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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 32, 35-44, 46-47, 49-51, 53, and 55-56 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-31, 33-34, 45, and 48 were previously canceled and Claims 52 and 54 are newly canceled. Claims 32 and 35 were amended and support for amendments are found in the original claims and Specification. Claims 56 is newly added and support can be found in the claims and 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, 39-44, and 56 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”) and Xu et al. (US2019000077 (A1); hereafter as “Xu”).
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;
Trialkoxy vinylsilane, wherein the alkyl groups comprise between 1 and 6 atoms [¶ 0059, 0063], which overlaps with the vinyltrimethoxysilane of Claim 32;
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.
However, Nguyen is silent to the vinyltrimethoxysilane of Claim 32, 2-Acrylamido2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) of Claim 32, and 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 Claim 32.
Regarding the vinyltrimethoxysilane, 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 Nguyen for the number of carbon atoms in the trialkoxy vinylsilane (1 to 6 carbon atoms) overlaps the instantly claimed range (methyl group, which is equivalent to 1 carbon atom) 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.
Regarding the AMPS, Qiang teaches swollen hydrogels reinforced with nanoparticles [Abstract; Section 1] comprising a molar ratio of acrylamide:2-Acrylamido2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) of 3:1 [Section 2.2.2, 3.2], corresponding to the AMPS of Claim 32, and which corresponds with the molar ratio of acrylamide:AMPS is 4:1 to 0.5:1 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].
Regarding the acrylic acid, Xu teaches polymer particles comprising fertilizer [Abstract; ¶ 0187, 0172], 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid [¶ 0151], and a weight ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide that is 1:1 to 1:2 [¶ 0101, 0170; Claim 19], which is equivalent to a mole ratio of 1:1 to 1:2, which corresponds with the molar ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide is 1:0.5 to 1:4 of Claim 32.
Xu offers the motivation that the polymer particles may comprise pesticides to prevent undesired insect or mite attacks [¶ 0001].
Nguyen, Qiang, Xu 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 hydrophilic monomers, particles 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 AMPS of Qiang, vinyltrimethoxysilane of Azad and acrylic acid of Xu 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, and 56, 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; and
triethyoxy vinylsilane [Example 1; ¶ 0069, 0145], thereby reading on the triethyoxyvinylsilane of Claim 56.
Claims 32, 38, 43-44, 47-50, and 52-56 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 Azad et al., (EP 2930191 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Azad”), and Xu et al. (US2019000077 (A1); hereafter as “Xu”).
Regarding Claims 32, 38, 44, 53, and 55-56, 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;
a molar ratio of acrylamide:AMPS of 3:1 [Section 3.2.] which overlaps the molar ratio of acrylamide:AMPS is 4:1 to 0.5:1 of Claim 32, and is substantially close to the molar ratio of acrylamide: AMPS is 2:1 of Claims 53 and 55;
initiator potassium persulfate (KPS) [Section 2.2.2], corresponding to the initiator of Claim 44; and
vinyltriethyoxysilane (VTEOS) [Section 2.1], thereby reading on the triethyoxyvinylsilane (TEVS) of Claim 56.
Regarding Claim 32, however, Qiang is silent to wherein the vinyl alkoxysilane derivative agent is vinyltrimethoxysilane of Claim 32, the acrylic acid of Claim 32, the molar ratios of acrylic acid : acrylamide : AMPS monomers with regard to each other are within the range between 1:4 and 1:0.5 of Claim 32, 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.
Regarding the molar ratio of Claims 53 and 55, Qiang teaches a molar ratio of acrylamide:AMPS of 3:1 [Section 3.2.]. The amount of 3:1 as taught by Qiang is substantially close to the amount of 2:1 as required by the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the amount of 3:1 as taught by Qiang would result in the same properties as the claimed amount of 2:1 thereby rendering the claimed range obvious. Furthermore, Qiang teaches the 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.
Regarding the vinyltrimethoxysilane, Azad teaches a process for making a particulate superabsorbent polymer [Claim 1], comprising vinyltrimethyoxysilane [¶ 0058], which corresponds to the vinyltrimethyoxysilane of Claim 32.
Azad offers the motivation that vinyltrimethoxysilane can be used as an internal crosslinking agent [¶ 0057-0058; Claim 15].
Regarding the acrylic acid, Xu teaches polymer particles comprising fertilizer [Abstract; ¶ 0187, 0172], 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid [¶ 0151], and a weight ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide that is 1:1 to 1:2 [¶ 0101, 0170; Claim 19], which is equivalent to a mole ratio of 1:1 to 1:2, which corresponds to the molar ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide is 1:0.5 to 1:4 of Claim 32, and overlaps with wherein the molar ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide is 1:2 of Claims 53 and 55.
Xu offers the motivation that the polymer particles may comprise pesticides to prevent undesired insect or mite attacks [¶ 0001].
Qiang, Xu 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 hydrophilic monomers, particles 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 vinyltrimethoxysilane of Azad and acrylic acid of Xu with the hydrogels reinforced with nanoparticles of Qiang in order to internally crosslink the water swellable hydrogels to prevent insect and mite attacks, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
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 Xu for the molar ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide (1:1 to 1:2) overlaps the instantly claimed range (1:2 of Claims 53 and 55) 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 amount.
Regarding Claim 35, Qiang is silent to wherein the crosslinker further comprises PEG polymer chains of Claim 35.
Nevertheless, Azad further teaches crosslinking agents may comprise polyethylene glycol monoallyl ether acrylate [Paragraph 0059], corresponding to the PEG polymer chain of Claim 35.
Azad offers the motivation that said process for making a particulate superabsorbent polymer results in a material with fast water absorption [Claim 1].
Qiang, Xu 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, particles 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 in order to obtain a material with fast water absorption, 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.
Claims 36, and 39-43 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 Azad et al., (EP 2930191 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Azad”), and Xu et al. (US2019000077 (A1); hereafter as “Xu”) and in further view of Nguyen et al., (WO 2019/153081 A1; hereafter as “Nguyen”).
Qiang, Azad, and Xu teach the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Qiang further 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; wherein the nanoparticles comprise the at least one active substance in an amount of 0.01-50% by weight of Claim 42; and wherein the polymer matrix based superabsorbent material further comprises a fertilizer of Claim 43.
Nevertheless, Nguyen teaches fertilizer granules comprising water-swellable polymeric nanoparticles [Claim 1; ¶ 0019, 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
fertilizers [Table on Pages 57-59; Examples 10-40], corresponding to the fertilizer of Claim 43.
Nguyen offers the motivation that nanoparticles that can produce smart release fertilizer granules that can be controlled according to the needs of the plants to be fertilized [Abstract].
Qiang, Xu, Azad, and Nguyen are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of preparing polymers comprising hydrophilic monomers, particles 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 particle size range, fertilizer, nitrification and urease inhibitors of Nguyen with the nanocomposite hydrogel of Qiang, Xu and Azad, the motivation being to produce smart release fertilizer granules, 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 Azad et al., (EP 2930191 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Azad”), and Xu et al. (US2019000077 (A1); hereafter as “Xu”) and in further view of Fossum et al., (WO2005/014065A1; hereafter as “Fossum”).
Qiang, Xu, and Azad teach the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Qiang, Xu and Azad 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 halloysites [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, Xu, Azad 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 particles.
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, Xu and Azad, 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 Azad et al., (EP 2930191 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Azad”), and Xu et al. (US2019000077 (A1); hereafter as “Xu”), and in further view of Takuya et al., (JP 2018/168126 A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takuya”).
Qiang, Xu, and Azad 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 , Xu, and Azad 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, Xu, Azad, 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 particles.
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, Xu, and Azad, 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 Azad et al., (EP 2930191 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 08/29/2022; hereafter as “Azad”) and Xu et al. (US2019000077 (A1); hereafter as “Xu”), 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, Xu and Azad teach the superabsorbent material comprising a monomer, crosslinker and nanoparticles of Claim 32 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Qiang, Xu and Azad 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, Xu, Azad 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, particles 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 method of Alam to produce the nanocomposite hydrogel of Qiang, Xu and Azad, 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 file 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) Qiang only teaches AAm and AMPS, but not acrylic acid, and (2) the combination of Qiang and Nguyen does not teach the claimed amount ratios. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above, wherein Xu is now relied upon to teach the claimed ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide, and Qiang is relied upon to teach the claimed ratio of acrylamide to 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 no longer relevant.
Applicant argues (3) Nguyen does not cure the deficiency of Qiang because Nguyen teaches acrylic acid among a list of other repeat units. However, Nguyen is no longer relied upon to teach the acrylic acid, Xu is. Thus, Applicant’s argument is no longer relevant.
Applicant argues (4) the Examiner has not articulated a clear rationale for combining the cited references to arrive at the claimed three-monomer material having the claimed ternary molar ratio. However, Xu teaches that the polymer particles with a 1:3 molar ratio of acrylic acid to acrylamide may comprise pesticides to prevent undesired insect or mite attacks [¶ 0001]. This would motivate one of ordinary skill to use the molar ratio taught by Xu to modify the nanoparticle reinforced swollen hydrogel material of Qiang, Xu, and Azad. Furthermore, Qiang teaches 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] which would motivate one of ordinary skill to use the PAMPS of Qiang with the fertilizer granules of Nguyen. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (5) the claimed invention provides unexpected advantageous properties not possessed by any of the cited references. However, as shown in the disclosure above, Qiang in view of Xu and Azad and Nguyen in view of Qiang, and Xu 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 Xu and Azad and Nguyen in view of Qiang, and Xu to possess the same advantageous properties. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would expect acrylic acid, acrylamide, or AMPS to each produce hydrogels with notable swelling properties. The instant Specification even calls hydrogels “superabsorbent polymers (SAP)” [Page 17, ¶ 3]. It stands to reason that combinations of acrylic acid, acrylamide, and/or AMPS would also each produce notable swelling properties. It would be unexpected to add positive numbers and to arrive at a sum that is a negative value; however, adding positive numbers would expectedly result in a positive value. In this case, the claimed material combines hydrophilic polymers, so the end results would also be expectedly hydrophilic – which the claimed material is.
To show the claimed invention produced unexpectedly improved swelling, Applicants must at least 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. Furthermore, data demonstrating unexpected results must be shown in comparison to the closest prior art, which the Applicant states on Page 11 of 15 of the Remarks submitted on 07/06/2026, is Qiang. Qiang teaches AMPS and acrylamide, and yet, the data provided in the Affidavit submitted on 12/23/2025 compares examples with and without AMPS. It is unclear why the exemplary example is compared to an example without AMPS. See MPEP 716.02. Furthermore, the instant claims have a range of 1:4:1 to 1:0.5:1 but only provide one example having 3.15 g acrylic acid, 8.02 g acrylamide, and 1 g AMPS, which is equivalent to a molar ratio of 1:3.5:0.125 which falls outside of the claimed range. Thus, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed range, and it is unclear how Example 1 demonstrates unexpected results of the instantly claimed invention. Furthermore, Example 1 does not disclose the nanoparticle size - data demonstrating unexpecting results with the claimed nanoparticle size is lacking. Regardless of the nanoparticle size, a singular example is not sufficient demonstrate unexpected results for the entire broadly claimed range of 0.1-500 nm. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Remarks and the Declaration filed on 07/06/2026 that (6) Rodof et al. demonstrates that the claimed invention has the combination of very high swelling or absorption, long-water release duration, and improved mechanical strength, rather than improving one property at the expense of the others. However, Rodof et al. compares SAP composites (such as acrylic acid, AAm, AMPS, and VTMS composites, which correspond to the claimed acrylic acid, AAm, AMPS, and VTMS of Claim 32) with and without zinc sulfate and calcium nitrate. As noted in ¶ 11 of the Declaration, Rodop et al. demonstrates that SAP composites with the zinc sulfate and calcium nitrate, which are not claimed elements, have higher absorption. The polymer of Rodof also requires halloysite nanotubes which the instant Claim 32 does not require. It is unclear how Rodop et al. is relevant to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention demonstrates unexpected results. Rather, Rodop et al. seems to imply that the claimed invention does not have remarkable results, much less unexpected results. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Declaration filed on 07/06/2026 that (7) the Nanotern Agriculture Technical Product File identifies Nanotern as a superabsorbent polymer product. However, it is unclear how the data shown in the figure on Page 4 of 5 on the Declaration is relevant to the claimed invention because the experimental context in which the data was collected is lacking. Context, such as the method of making the Nanotern examples, the types and amounts of each monomer, what the graph is showing, etc., would be helpful in interpreting the provided data. Furthermore, the data points on the graph are indifferentiable, making interpretation of the graph difficult. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie et al. (Utilization of Wheat Straw for the Preparation of Coated Controlled Release Fertilizer with the Function of Water Retention, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 6921−6928) teaches superabsorbent hydrogel composite comprising acrylic acid, 2-acryloylamino-2-methyl-1-propanesulfonic acid, and N-hydroxymethyl acrylamide was used to coat fertilizer granules to control the release of the fertilizer [Abstract].
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).
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
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights