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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/21/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (WO-2019117541), in view of Kobayashi et al. (WO-2011040472-A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10 and 16
Jung discloses a method of preparing a superabsorbent polymer (SAP) comprising:
Preparing a monomer composition containing acrylic acid having at least partially neutralized acidic groups and polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) as an internal crosslinking agent;
Preparing a hydrogel polymer by crosslinking the monomer in the presence of an aqueous dispersion (= colloidal aqueous solution in which hydrophobic silica particles are dispersed by sodium dodecylsulfate, SDS, i.e., ionic surfactant as the surfactant) and sodium bicarbonate (SBC) as the carbonate-based foaming agent;
Drying and pulverizing the hydrogel polymer; and
Crosslinking the surface of the base resin in the presence of ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether (EX-810) as the surface crosslinking agent;
Wherein the SAP has a vortex time of 34 seconds or less (Examples 1-5, Table 1, claims 1-20).
Although Jung does not disclose hydrophobic particles consisting of a metal salt of a C7 to C24 fatty acid, Jung does disclose hydrophobic particles. However, Kobayashi discloses similar methods to make SAPS and discloses that an aqueous dispersion of a metallic salt can be added simultaneously with a foaming agent and that the metal soap can be of a polyvalent metal salt of a fatty acid having preferably 12 to 20 carbon atoms ((B) Metal soap),and that using the 0.01 to 3 parts by weight of the soap that the moisture absorption capacity and/or rate is greatly improved (Production method g). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Jung by including a polyvalent metal salt of a C12 to C20 fatty acid, with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the expected benefit of increasing the absorption capacity and/or rate, as suggested by Kobayashi.
Jung discloses that the foaming or blowing agent is used in an amount of 0.01 to about 0.3 parts by weight (Detailed description of the invention). As the amount of soap from Kobayashi is 0.01 to 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts of the polymer, the ratio of foaming agent to soap overlaps the claimed range and the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claim 2
Kobayashi discloses the use of calcium stearate as the soap (Example 1).
Regarding claim 3
Kobayashi discloses that the soap has a D50 particle size of preferably more than 0.01 micron and less than 10 microns ((B) Metal soap).
Regarding claim 4
As the amount of soap in Kobayashi overlaps the claimed range, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claim 5
Kobayashi discloses using a non-ionic or an anionic surfactant (para 0216). Further it would be prima facie obvious to use both because combining two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Kerkhoven, 205 U.S.P.Q. 1069.
Regarding claim 8
Jung discloses that a foam stabilizer may be used, and that the stabilizer may be sodium dodecyl sulfate (i.e., alkyl sulfate based compound) (claim 13).
Regarding claim 9
Jung discloses using 0.035 g of sodium dodecyl sulfate per 100 grams of acrylic acid (Example 2). As the amount of carbonate of Jung is 0.01 to 0.33 parts by weight, the ratio of foaming agent to stabilizer overlaps the claimed range and the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claims 11 and 17
The EFFC, AUP and the CRC are properties of the composition, and since the references read on or make obvious the instant composition, the composition of the reference would also be expected to possess these properties. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 12
Jung discloses that the crosslinking agent may be an epoxy compound (Detailed Description of the Invention).
Regarding claim 13
Jung discloses that the acrylic acid may be about 20 to about 60 wt % of the monomer composition (Detailed Description of the Invention).
Regarding claims 14-15
Kobayashi discloses that 0.001 to 5 parts by weight of the soap in 3 to 25 parts water are added to the resin. As the soap would be alkaline, and the dispersion includes only the soap and water, it is expected that the pH will be above 7.
Further, it is noted that the hydrophobic particles can be more than 10 % of the aqueous dispersion, and as the range of the reference overlaps the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue unexpected results for the claimed range of foaming agent to hydrophobic particles. These arguments are not persuasive because: 1) the closest prior art has not been compared; 2) the results are not fully commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention; 3) comparative examples 1-3 do not include the hydrophobic particles, and example 4 uses less hydrophobic particles and no foam stabilizer, as such it cannot be determined that it is the ratio of foaming agent and hydrophobic particles causing the changes.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights