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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 20200035860 A, hereinafter referring to US 2020/0239666 A1 as the English language equivalent) in view of Kohler (US 6,803,392 B1) and further in view of Kim-909 (KR 20200064909A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a method of preparing a super-absorbent polymer sheet (Abstract), comprising:
Preparing a monomer composition by mixing the following:
an acrylic acid-based monomer having acidic groups, of which at least a part is neutralized,
a polyol including inter alia, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol ([0047]), which read on the claimed “moisturizing agent” because the instant Specification states that polyhydric alcohols including ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are suitable moisturizing agents (c.f. instant Specification p. 12, first and second paragraphs),
an internal crosslinking agent in addition to said polyol ([0049])
and a polymerization initiator ([0011]).
Water is also included ([0012]), which reads on the claimed “solvent.”
The monomer composition may further include a thickener ([0076]).
Yoon teaches the formation of a film ([0028]) and the drying of said film ([0084]), but differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the formation of said film through casting, masking, and irradiating the composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Kohler teaches photoinitiator suspensions suitable for aqueous formulations (Abstract), such as those involving acrylic acid and acrylic acid salt monomers which form super-absorbent polymers (col. 20, lines 43-45). Kohler exemplifies the production of films of this kind involving the application of inventive formulations to coated panels (which reads on the claimed “casting the monomer composition on a substrate,” col. 25, lines 32-40), and curing with UV light. Kohler further teaches the use of a photomask in the film formation (col. 21, lines 31-38), and specifically points out that the irradiation occurs onto the surface of the photomask, which would produce a patterned-crosslinked product as claimed. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to coat and cure the formulation utilizing a casting, masking, and irradiation-type process in place of the irradiation and molding process taught by Yoon ([0079] and [0084]), as Kohler teaches this as a suitable method for forming a cured coating of super-absorbent, photoinitiated formulations.
Yoon further differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the use of a cellulose-based thickener. However, Kohler also teaches the incorporation of a thickener, and teaches that cellulose-based thickeners are suitable (col. 7, lines 27-29). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a cellulose-based thickener within the formulation of Yoon as taught by Kohler, as Kohler recognizes them as suitable thickeners for super-absorbent, photoinitiated formulations. Yoon as modified by Kohler further differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the photomask having the claimed area of openings.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim-909 teaches an adhesive composition ([0001]) comprising a photocurable resin and a photoinitiator ([0015]). The photocurable resin may be an acrylic resin ([0058]), and the composition may be cured using a photomask ([0107]).
Kim-909 teaches that the cured film has a surface in which 1-50% of the total surface area is cured ([0024]). The cured areas are those that have been exposed to actinic radiation due to not being covered by the photomask, and therefore the total area of openings within the photomask also ranges from 1-50% (the mask and the inventive film have the same dimensions, so these percentages comport with one another; c.f. Kim-909 [0140], where both the film and photomask are cut to dimensions of 100mm x 100 mm). This range overlaps the claimed range of “30 to 70%” required by claim 1, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the amended limitation requiring the claimed “initial absorption rate” characteristic, Yoon as modified by Kohler and as applied above results in a composition that is structurally identical to the claimed “super absorbent polymer film,” containing all of the same components, and comprising a film formed using a substantially identical process, with a patterned photomask (c.f. Kohler col. 21, lines 31-38). Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed “initial absorption rate” characteristic will therefore necessarily be present in Yoon as modified by Kohler, as applied above.
Regarding claim 3, Kim-909 specifies that the photomask is formed of a material which does not transmit energy rays so that the pattern of the photomask may be selectively photo-cured onto the curable substrate ([0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize an opaque photomask within the curing process of Yoon as modified by Kohler for the purpose of selectively patterning the photomask pattern onto the curable composition. The opaque photomask, which does not transmit energy rays, therefore has a transmittance of 0%, which falls within the claimed range of “70% or less,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 4-5, Kim-909 exemplifies the usage of a photomask having a hole of 10mm x 10 mm in the center ([0154]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the photomask of Kim-909 within the curing process of Yoon as modified by Kohler, as Kim-909 teaches such a photomask as being suitable for forming selectively-crosslinked photocurable compositions. Said photomask has a circular shape with a diameter of 10 mm, which falls within the claimed range of “2 to 50 mm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Furthermore, a circular hole having a diameter of 10 mm also has an area of approximately 78.5 mm2, which falls within the claimed range of “1 to 2500 mm2,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, Yoon teaches that the polyol (which reads on the claimed “moisturizing agent”) may include, inter alia, glycerol (glycerin), ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and 1,4 butanediol (butylene glycol) ([0047]), all of which read on the claimed list.
Regarding claim 9, Yoon teaches that the polyol (which reads on the claimed “moisturizing agent”) is included in amounts ranging from 10 to 80 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the acrylic acid-based monomer ([0048]), which overlaps the claimed range of “5 to 70 parts by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 10-13, Yoon as modified by Kohler is silent with regard to the claimed “viscosity,” regions of crosslinking, “regular pattern” of crosslinking, and “centrifugal retention capacity.” Nevertheless, Yoon as modified by Kohler and as applied above results in a composition that is structurally identical to the claimed “super absorbent polymer film,” containing all of the same components, and comprising a film formed using a substantially identical process, with a patterned photomask (c.f. Kohler col. 21, lines 31-38). Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed “viscosity,” regions of crosslinking, “regular pattern” of crosslinking, and “centrifugal retention capacity” characteristics will therefore necessarily be present in Yoon as modified by Kohler, as applied above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 20200035860 A, hereinafter referring to US 2020/0239666 A1 as the English language equivalent) in view of Kohler (US 6,803,392 B1) and further in view of Kim-603 (US 2019/0134603 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon as modified by Kohler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Yoon as modified teaches the incorporation of cellulose-based thickeners, but differs from claim 6 because it is silent with regard to the particularly claimed cellulose-based thickeners.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim-603 teaches a superabsorbent polymer useful for hygiene products (abstract), and teaches the incorporation of a thickening agent including inter alia, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, hydroxyethylcellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, and hydroxyethylmethylcellulose ([0069]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the above-listed cellulose-based thickeners into the formulation of Yoon as modified by Kohler, as Kim-603 teaches them as suitable thickeners for superabsorbent polymers in hygiene-based applications.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 20200035860 A, hereinafter referring to US 2020/0239666 A1 as the English language equivalent) in view of Kohler (US 6,803,392 B1) and further in view of Handa (US 2014/0127510 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yoon as modified by Kohler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Yoon as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent with regard to the claimed range of the amount of cellulose-based thickener within the composition. Yoon does however teach the incorporation of the acrylic acid-based monomer in amounts ranging from 20 to 60% by weight of the composition ([0044]). This monomer is converted to polymer upon curing, and therefore the final composition contains 20-60% by weight of the super-absorbent polymer before drying.
In the same field of endeavor, Handa teaches a water-absorbent resin (Abstract) formed from acrylic acids/acrylic acid salts ([0047]), useful for hygienic products ([0172]), which may be suspended in an aqueous liquid containing a cellulose-based thickener ([0024]). Handa teaches the incorporation of between 0.05 and 20 parts by weight of thickener per 100 parts by weight of the water-absorbent resin ([0068]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the water-soluble thickener of Handa into the formulation of Yoon as modified by Kohler, as Handa recognizes this thickener and its amounts of incorporation as suitable for the formation of hygiene products including acrylic acid/ acrylic acid salt -based superabsorbent polymers.
The range of water-soluble thickener as taught by Handa equates to 0.01 – 12 parts of by weight of the thickener based on 100 parts by weight of the super-absorbent polymer within the formulation of Yoon. This range encompasses the claimed range of “0.01 to 5 parts by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of prior art document Kim-909 with prior art documents Yoon and Kohler because Yoon as modified by Kohler is directed towards a superabsorbent polymer film while Kim-909 is directed towards an adhesive composition. Applicant particularly states that “Kim-909 never teaches an acrylic acid monomer for the acrylic resin ([0062]-[0063]).” However, in paragraph [0063] Kim-909 specifically states “The monomer including the above crosslinkable functional group may include at least one of … ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids such as acrylic acid, methacrylic acid …” (lines 1 and 9-10 of paragraph [0063]). Kim-909 is therefore plainly directed towards photocurable compositions containing acrylic acid monomers.
Applicant further argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to utilize the surface area of the photomask of Kim-909 within the monomer composition of Yoon, as Kim-909 teaches a use thereof for purposes relating to adhesion interference between a substrate and a photocured region, which the Applicant states to have “nothing to do with the function of absorbent film.”
As an initial matter, the rejections above (and those of the previous Office Action) do not merely combine Yoon and Kim-909. Rather, Kim-909 is being further combined with the teachings of both Yoon and Kohler. Kohler is used to provide motivation for the addition of a photomask to the formulation of Yoon. As described above, Kohler teaches the suitability of a photomask for photocurable compositions, and specifically relates them to superabsorbent compositions (c.f. col. 22, lines 22-25 of Kohler).
As pointed out by the Applicant, Kim-909 mentions that the surface area of the photocured region has an impact on the adhesiveness of the coating with the underlying substrate ([0111]). However, this characteristic is plainly relevant to similar coatings which are disposed on different surfaces; Kohler refers to the production of coated substrates which would require sufficient adhesion between said coating and substrate (c.f. col. 21, lines 33-4 of Kohler), and Yoon states that the method of forming the super-absorbent sheet is not particularly limited, as long as it is a method generally used in the related art for the preparation of a superabsorbent polymer ([0080]). Therefore, the polymer sheet of Yoon may be reasonably produced by the method disclosed by Kohler.
Applicant contends that the prior art does not contemplate the feature of “initial absorption rate” described by the instant Application. However, the motivation or reason to combine the prior art references need not be the same as that of the Applicant’s. The reason to or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what is claimed, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV).
Applicant points to Reference Example 1 within the disclosure to argue that the claimed “initial absorption rate” value is not necessarily present in the prior art. However, this reference example merely illustrates the importance of a photomask within the claimed composition. Likewise, the combined teachings of the prior art documents disclose a composition which contains every feature of the claimed composition, including a photomask and including a total percentage area of openings which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, the claimed “initial absorption rate” characteristic will still be necessarily present within the combined prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762