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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “finely” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised what constitutes “finely cutting” or “finely cut” and what would infringe on claim 1 other than the range 0.5mm to 4mm as supported in claim 2.
Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1 and therefore are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Chemical Formula” in Line 3 should be “Chemical Formula 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaki et al (JP-379210-B2 where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Examiner) and in further view of Weismantel (US 2008/0214749 submitted in the IDS filed ).
Miyaki teaches a method of making a water-absorbable resin, the method comprising:
polymerizing ethylenically unsaturated monomer in an aqueous solution the presence of a crosslinking agent, the neutralization rate of the monomer is in the range of 50 mol% to 99 mol%;
a polymer initiator is used at the start of polymerization;
the hydrogel is mixed with a surfactant before crushing to form a hydrogel disintegrated body; and
drying the hydrogel disintegrating body and pulverizing to obtain a water absorbent resin (see [0018], [0041-0042], and [0089-0090).
Miyaki further teaches a method using fatty acid salts (see [0065]). Since fatty acid salts are carboxylic salts, Miyaki therefore teaches a method comprising mixing carboxylic salt with the hydrogel prior to cutting.
Miyaki does not teach drying the mixture while alternatively introducing up-flow of 120°C to 210°C and down-flow of 120°C to 210°C to the mixture to form a base resin powder, wherein a total introduction time of the down-flow is longer than a total introduction time of the up-flow.
Weismantel teaches a process for producing water-absorbing polymer comprising:
polymerizing a monomer solution, comprising at least one ethylenically unsaturated acid-functional monomer and at least one crosslinker to form a hydrogel (see [0064-0070]); the acid groups of the hydrogels obtained have been partially neutralized where neutralization has been obtained by admixing neutralizing agent as an aqueous solution before polymerization by adding a portion of the neutralizing agent to the monomer solution (see [0091-0093]);
drying the resulting hydrogel by means of a heated gas stream by: effecting the drying in two or more temperature zones, and/or
the gas stream is flowed against the hydrogel upwardly in the downstream sector of the belt dryer, the direction of the flow being reversed at a water content of 15% to 45% by weight for the hydrogel; and/or
the hydrogel layer is flowed against in a belt dryer upwardly to some extant at least, the gas velocity being 5% to 30% of the gas velocity required to life the hydrogel off the belt.
Weismantel also discloses an example where upward drying lasts 11.8 minutes and downward drying lasts 25.2 minutes and where the upwardly directed airstream has a temperature of 165-180°C and the downwardly directed airstream has a temperature of 165-175°C (see Examples 1-4). Weismantel discloses that drying in his invention avoids partly overdried particles which are detrimental to the subsequent grinding and sieving (see [0006-0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as disclosed by Miyaki where drying comprises alternately introducing up-flow of 165-180°C and down-flow of 165-175°C to form the base resin powder wherein the total introduction time of the down flow is longer than the up-flow as taught by Weismantel to prevent overdrying parts of the hydrogel as taught by Weismantel.
Regarding claim 2, Miyaki disclose a method where the hydrogel crushed body has average particle diameter of 1,800 µm (1.8 mm) (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Miyaki discloses the method where the addition amount of the surfactant is within the range of 0.001 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the hydrogel crosslinked polymer (i.e., 10 ppmw to 100,000 ppmw) (see [0070]).
Regarding claim 10, Weismantel discloses a method where the upflow time is 18% (see Example 6).
Regarding claim 11, as applied above, Weismantel teaches a belt dryer where the gas velocity is less than the gas velocity required to lift the hydrogel. Weismantel therefore teaches fixed-type dryer since the hydrogel stays stationary on the belt.
Regarding claim 12, Miyaki discloses where the crushed hydrogel is classified by a screen having a plurality of holes (see [0077-0078]) and where the diameter is 5 mm (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 14, Weismantel teaches a method where the water content of the dried polymer is most preferably up to 8% by weight (see [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Miyaki and Weismantel where the water content after drying is in any range overlapping with Miyaki and Weismantel including the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Weismantel teaches a method comprising post crosslinking comprising spraying with a surface postcrosslinker and drying thermally (see [0070]). Drying thermally reads on heat treating.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaki and Weismantel as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Booth et al (WO-97/38740 submitted in the IDS filed 1/11/2023).
As applied to claim 1, Miyaki and Weismantel teach a method for preparing producing water-absorbing polymer resin comprising steps for conducting crosslinking polymerization to form a hydrogel polymer, mixing carboxylic acid-based additive with the hydrogel polymer and finely cutting to prepare a mixture comprising finely cut hydrogel; drying the mixture with alternately introduced up-flow and downflow to form base resin powder; and wherein the total introduction of the downflow is longer than the total introduction time of the upflow.
Regarding claim 3, Miyaki does not disclose a carboxylic acid additive selected from the group consisting of carboxylic acid represented by Chemical Formula 1 and salts thereof.
Booth teaches a compressed absorbent aggregate comprising a superabsorbent crosslinked sodium polyacrylate polymer. Booth discloses a method wherein lubricants are used to prevent adherence of the aggregates to punch faces and dies used during tablet compression and where suitable lubricants include sodium stearyl fumarate (see Page 3, Ln 29 to Page 4, Ln 7 and Example 8). Sodium stearyl fumarate reads on a carboxylic acid salt of chemical formula 1 where A is C18 alkyl, B1 is -OCO- and B2 is -CH=CH-. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Miyaki and Weismantel where the fatty acid salt surfactant used to reduce adhesion of particles during cutting comprises sodium stearyl fumarate as taught by Booth since it prevents adhesion of superabsorbent sodium polyacrylate particles.
Regarding claim 4, as applied above Booth discloses sodium stearyl fumarate which reads on where A is -C18H37.
Regarding claim 5, as applied above Booth discloses sodium stearyl fumarate which reads on where B1 is *-O-C-O-*.
Regarding claim 6, as applied above Booth discloses sodium stearyl fumarate where B2 is HC=CH.
Regarding claim 7, as applied above Booth discloses sodium stearyl fumarate which is an alkali metal salt.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaki and Weismantel as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Braig et al (US 8,242,191).
As applied to claim 1, Miyaki and Weismantel teach a method for preparing producing water-absorbing polymer resin comprising steps for conducting crosslinking polymerization to form a hydrogel polymer, mixing carboxylic acid-based additive with the hydrogel polymer and finely cutting to prepare a mixture comprising finely cut hydrogel; drying the mixture with alternately introduced up-flow and downflow to form base resin powder; and wherein the total introduction of the downflow is longer than the total introduction time of the upflow.
Regarding claim 15, Miyaki discloses a method comprising pulverizing (grinding) the dried crushed hydrogel (the base resin powder) (see Examples). Miyaki and Weismantel do not disclose a method comprising classifying the base resin powder after grinding.
Braig discloses a method for producing water-absorbing particles based on ethylenically unsaturated monomers bearing acid groups, wherein the acid groups have been neutralized, the method comprising polymerizing in the presence of at least one crosslinker, and at least one initiator; comminuting the polymer gel; drying the polymer gel, then grinding and classifying the dried polymer gel to remove excessively small and large particles so that they can be recycled into the process (see Col 3, Line 31 to 38 and Col 6, Ln 13 to Col 7, Ln 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Miyaki and Weismantel the dried hydrogel material is classified after grinding as taught by Braig so that excessively small and large particles can be recycled to the process.
Regarding claim 16, Braig disclose a method where the polymer particles are surface postcrosslinked with a surface postcrosslinker and dried by heating (see Col 7, Ln 39 to Col 9, Ln 4).
Regarding claim 17, Braig discloses a method that produces a centrifuge retention capacity (CRC) as determined by EDANA test method No. WSP 241.2 of at least 26 g/g (see Col 9, Ln 64 to Col 10, Ln 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Miyaki, Weismantel, Braig and produce a water-absorbing polymer with CRC in any overlapping range with at least 26 g/g including the claimed range.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaki and Weismantel or Miyaki, Weismantel and Braig as applied to claim 16 (which depends on claim 1 or 15) and in further view of Nam et al (KR-20180067940 which has a publication date of 6/21/2018 where US equivalent US-2020/00010624 is relied upon for citations).
As applied to claim 16, Miyaki and Weismantel or Miyaki, Weismantel and Braig teach a method for preparing producing water-absorbing polymer resin comprising steps for conducting crosslinking polymerization to form a hydrogel polymer, mixing carboxylic acid-based additive with the hydrogel polymer and finely cutting to prepare a mixture comprising finely cut hydrogel; drying the mixture with alternately introduced up-flow and downflow to form base resin powder; and wherein the total introduction of the downflow is longer than the total introduction time of the upflow; and wherein the base resin powder is heat treated to surface crosslink, thus preparing superabsorbent polymer.
Regarding claim 15, Miyaki and Weismantel do not teach an absorbency under 0.3 psi pressure according to EDANA method WSP 242.3 of 24 g/g or more.
Nam discloses a method for preparing a super absorbent polymer having excellent performance comprising crosslinking a water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer in the presence of an internal crosslinking agent to form a hydrogel polymer containing a first cross-linked polymer, drying, pulverizing, and classifying the hydrogel polymer to form a base polymer powder; and heat-treating and surface-crosslinking the base polymer (see Abstract and [0039-0044]). Nam discloses a method that produces a super absorbent polymer where AUP under a 0.3 psi in accordance with EDANA 242.3 is 25 or greater (see [0036] and [0122-0123]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Miyaki and Weismantel or Miyaki, Weismantel and Braig where the method produces absorbency under 0.3 psi pressure according to EDANA method WSP 242.3 of 24 g/g or more as taught by Nam so that it has excellent performance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,294 in view of Weismantel, Miyaki, Braig, and/or Nam cited above.
Regarding claim 1, The ‘294 patent claims a method of preparing a super absorbent polymer comprising forming a hydrogel by crosslinking a water-soluble ethylene-based unsaturated monomer having at least partially neutralized acidic groups in the presence of an internal crosslinking agent and a polymerization initiator; mixing the hydrogel polymer with a carboxylic acid-based additive, followed by pulverization to prepare a pulverized product containing hydrous super adsorbent polymer particles and the additive; and drying the pulverized product.
The ‘294 patent differs where it does not claim drying the mixture while alternatively introducing up-flow of 120°C to 210°C and down-flow of 120°C to 210°C to the mixture to form a base resin powder, wherein a total introduction time of the down-flow is longer than a total introduction time of the up-flow.
However, as applied above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as claimed by the ‘294 patent where drying comprises alternately introducing up-flow of 165-180°C and down-flow of 165-175°C to form the base resin powder wherein the total introduction time of the down flow is longer than the up-flow as taught by Weismantel to prevent overdrying parts of the hydrogel as taught by Weismantel.
Regarding claim 2, Miyaki disclose a method where the hydrogel crushed body has average particle diameter of 1,800 µm (1.8 mm) (see [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as suggested by claim 1 of the ‘294 patent and Weismantel where the average particle diameter of the finely cut hydrogel polymer is 1.8 mm as taught by Miyaki since it is a suitable size to for drying.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the ‘294 patent claims the identical carboxylic acid according to Chemical Formula 1 and salts thereof.
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 of the ‘294 patent claims the identical A.
Regarding claim 5, claim 4 of the ‘294 patent claims the identical B1.
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 of the ‘294 patent claims the identical B2.
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 of the ‘294 patent claims the identical group of carboxylic additives.
Regarding claim 8, claim 7 of the ‘294 patent claims the same group of carboxylic acid additives represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 to 1-7.
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 of the ‘294 patent claims 0.01 to 1 ppw based on 100 ppw of the hydrogel (i.e., 100 to 1000 ppmw).
Regarding claim 10, Weismantel discloses a method where the upflow time is 18% (see Example 6).
Regarding claim 11, as applied above, Weismantel teaches a belt dryer where the gas velocity is less than the gas velocity required to lift the hydrogel. Weismantel therefore teaches fixed-type dryer since the hydrogel stays stationary on the belt.
Regarding claim 12, Miyaki discloses where the crushed hydrogel is classified by a screen having a plurality of holes (see [0077-0078]) and where the diameter is 5 mm (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 14, Weismantel teaches a method where the water content of the dried polymer is most preferably up to 8% by weight (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, as applied above Braig discloses a method for producing water-absorbing particles comprising grinding and classifying the dried polymer gel to remove excessively small and large particles so that they can be recycled into the process (see Col 3, Line 31 to 38 and Col 6, Ln 13 to Col 7, Ln 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 of the ‘294 patent and Weismantel the dried hydrogel material is classified after grinding as taught by Braig so that excessively small and large particles can be recycled to the process.
Regarding claim 16, Braig disclose a method where the polymer particles are surface postcrosslinked with a surface postcrosslinker and dried by heating (see Col 7, Ln 39 to Col 9, Ln 4). Weismantel also teaches a method comprising post crosslinking comprising spraying with a surface postcrosslinker and drying thermally (see [0070]). Drying thermally reads on heat treating.
Regarding claim 17, Braig discloses a method that produces a centrifuge retention capacity (CRC) as determined by EDANA test method No. WSP 241.2 of at least 26 g/g (see Col 9, Ln 64 to Col 10, Ln 1).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method producing absorbency under 0.3 psi pressure according to EDANA method WSP 242.3 of 24 g/g or more as taught by Nam so that it has excellent performance.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,956 in view of Weismantel, Miyaki, Braig, and/or Nam cited above.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of the ‘956 patent claims a method of preparing a super absorbent polymer comprising forming a hydrogel by crosslinking a water-soluble ethylene-based unsaturated monomer having at least partially neutralized acidic groups in the presence of an internal crosslinking agent and a polymerization initiator; mixing the hydrogel polymer with a carboxylic acid-based additive, followed by pulverization to prepare a pulverized product containing hydrous super adsorbent polymer particles and the additive; and drying the pulverized product.
The ‘956 patent differs where it does not claim drying the mixture while alternatively introducing up-flow of 120°C to 210°C and down-flow of 120°C to 210°C to the mixture to form a base resin powder, wherein a total introduction time of the down-flow is longer than a total introduction time of the up-flow.
However, as applied above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as claimed by the ‘956 patent where drying comprises alternately introducing up-flow of 165-180°C and down-flow of 165-175°C to form the base resin powder wherein the total introduction time of the down flow is longer than the up-flow as taught by Weismantel to prevent overdrying parts of the hydrogel as taught by Weismantel.
Regarding claim 2, Miyaki disclose a method where the hydrogel crushed body has average particle diameter of 1,800 µm (1.8 mm) (see [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as suggested by claim 1 of the ‘956 patent and Weismantel where the average particle diameter of the finely cut hydrogel polymer is 1.8 mm as taught by Miyaki since it is a suitable size to for drying.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the ‘956 patent claims the identical carboxylic acid according to Chemical Formula 1 and salts thereof.
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 of the ‘956 patent claims the identical A.
Regarding claim 5, claim 4 of the ‘956 patent claims the identical B1.
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 of the ‘956 patent claims the identical B2.
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 of the ‘956 patent claims the identical group of carboxylic additives.
Regarding claim 8, claim 7 of the ‘956 patent claims the same group of carboxylic acid additives represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 to 1-7.
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 of the ‘956 patent claims 0.01 to 1 ppw based on 100 ppw of the hydrogel (i.e., 100 to 1000 ppmw).
Regarding claim 10, Weismantel discloses a method where the upflow time is 18% (see Example 6).
Regarding claim 11, as applied above, Weismantel teaches a belt dryer where the gas velocity is less than the gas velocity required to lift the hydrogel. Weismantel therefore teaches fixed-type dryer since the hydrogel stays stationary on the belt.
Regarding claim 12, Miyaki discloses where the crushed hydrogel is classified by a screen having a plurality of holes (see [0077-0078]) and where the diameter is 5 mm (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 14, Weismantel teaches a method where the water content of the dried polymer is most preferably up to 8% by weight (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, as applied above Braig discloses a method for producing water-absorbing particles comprising grinding and classifying the dried polymer gel to remove excessively small and large particles so that they can be recycled into the process (see Col 3, Line 31 to 38 and Col 6, Ln 13 to Col 7, Ln 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 of the ‘956 patent and Weismantel the dried hydrogel material is classified after grinding as taught by Braig so that excessively small and large particles can be recycled to the process.
Regarding claim 16, Braig disclose a method where the polymer particles are surface postcrosslinked with a surface postcrosslinker and dried by heating (see Col 7, Ln 39 to Col 9, Ln 4). Weismantel also teaches a method comprising post crosslinking comprising spraying with a surface postcrosslinker and drying thermally (see [0070]). Drying thermally reads on heat treating.
Regarding claim 17, Braig discloses a method that produces a centrifuge retention capacity (CRC) as determined by EDANA test method No. WSP 241.2 of at least 26 g/g (see Col 9, Ln 64 to Col 10, Ln 1).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method producing absorbency under 0.3 psi pressure according to EDANA method WSP 242.3 of 24 g/g or more as taught by Nam so that it has excellent performance.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-11 of copending Application No. 17/919,273 in view of Weismantel, Miyaki, Braig, and/or Nam cited above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of the ‘273 Application claims a method of preparing a super absorbent polymer comprising forming a hydrogel by crosslinking a water-soluble ethylene-based unsaturated monomer having at least partially neutralized acidic groups in the presence of an internal crosslinking agent and a polymerization initiator; mixing the hydrogel polymer with a carboxylic acid-based additive, followed by pulverization to prepare a pulverized product containing hydrous super adsorbent polymer particles and the additive; and drying the pulverized product.
The ‘273 Application differs where it does not claim drying the mixture while alternatively introducing up-flow of 120°C to 210°C and down-flow of 120°C to 210°C to the mixture to form a base resin powder, wherein a total introduction time of the down-flow is longer than a total introduction time of the up-flow.
However, as applied above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as claimed by the ‘273 Application where drying comprises alternately introducing up-flow of 165-180°C and down-flow of 165-175°C to form the base resin powder wherein the total introduction time of the down flow is longer than the up-flow as taught by Weismantel to prevent overdrying parts of the hydrogel as taught by Weismantel.
Regarding claim 2, Miyaki disclose a method where the hydrogel crushed body has average particle diameter of 1,800 µm (1.8 mm) (see [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as suggested by claim 1 of ‘273 Application and Weismantel where the average particle diameter of the finely cut hydrogel polymer is 1.8 mm as taught by Miyaki since it is a suitable size to for drying.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the ‘273 Application claims the identical carboxylic acid according to Chemical Formula 1 and salts thereof.
Regarding claim 4, claim 6 of the ‘273 Application claims the identical A.
Regarding claim 5, claim 7 of the ‘273 Application claims the identical B1.
Regarding claim 6, claim 8 of the ‘273 Application claims the identical B2.
Regarding claim 7, claim 9 of the ‘273 Application claims the identical group of carboxylic additives.
Regarding claim 8, claim 10 of the ‘273 Application claims the same group of carboxylic acid additives represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 to 1-7.
Regarding claim 9, claim 11 of the ‘273 Application claims 0.01 to 1 ppw based on 100 ppw of the hydrogel (i.e., 100 to 1000 ppmw).
Regarding claim 10, Weismantel discloses a method where the upflow time is 18% (see Example 6).
Regarding claim 11, as applied above, Weismantel teaches a belt dryer where the gas velocity is less than the gas velocity required to lift the hydrogel. Weismantel therefore teaches fixed-type dryer since the hydrogel stays stationary on the belt.
Regarding claim 12, Miyaki discloses where the crushed hydrogel is classified by a screen having a plurality of holes (see [0077-0078]) and where the diameter is 5 mm (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 14, Weismantel teaches a method where the water content of the dried polymer is most preferably up to 8% by weight (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, as applied above Braig discloses a method for producing water-absorbing particles comprising grinding and classifying the dried polymer gel to remove excessively small and large particles so that they can be recycled into the process (see Col 3, Line 31 to 38 and Col 6, Ln 13 to Col 7, Ln 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 of the ‘273 Application and Weismantel the dried hydrogel material is classified after grinding as taught by Braig so that excessively small and large particles can be recycled to the process.
Regarding claim 16, Braig disclose a method where the polymer particles are surface postcrosslinked with a surface postcrosslinker and dried by heating (see Col 7, Ln 39 to Col 9, Ln 4). Weismantel also teaches a method comprising post crosslinking comprising spraying with a surface postcrosslinker and drying thermally (see [0070]). Drying thermally reads on heat treating.
Regarding claim 17, Braig discloses a method that produces a centrifuge retention capacity (CRC) as determined by EDANA test method No. WSP 241.2 of at least 26 g/g (see Col 9, Ln 64 to Col 10, Ln 1).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method producing absorbency under 0.3 psi pressure according to EDANA method WSP 242.3 of 24 g/g or more as taught by Nam so that it has excellent performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738