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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 23, 2025 has been entered. Claims 32, 35-44, 46-47, 49-55 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-31, and 34 were previously canceled and Claims 33, 45, 48 is newly canceled. Claims 32, 42 and 47 were amended and support for amendments are found in the original claims and Specification. Claims 52-55 are newly added and support can be found in the Specification as originally filed.
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.
Claims 32, 36 and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., (WO 2019/153081 A1; hereafter as “Nguyen”) in view of Qiang et al., (“Super-tough double-network hydrogels reinforced by covalently compositing with silica-nanoparticles”; cited on the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Qiang”).
Regarding Claims 32 and 36, Nguyen teaches fertilizer granules comprising water-swellable polymeric nanoparticles [Claim 1; Paragraph 0019], corresponding to a polymer matrix based superabsorbent material of Claim 32. Nguyen teaches said granule further comprises:
Nanoparticles with an average particle size of 75-110 nm [Paragraph 0017], corresponding to the nanoparticles with a particle size in a range of 0.1-500 nm of Claim 32, and range of 1-100 nm of Claim 36;
Polymers with repeat units such as acrylic acid and acrylamide [Paragraph 0070], corresponding to the acrylic acid and acrylamide as water-soluble monomers suitable for a radical polymerization of Claim 32; and
Triethoxy vinylsilane crosslinking units (TEVS) [Paragraph 007], thereby reading on the triethoxyvinylsilane as a crosslinker of Claim 32.
However, Nguyen is silent to the 2-Acrylamido2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) of Claim 32.
Nevertheless, Qiang teaches swollen hydrogels reinforced with nanoparticles [Abstract; Section 1] comprising 2-Acrylamido2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) [Section 2.2.2], corresponding to the AMPS of Claim 32. Qiang offers the motivation that polyelectrolytes, such as PAMPS, can form tightly crosslinked tough networks, which, in combination with sparsely crosslinked flexible neutral polymers, such as PAAm, can form a double network hydrogel with extraordinary toughness [Section 1].
Nguyen and Qiang are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing polymers comprising monomers, nanoparticles and crosslinkers used for fertilizers. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AMPS of Qiang with the fertilizer granules of Nguyen, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 39-42, Nguyen further teaches:
A nitrification inhibitor, such as dicyandiamide (DCD) [Paragraph 0036], corresponding to the nitrification inhibitor of Claim 39, and reading on the DCD of Claim 40;
A urease inhibitor, such as N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) [Paragraph 0041], corresponding to the urease inhibitor of Claim 39, and reading on the NBPT of Claim 41; and
0.1-10 wt. % of an organic functional layer coating a core layer that may comprise nitrification and urease inhibitors [Claims 1 and 69; Paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0041], corresponding to 0.01-50% by weight of an active substance of Claim 42.
Regarding Claims 43-44, Nguyen further teaches:
fertilizers [Table on Pages 57-59; Examples 10-40], corresponding to the fertilizer of Claim 43;
ammonium persulfate as an initiator [Example 1; Paragraph 00145], corresponding to the initiator of Claim 44.
Claims 32, 36, 38-44, 47-50, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al., (“Super-tough double-network hydrogels reinforced by covalently compositing with silica-nanoparticles”; cited on the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Qiang”) in view of Nguyen et al., (WO 2019/153081 A1; hereafter as “Nguyen”).
Regarding Claims 32, 38 and 44, Qiang teaches swollen hydrogels reinforced with nanoparticles [Abstract; Section 1], corresponding to the polymer matrix based superabsorbent material of Claim 32, comprising:
0.5-4 wt. % Silica nanoparticles with average diameters of about 150-300 nm [Section 2.2.3 and 3.1; Table 1], corresponding to the nanoparticles with a particle size in a range of 0.1-500 nm of Claim 32, and wherein an amount of the nanoparticles is in a range of 0.01-10 % by weight of a total weight of the polymer of Claim 38;
Vinyltriethoxysilane (VTEOS) [Section 2.1], corresponding to the vinyl alkoxysilane derivative agent as a crosslinker of Claim 32;
Acrylamide [Sections 1, 2.1] , corresponding to the acrylamide of Claim 32;
2-Acrylamido2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) [Section 2.2.2], corresponding to the AMPS of Claim 32;
initiator potassium persulfate (KPS) [Section 2.2.2], corresponding to the initiator of Claim 44.
Regarding Claim 32, however, Qiang is silent to wherein the vinyl alkoxysilane derivative agent is triethoxyvinylsilane (TEVS), tri(2-methoxyethoxy)vinylsilane (TMEVS), or a combination thereof of Claim 32, and wherein the superabsorbent material further comprises acrylic acid of Claim 32.
Nevertheless, Nguyen teaches fertilizer granules comprising water-swellable polymeric nanoparticles [Claim 1; Paragraph 0019]. Nguyen further teaches triethoxy vinylsilane crosslinking units [Paragraph 007], thereby reading on the triethoxyvinylsilane (TEVS) as a crosslinker of Claim 32. Nguyen also teaches the triethyoxyvinylsilane can undergo self-crosslinking [Paragraph 0065].
Nguyen also teaches polymers with repeat units such as acrylic acid [Paragraph 0070], corresponding to the acrylic acid of Claim 32. Nguyen further teaches copolymers, such as those that comprise acrylic acid, make water-swellable copolymeric nanoparticles [Claim 52].
Nguyen offers the motivation of using the triethoxyvinylsilane crosslinking units with polymers containing acrylic acid due to their ability to form self-crosslinked water swellable copolymeric nanoparticles. Qiang and Nguyen are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing polymers comprising monomers, nanoparticles and crosslinkers used for fertilizers. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the triethyoxyvinylsilane and acrylic acid of Nguyen with the hydrogels reinforced with nanoparticles of Qiang, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 47, Qiang teaches:
A solution of AMPS [Section 2.2.2], corresponding to Step a. obtaining a solution by adding a solvent to the one or more water-soluble monomers suitable for the radical polymerization of Claim 47;
Adding VTEOS to said solution [Section 2.2.1], corresponding to Step b. obtaining a reaction mixture by adding the at least one vinyl alkoxysilane derivative agent as the crosslinker to the solution of Claim 47;
Adding an aqueous dispersion of vinyl modified silica nanoparticles [Section 2.2.3], corresponding to Step c. adding the nanoparticles to the reaction mixture obtained in Step (b);
Wherein said silica nanoparticles have average diameters of about 150-300 nm [Section 3.1; Table 1], corresponding to the nanoparticles with a particle size in a range of 0.1- 500 nm of Claim 47; and
polymerizing a nanoparticle-PAMPS composite hydrogel [Section 2.2.2], corresponding to Step d. obtaining the polymer by a polymerization process of Claim 47.
Regarding Claims 49-50, Qiang also teaches:
Polymerizing the AMPS at 60·C [Section 2.2.2], corresponding to wherein the steps of the method are performed at a temperature in a range of 50-85·C of Claim 49; and
silica nanoparticles were modified with vinyl groups on the surface which were copolymerized with AMPS monomers [Section 1.0], corresponding to wherein the nanoparticles comprise at least one active substance loaded in an inner lumen, an outer surface and/or an interface of the nanoparticles of Claim 50.
Qiang teaches the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 36 and 39-42, Qiang teaches nanoparticles [Section 3.1; Table 1].
However, Qiang is silent to the particle size of the nanoparticles is in the range of 1-100 nm of Claim 36; the at least one active substance is a nitrification inhibitor, a urease inhibitor, or a combination of the nitrification inhibitor and the urease inhibitor of Claim 39; wherein the nitrification inhibitor is at least one of Dicyandiamide (DCD), 3,4-dimethylepyrazole (DMIPP), and nitrapyrin of Claim 40; wherein the urease inhibitor is at least one of N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), phenyl phosphorodiamidate (PPDA), and hydroquinone of Claim 41; and wherein the nanoparticles comprise the at least one active substance in an amount of 0.01-50% by weight of Claim 42.
Nevertheless, Nguyen teaches copolymeric nanoparticles [Paragraph 0078], wherein:
said nanoparticle average particle size is 75-110 nm [Paragraph 0017], which corresponds with the claimed particle range of 1-100 nm of Claim 36; and said
A nitrification inhibitor, such as DCD [Paragraph 0036], corresponding to the nitrification inhibitor of Claim 39, and reading on the DCD of Claim 40;
A urease inhibitor, such as NBTPT [Paragraph 0041], corresponding to the urease inhibitor of Claim 39, and reading on the NBPT of Claim 41;
0.1-10 wt. % of an organic functional layer coating a core layer that comprises nitrification and urease inhibitors [Claims 1 and 69; Paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0041], corresponding to 0.01-50% by weight of an active substance of Claim 42; and
nanoparticles that can produce smart release fertilizer granules that can be controlled according to the needs of the plants to be fertilized [Abstract].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the particle size range, nitrification and urease inhibitors of Nguyen with the nanocomposite hydrogel of Qiang, the motivation being to produce smart release fertilizer granules, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 43, Qiang is silent to wherein the polymer matrix based superabsorbent material further comprises a fertilizer of Claim 43.
However, Nguyen teaches copolymeric nanoparticles may comprise:
fertilizers [Table on Pages 57-59; Examples 10-40], corresponding to the fertilizer of Claim 43;
nanoparticles that can produce smart release fertilizer granules that can be controlled according to the needs of the plants to be fertilized [Abstract].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fertilizer of Nguyen with the nanocomposite hydrogel of Qiang, the motivation being to produce smart release fertilizer granules, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 52-55, Qiang further teaches a molar ratio of acrylamide:AMPS of 3:1 [Section 3.2.] which overlaps the claimed range of 4:1 to 0.5:1 of Claims 52 and 54.
However, Qiang is silent to wherein the molar ratios of acrylic acid: acrylamide: AMPS monomers with regard to each other are within the range between 1:4:1 and 1:0.5:1 of Claims 52 and 54, and wherein the molar ratios of acrylic acid: acrylamide: AMPS monomers with regard to each other are 1:2:1 of Claims 53 and 55.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Qiang for the molar ratio of acrylamide:AMPS (3:1) overlaps the instantly claimed range (4:1 to 0.5:1) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, Qiang teaches molar ratio and crosslinking effects the double network hydrogel toughness [Section 3.2.]. Therefore, the ratio of monomers can be optimized to reach the desired hydrogel mechanical properties via a routine optimization. The case law has 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the amount of colorant for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al., (“Super-tough double-network hydrogels reinforced by covalently compositing with silica-nanoparticles”; cited on the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Qiang”) in view of Nguyen et al., (WO 2019/153081 A1; hereafter as “Nguyen”) and in further view of Azad et al., (EP 2930191 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Azad”).
Qiang and Nguyen teach the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Qiang and Nguyen are silent to wherein the crosslinker further comprises PEG polymer chains of Claim 35.
Nevertheless, Azad teaches a process for making a particulate superabsorbent polymer [Claim 1]. Azad further teaches:
Crosslinking agents may comprise polyethylene glycol monoallyl ether acrylate [Paragraph 0059], corresponding to the PEG polymer chain of Claim 35; and
Said process for making a particulate superabsorbent polymer results in a material with fast water absorption [Claim 1].
Qiang, Nguyen and Azad are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing absorbent polymers comprising monomers, nanoparticles and crosslinkers.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the VTMS and polyethylene glycol monoallyl ether acrylate of Azad with the hydrogels reinforced with nanoparticles of Qiang and Nguyen in order to obtain a material with fast water absorption, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al., (“Super-tough double-network hydrogels reinforced by covalently compositing with silica-nanoparticles”; cited on the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Qiang”) in view of Nguyen et al., (WO 2019/153081 A1; hereafter as “Nguyen”) and in further view of Fossum et al., (WO2005/014065A1; hereafter as “Fossum”).
Qiang and Nguyen teach the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Qiang and Nguyen are silent to wherein the nanoparticles comprise at least one of halloysite, carbon nanotube, and graphene of Claim 37.
Fossum teaches an absorbent hydrogel coated with nanoparticles [Abstract; Page 23, Paragraph 3]. Fossum further teaches said nanoparticles may comprise halloysite [Page 24, Paragraph 4], thereby reading on the halloysite of Claim 37, and said absorbent hydrogel can make thin absorbent articles such as diapers [Page 8, Paragraph 3].
Qiang, Nguyen and Fossum are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing absorbent polymers comprising nanoparticles.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the halloysite of Fossum with the nanocomposite hydrogel of Qiang and Nguyen, the motivation being to produce thin absorbent articles, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al., (“Super-tough double-network hydrogels reinforced by covalently compositing with silica-nanoparticles”; cited on the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Qiang”) in view of Nguyen et al., (WO 2019/153081 A1; hereafter as “Nguyen”) and in further view of Takuya et al., (JP 2018/168126 A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takuya”).
Qiang and Nguyen teach the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 46, Qiang and Nguyen are silent to the claimed wherein the polymer matrix based superabsorbent material is in a form of electrospinned fibers, electrosprayed nano-beads, or electrosprayed micro-beads.
Takuya teaches a method of producing cellulose fibers with nanoparticles obtained by electrospinning cellulose in various solvents [Paragraph 0053], thereby reading on the electrospinned fibers of Claim 46; and said particles be imparted with antibacterial and antifungal properties and coatings [Paragraphs 0031 and 0097].
Qiang, Nguyen and Takuya are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing polymers comprising nanoparticles.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrospinning of Takuya with the nanocomposite hydrogel of Qiang and Nguyen, the motivation being to impart antibacterial and antifungal properties on the hydrogel, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al., (“Super-tough double-network hydrogels reinforced by covalently compositing with silica-nanoparticles”; cited on the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Qiang”) in view of Nguyen et al., (WO 2019/153081 A1; hereafter as “Nguyen”) and in further view of Alam et al., (“Thermosensitive hybrid hydrogels with silica nanoparticle-cross-linked polymer networks”; cited in the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Alam”).
Qiang and Nguyen teach the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Qiang and Nguyen are silent to the claimed steps of subjecting a suspension containing the nanoparticles with the at least one active substance to vacuuming to load the nanoparticles with the at least one active substance, separating the nanoparticles loaded with the at least one active substance from the suspension and drying separated nanoparticles.
However, Alam teaches hydrogels with silica nanoparticles [Abstract], where hydrogels with silica nanoparticles were freeze-dried in vacuo [Section 2.4], corresponding to the claimed vacuum loading the nanoparticles with an active substance and drying said nanoparticles. Alam further teaches said hydrogels have large equilibrium swelling ratios, improved mechanical strength, and suitable
deswelling behavior [Abstract].
Qiang, Nguyen and Alam are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing polymers comprising monomers, nanoparticles and vinyl alkoxysilane crosslinkers.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Alam to produce the nanocomposite hydrogel of Qiang and Nguyen, the motivation being to improve mechanical strength and swelling ratios, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks and Affidavit filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (1) Nguyen cannot anticipate amended Claim 32 because it lacks a direct and unambiguous disclosure of the required AMPS monomer. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above, wherein Nguyen teaches the claimed water-swellable polymeric nanoparticles [Claim 1; ¶ 0017, 0019], acrylic acid monomer [¶0070], acrylamide monomer [¶0070], TEVS [¶0007], and Qiang is relied upon to teach the claimed AMPS [Section 1]. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (2) Nguyen lists acrylic acid and acrylamide among alternatives and does not disclose AMPS, and Qiang discloses AMPS without acrylic acid and acrylamide. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above, wherein Nguyen and Qiang, in combination, disclose the claimed acrylic acid, acrylamide, and AMPS. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (3) neither Nguyen nor Qiang provide an articulated rationale to modify either reference to arrive at the claimed three-monomer system in combination. However, Qiang teaches AMPS monomers can form a polymer network covalently linked with silica nanoparticles [Section 1] which would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify the fertilizer granules of Nguyen with the AMPS of Qiang. Furthermore, Nguyen teaches copolymers, such as those that comprise acrylic acid, make water-swellable copolymeric nanoparticles [Claim 52], which would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify the swollen hydrogels of Qiang with the acrylic acid of Nguyen. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (4) Qiang is silent on teaching acrylamide and AMPS in an ammonium persulfate initiated polymerization. However, Qiang teaches acrylamide, AMPS, and ammonium persulfate with sufficient specificity that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” acrylamide, AMPS, and ammonium persulfate together as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (5) the polymeric superabsorbent material prepared from acrylic acid + acrylamide + AMPS has unexpected and advantageous swelling properties not found in the cited prior art. However, one of ordinary skill would expect acrylic acid, acrylamide, or AMPS each produce hydrogels with notable swelling properties. The instant Specification even calls hydrogels “superabsorbent polymers (SAP)” [Page 17, ¶ 3]. Fossum [Page 1, ¶ 3] even specifically calls out acrylic acid and AAm as notable monomers that produce SAPs. So, it stands to reason that combinations of acrylic acid, acrylamide, and/or AMPS would also each produce notable superabsorbent swelling properties. To show the claimed invention produced unexpectedly improved swelling, Applicants must show data that the swelling of the three monomers in combination is greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). While experimental data was provided, it was difficult to interpret and not found to be convincing. More specifically, the experimental context in which the data was collected is lacking. Context, such as the amounts of each monomer, etc., would be helpful in interpreting the provided data. Comparative controls would also be helpful in demonstrating unexpected swelling. For example, while a comparative example without AMPS was provided, other comparative examples such as hydrogels without AA and without AAm, should be provided, at the minimum, and would be helpful in interpreting the provided data. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (6) substituting triethyoxyvinylsilane (TEVS/TMEVS) into Qiang’s double-network (DN) nanocomposite hydrogel system is unpredictable and lacks a reasonable expectation of success. However, the general use of crosslinkers are well known in the art so it would be obvious to use crosslinkers, such as the claimed triethyoxyvinylsilane, in polymer hydrogel applications (See Nguyen, Fossum, Azad). Fossum also teaches, specifically, “examples of internal crosslinking agents used in superabsorbent polymers include…. vinyl triethoxysilane” [¶ 0058]. Furthermore, Nguyen teaches that crosslinking modifies polymer networks in a manner that allows control of the release rate of the absorbed contents [¶ 0065]. This is particularly advantageous and would further motivate one of ordinary skill to modify the hydrogel system of Qiang with crosslinkers, such as the triethyoxyvinylsilane of Nguyen. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (7) the inventor identified a problem that was not currently known in the field. The instant Specification states that the objectives of the claimed invention are (i) to increase swelling capacity, (ii) to obtain a polymeric material that releases the absorbed fluid slowly into its environment, and (iii) to obtain a superabsorbent material that can maintain its structure for a longer period of time when under pressure [Page 19]. However, one of ordinary skill would know that the aforementioned objectives are well known in the field. For example, Qiang teaches that hydrogels are swollen networks that can hold more than 90% water content [Section 1] (similar to objective (i)), and can be treated to make them tougher via cross-linking [Section 3.5.2.] (similar to objective (iii)). Nguyen also teaches a smart hydrogel that releases nitrogen-containing fertilizer into the environment over time [¶ 0001, 0007] (similar to objective (ii)). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (8) the claimed solution possesses unexpected advantageous properties of improved swelling behavior over the prior art. However, as shown in the disclosure above, Qiang in view of Nguyen and Nguyen in view of Qiang each teach all the claimed elements in the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions of Qiang in view of Nguyen and Nguyen in view of Qiang to possess the same advantageous properties. Furthermore, as disclosed above, one of ordinary skill would not consider improved swelling behavior in hydrogels with components known to increase hydrophilicity to be unexpected. In addition, as disclosed above, experimental data would need to be provided demonstrating improved swelling behavior over the prior art. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 that (9) the Examiner has not provided an articulated reason or teaching to replace Qiang’s MGAA/covalent NP macro-crosslinking with Nguyen’s TEVS/TMEVS crosslinkers and the Examiner’s motivation is simply that TEVS appears as a unit in Nguyen and not an existing teaching or suggestion to make the substitution in Qiang’s system. However, as mentioned in the disclosure above, Nguyen teaches TEVS can undergo self-crosslinking [Paragraph 0065]. This would motivate one of ordinary skill to use the TEVS of Nguyen to modify the swollen hydrogels reinforced with nanoparticles, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Affidavit submitted on December 23, 2025 that (10) the provided experimental data demonstrates that AA + AAm + AMPS together provide a surprisingly high extent of swelling. However, the data has been considered and is not found to be convincing. As mentioned above, one of ordinary skill would not consider hydrogel swelling to be unexpected. More experimental data would be necessary to show high extent of swelling beyond what has been shown in the prior art. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764