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 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN-108239215-A), in view of Zheng et al. (CN-105145566-A).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 13-16 and 19-21
Wang discloses a method for preparing an absorbent resin, an absorbent resin prepared from the preparation method, and an article (i.e., diaper, sanitary napkin) including the absorbent resin, the method comprising the steps of preparing and acryl-based absorbent resin by reacting acrylic acid, SF3 (a compound reading directly on Chemical Formula 1), and pentaerythritol triaryl ether (internal crosslinking agent); adding sodium hydroxide to the absorbent resin so as to neutralize same; pulverizing and classifying the neutralized/classified absorbent resin with a surface crosslinking agent (ethylene glycol diglycidal ether).
SF3 reads on the Chemical Formula 1 wherein R1 is a methyl group, R2 and R3 are hydrogen, L is an ethylene group (i.e., 2 carbons), R4 and R5 are methyl groups (i.e., 1 carbon), R6 is a dodecyl group (i.e., 12 carbons), and X is chlorine (claims 1, 6, 11-12 and 14-15; and paras 0029 and 0045-0048). Further this compound reads on Formula 1-1 where a is 5 and X is chlorine and it is expected to be antimicrobial, which is a property of the composition, and 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.
Although Wang does not disclose a compound where X= bromine, Wang does disclose the other limitations of the claim. However, Zheng discloses similar polymers, and teaches that a quaternary ammonium salt of methacrylic acid dimethyl aminoethyl easter and bromine has antibiotic properties (abstract), and discloses a nearly identical compound (see the product of Formula I) primarily differing from SF3 in that X = bromine and not chlorine. 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 Wang by substituting bromine for chlorine, with a reasonable expectation of success and the expected benefit of introducing antimicrobial properties to the polymer, as suggested by Zheng. It is noted that both dodecyl and tetradecyl read on an alkyl having 6 to 20 carbon atoms.
Regarding claims 6 and 17
Wang discloses 2880 g of acrylic acid with 14.4 g SF3 (i.e., 0.5 parts by weight relative to 100 parts acrylic acid) (Example 3).
Regarding claim 8
The CRC is a property of the polymer, and 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 9
The maximum strain and recovery rate are properties of the polymer, and 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 10
The gel strength is a property of the polymer, and 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 11
The permeability is a property of the polymer, and 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
As the superabsorbent polymer has both internal and surface cross-linking, in the broadest reasonable interpretation this would be a core shell structure.
Regarding claim 18
Wang discloses heating the polymer with the surface crosslinking agent at 150 C (Example 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that Wang does not disclose a compound where X = bromine. While this is true, it is not persuasive as the new reference of Zheng provides motivation for substituting chlorine with bromine, i.e., antimicrobial activity.
Applicants argue unexpected results in antimicrobial properties from the use of bromine. This is not persuasive as Zheng discloses quaternary ammonium with bromine has antimicrobial properties.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
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 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