When the thickness of the polymer sheet is excessively thin, the strength may be too low, causing the sheet to tear. When it is excessively thick, drying and processing of the sheet may be difficult (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Yoon et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the gel film taught by Loleger et al. in the thickness range of 0.1 mm to 100 mm for providing the gel film with the necessary strength and sufficient drying and processing during the manufacturing steps of the sheet. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With regard to claim 4, Loleger et al. do not teach a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) of the gel film. EDANA WSP 241.2 is the standard method for determining the Centrifuge Retention Capacity (CRC) of polyacrylate superabsorbent polymers (SAP) in saline solution. It measures the amount of 0.9% NaCl solution retained by the SAP after being swollen for 30 minutes and centrifuged at 250G for 3 minutes.
Loleger et al. teach the regulation of absorption capacity, such as speed of absorption and degree of progress of absorption of the gel film, as well as keeping the gel film in a swollen state, can be controlled based on the base polymers, cellulose, the presence of additives and innocuous polymers, as well as foaming of the film (pg. 21).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Loleger et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the composition of the gel film, such as the amount of base polymers, cellulose, innocuous polymers, additives, and porosity via foaming, through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired absorption capacity (i.e., Centrifuge Retention Capacity) of the gel film. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, Yoon et al. teach the super absorbent polymer sheet may have a centrifuge retention of about 5 to about 35 g/g, preferably about 10 to about 25 g/g, measured in accordance with EDANA WSP 241.2 (paragraph [0081]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of about 10 g/g or more.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loleger et al. (JP H07-91397 B2) (1995), in view of Yoon et al. (*WO 2019/039800 A1).
*US 2020/0384441 A1 is cited herein as the English language equivalent of WO 2019/039800 A1.
**Evidentiary reference of Torii et al. (US 2020/0023625 A1)
With regard to claim 1, Loleger et al. teach a hydrophilic gel film (“super absorbent polymer film”) comprising a hydrophilic polymer comprises a neutralized polymethacrylate (pgs. 7 & 13, Loleger’s claim 2), which is the product of polymerization of methacrylic acids (monomers) (pg. 13) and neutralization of the polymer (pg. 14). The gel film further comprises a humectant (“moisturizing agent”) such as glycerin, sorbitol, or polyethylene glycol (PEG) (pg. 14, Loleger’s claims 1 – 2 & 4), softeners such as triethyl citrate (pg. 16), and cellulose-based thickeners may be added to the gel film (pgs. 15 – 16). The polymers are formed in a dissolution process by adding a solvent (pgs.14 – 15 & 17).
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made (i.e., “polymerization…in the presence of a cellulose-based thickener and a moisturizing agent”). Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a polymer film comprising a cellulose-based thickener and a moisturizing agent that are not covalently bonded to the super absorbent polymer. The reference suggests such a product.
Examiner refers applicant to MPEP § 2113 [R - 1] regarding product-by-process claims. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method or production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product or 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) (citation omitted)
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218, USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Loleger et al. do not explicitly teach a moisture content of 1% to 15%.
However, Loleger et al. teach the optimum residual moisture content for a given gel film, as well as the amount of humectant, is determined in each by experiment and is also dependent on the type and amount of adjuvants and/or active substances possible added to the gel film (last paragraph of pg. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the amount of humectant, adjuvants and/or active substances in the gel film through routine experimentation in order to achieve a gel film with the optimum moisture gel. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Loleger et al. do not explicitly teach the presence of a polymerization initiator during the polymerization process to form the poly(meth)acrylate water absorbent polymer.
Yoon et al. teach a super absorbent polymer sheet formed by the polymerization reaction of (meth)methacrylate monomers in the presence of photopolymer initiator to form a hydrogel polymer (paragraphs [0037] – [0040]). A polymerization initiator is generally used for preparing a super absorbent polymer (paragraph [0054]), such as poly(meth)acrylate formed from (meth)acrylate monomers and comonomers (paragraphs [0023] – [0024]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoon et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use known methods of preparing the poly(meth)acrylate absorbing polymer in the gel film taught by Loleger, such the presence of a polymerization initiator to start the polymerization reaction.
Loleger et al. do not explicitly teach the presence of an internal cross-linking agent during polymerization.
Yoon et al. teach a super absorbent polymer sheet formed by the polymerization reaction of (meth)methacrylate monomers in the presence of internal cross-linking agents, such as polyol. The internal cross-linking agent bonds to the acrylic acid-based monomer and comonomer to form a flexible polymer structure and may contribute to increase the moisture content of the super absorbent polymer sheet due to its hygroscopicity (paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoon et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate an internal cross-linking agent into the composition during polymerization reaction to form cross-links between the monomer and comonomer units of the poly(meth)acrylate polymer taught by Loleger et al. for controlling the moisture content of the gel film.
Loleger et al. do not teach the tensile strength of the gel film.
However, Yoon et al. teach the greater the content of inorganic filler (optional), the more the strength of the sheet deteriorates (paragraphs [0057] – [0059]). Furthermore, Yoon et al. disclose an excessively thin sheet lowers the strength of the sheet, leading to tearing of the sheet (i.e., poor tensile strength) (paragraph [0076]) and sheet with too large a porosity results in low strength (paragraph [0080]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoon et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the minimize the inorganic filler content, porosity and thickness of the gel film taught by Loleger et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired (tensile) strength. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, as discussed above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the minimize the inorganic filler content, porosity and thickness of the sheet through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired (tensile) strength.
With regard to claim 3, Loleger et al. do not teach the thickness of the gel film.
Yoon et al. teach the super absorbent polymer sheet may have thickness of about 100 µm (0.1 mm) or more and 10 cm (100 mm) or less, more preferably 1 cm (10 mm) or less (paragraph [0076]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.001 mm to 0.5 mm. When the thickness of the polymer sheet is excessively thin, the strength may be too low, causing the sheet to tear. When it is excessively thick, drying and processing of the sheet may be difficult (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Yoon et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the gel film taught by Loleger et al. in the thickness range of 0.1 mm to 100 mm for providing the gel film with the necessary strength and sufficient drying and processing during the manufacturing steps of the sheet. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With regard to claim 4, Loleger et al. do not teach a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) of the gel film. EDANA WSP 241.2 is the standard method for determining the Centrifuge Retention Capacity (CRC) of polyacrylate superabsorbent polymers (SAP) in saline solution. It measures the amount of 0.9% NaCl solution retained by the SAP after being swollen for 30 minutes and centrifuged at 250G for 3 minutes.
Loleger et al. teach the regulation of absorption capacity, such as speed of absorption and degree of progress of absorption of the gel film, as well as keeping the gel film in a swollen state, can be controlled based on the base polymers, cellulose, the presence of additives and innocuous polymers, as well as foaming of the film (pg. 21).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Loleger et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the composition of the gel film, such as the amount of base polymers, cellulose, innocuous polymers, additives, and porosity via foaming, through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired absorption capacity (i.e., Centrifuge Retention Capacity) of the gel film. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, Yoon et al. teach the super absorbent polymer sheet may have a centrifuge retention of about 5 to about 35 g/g, preferably about 10 to about 25 g/g, measured in accordance with EDANA WSP 241.2 (paragraph [0081]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of about 10 g/g or more.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loleger et al., Yoon et al., & Hatanaka et al., as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Takayuki (WO 2018/037816 A1).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loleger et al., Yoon et al., as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Takayuki (WO 2018/037816 A1).
With regard to claim 15, Loleger et al. and Yoon et al. do not explicitly teach the sheet has a total light transmittance with respect to visible light.
Takayuki teaches a water absorbent sheet of excellent transparency composed of polyacrylate formed by crosslinking of acrylic acid monomers (paragraph [0015]) that has a transmission of visible light with a haze of 8% or less, preferably 5% or less (i.e., transmission of 92% or more, preferably 95% or more) (paragraph [0011]) by using acrylate-based polymer particles having a particle size relatively smaller than the wavelength of visible light (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Takayuki, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the acrylate-based water absorbent polymer particles taught by Loleger et al. having a particle size relatively smaller than the wavelength of visible light in order to achieve excellent transparency.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loleger et al., Yoon et al., & Hatanaka et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Torii et al. (US 2020/0023625 A1).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loleger et al., Yoon et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Torii et al. (US 2020/0023625 A1).
With regard to claim 16, Loleger et al. do not teach the yellow index of the gel film.
Torii et al. teach a water absorbent sheet comprising a water-absorbing agent, such as polyacrylic acid (salt)-salt based resin (paragraphs [0136] – [0140]), that has a yellow index value in the range of 0 – 17, yielding a water-absorbing sheet without yellowing (paragraphs [0469] – [0471]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Torii et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the content of poly(meth)acrylate (polyacrylic acid) absorbent polymer taught by Loleger et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a gel film with the desired yellow index value. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “As memorialized in the Interview Summary dated January 23, 2026, during the interview, it appeared that the Examiner agreed that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed elements, and would withdraw finality of the Office Action once receiving the response” (Remarks, Pg. 2).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: As agreed in the interview dated January 20, 2026, the Examiner has withdrawn finality of the Office Action mailed November 20, 2025. This rejection is non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781