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 on 12/03/2025 adding new claim 12 has been acknowledged. Currently, claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding “claim Interpretation” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims should not be interpretated as means-plus function claims since the pending claims do not use the word “means”.
In response it is respectfully pointed out o applicant that according to MPEP 2181(I), a claim should be interpretated according to 112(f) if it meets the following 3 prong analysis:
A. The claim limitation uses the phrase “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is generic placeholder. In this case, claim 8 clearly recites generic placeholder, “measurement data obtaining section” and “predicting section” and thus meets prong A.
B. The phrase “means” or the substitute term is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition word “for”(e.g., “means for”) or another linking word. In claim 8, the substitute term “measurement data section” is modified by functional language “which obtains ………” and “predicting section” is modified by functional language which inputs…….and outputs ……” meeting prong B.
C. The phrase “means” or the substitute term is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function. In claim 8 there are no such structure recited for the measurement data section and the predicting section to perform the recited functions and thus prong C is met.
Accordingly, the interpretation is proper and maintained since it meets the 3 prong analysis. It should be also be noted that 112(f) is not a rejection but rather an interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and not persuasive
Applicant’s argument: CN ‘524’s polymer (polypropylene) is hydrophobic and not a water-absorbent resin; therefore it would not have been obvious to apply CN ‘524’s method to water-absorbent resin powders.
Examiner’s response: CN 524’ teaches methods and data-processing approaches that are agnostic to polymer identity. It explains that near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectra contain information about CF, CH2, CH3 groups and that changes in chain/condensed structure affect spectral sites/strengths. It further teaches spectral processing (PMSC or second-derivative) and multivariate model building (PLS, BP-ANN) to relate spectra to a material property (isotactic index) (Paragraphs 1-5, pages 1-5). These teachings are method-focused rather than limited to a single polymeric chemistry.
The claimed invention is an application of known NIR + chemometrics techniques to predict properties of a different resin powder. It is well-settled in obviousness practice that applying a known analytical technique to a different but analogous material often is obvious if the technique is known to operate in that class of materials and no critical difference or teaching away is shown. See, e.g., In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (combining known elements according to known methods yields predictable results).
Applicant has not submitted evidence showing that applying the CN ‘524 approach to water-absorbent resins would fail or give unpredictable results, nor evidence of a structural or spectral reason why water-absorbent resins are outside the scope of routine application of NIR/chemometrics. In the absence of such evidence, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect that NIR spectra and chemometric modeling can be applied to other polymer powders to correlate spectral features to relevant physical properties.
Applicant’s argument: The Examiner provided no prior art evidence that the claimed application (to water-absorbent resins) is “known and actively used in the field.”
Examiner’s response: The rejection does not rely on a single prior-art reference that explicitly teaches CN ‘524’s exact method applied to water-absorbent resins. Instead, the rejection combines CN ‘524’s clear teaching of an NIR + chemometrics workflow for polymer powders with the routine capability and teaching in the art to apply NIR/chemometric predictive methods across polymer systems and manufacturing process control. CN ‘524 itself expressly frames chemometrics as “designing or selecting the best chemical measurement method by mathematics, statistics and computer science” and describes using processed spectral data (principal component scores, PLS, ANN) to predict material properties of unknown samples (CN ‘524 ¶¶ 1–5, pages 1–5). That general teaching supports the obviousness of applying the method to other resin powders. Further, For a 103 rejection based on obviousness, an explicit, single reference that discloses each claim limitation identically is not required so long as the combination of prior art and common sense would have motivated the skilled artisan to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination here is: teach NIR+chemometrics for polymer powders (CN ‘524) + routine practice of applying NIR/chemometrics across polymer/resin types to predict physical properties → yields claim scope (resin powder = water-absorbent resin or intermediate).
Applicant’s argument: The Examiner’s motivation to modify CN ‘524 (i.e., to “optimize for water absorption”) is improper because the polypropylene material of CN ‘524 is hydrophobic and would not be optimized for water absorption.
Examiner’s response: The asserted motivation in the Office Action is practical: controlling/predicting material properties during production is a ubiquitous industrial objective (to optimize target product characteristics). That motivation is generic (improve/optimize a property of interest) and is not limited to polypropylene. Using NIR plus chemometrics for in-line or at-line prediction and process control is a known and widespread objective in polymer production generally (CN ‘524 emphasizes the speed and suitability for process control versus solvent extraction methods). The mere difference in the specific property (isotactic index for polypropylene vs CRC, D50, SFC etc. for absorbent resin) does not rebut the obviousness of using the same measurement/modeling approach on a different resin to predict its relevant properties.
The Applicant has not shown that the measurement/modeling approach would be unsuitable, or that the application to superabsorbent resins would be unexpected. Accordingly the Examiner reasonably relied on the predictable use of NIR/chemometrics for process monitoring/prediction across resin types.
Applicant’s argument: Counterpart prosecution elsewhere and cited references fail to show such use; therefore the Examiner’s general assertion is unsupported.
Examiner’s response: Parallel prosecution results do not negate the teachings and methodologies in CN ‘524. The Examiner’s burden for a prima facie obviousness rejection is to show that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the cited prior art and common general knowledge. CN ‘524 provides the core technical teaching (NIR diffuse reflectance measurement, preprocessing, multivariate regression/ANN prediction). The bridging rationale to water-absorbent resins is ordinary-skill reasoning, not a factual assertion demanding separate documentary proof. In the absence of contrary evidence (for example, evidence of inoperability or a taught disadvantage), such reasoning is permissible. If Applicant has technical evidence showing inoperability, severe degradation of predictive accuracy, or teaching away specific to water-absorbent resins, that evidence should be submitted for consideration.
Applicant’s argument: Polypropylene spectra and water-absorbent resin spectra are “very different,” so it would not be obvious to apply CN ‘524’s methods.
Examiner’s response: Differences in spectral features across polymers do not render a broadly taught analytical method inapplicable or non-obvious to apply to a different polymer class. CN ‘524 recognizes that spectral features change with molecular structure and demonstrates how preprocessing and multivariate modeling can extract correlations between spectral data and a property (isotactic index). That same strategy—identify informative spectral regions, preprocess, use multivariate calibration or ANN to correlate spectra to the property of interest—is the standard chemometrics workflow and is applicable across materials. No evidence has been provided that water-absorbent resins cannot be modeled or predicted by these techniques.
Further, claim limitations that simply name a different desired prediction output (e.g., CRC, D50, SFC, gel D50) or identify a different resin type (water-absorbent resin powder or intermediate) are use-case or intended-use distinctions and do not establish a patentable structural or methodological difference when the underlying measurement and modeling steps are the same or obvious variants thereof. Recitation of intended use or predictive target values without more does not generally confer patentability (cf. In re Casey; In re Otto).
CN ‘524 explicitly teaches multiple preprocessing options and multiple model types (MLR, PLS, RPLS, LWR, BP-ANN) and further teaches using principal component or latent variable scores as inputs to ANN (CN ‘524 ¶¶ 3–5). Those teachings map directly to the claim language requiring use of near-infrared measurement data or processed data derived therefrom as inputs to a prediction model.
Further, as to claim 6, applicant cites the MPEP § 2115 note that “this line of cases is limited to claims directed to machinery which works upon an article or material in its intended use,” and argues that such authority therefore cannot be applied to a method claim. That narrow reading is not persuasive here for two related reasons: a) The operative legal principle relied upon in the rejection is broader than a narrow limitation to apparatus claims. The underlying principle of Casey and Otto is that recitation of a mere intended use or desired result cannot create patentability where the claimed structure or steps are otherwise conventional. The concern is the same whether the claim takes apparatus or method form: courts and the Office have repeatedly recognized that claims directed only to achieving a known result by known means are not patentable simply because a particular result is named. The functional/result-oriented limitation does not impart patentability unless it is tied to specific means or steps that are themselves novel and nonobvious. b) Even if Casey and Otto historically arose in contexts involving apparatus claims, the canonical rule they embody—intended use or result does not create patentability without a structural or procedural change—is routinely applied to method claims as well. Method claims that merely recite applying known steps to achieve a named result are treated similarly to apparatus claims that merely recite a material to be acted upon. The distinction Applicant attempts to draw (apparatus vs. method) therefore does not avoid the established principle that result-only limitations are insufficient absent added technical limitations. In short, the MPEP note does not provide an automatic shield from the Casey/Otto line of authority when a claim—apparatus or method—adds only a result or intended use without altering the taught method.
Therefore, the rejections are proper and thus maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “measurement data section” and “predicting section” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN1472524A (cited in the IDS) (hereinafter 524”).
As to claims 1 and 8, 524’ discloses a method and an apparatus for predicting a physical property of a resin powder, (method for determining an isotactic index (i.e., a physical property) polypropylene resin; characterized in that a representative polypropylene resin pellet sample or a powder sample is composed of a calibration (claim 1)) the resin powder being any one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder, said method comprising:
a near-infrared measurement data obtaining step of obtaining near-infrared measurement data which indicates a near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder (preprocessing the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the powder sample by second-order differential, and then performing regression analysis with corresponding isotactic index basic data by mathematical methods to establish a calibration model (paragraph 4 on page 2)); and
a predicting step of inputting, into a prediction model, at least one selected from the group consisting of the near-infrared measurement data and one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data, and outputting prediction information concerning the physical property of the resin powder. (the regression analysis adopts a multivariate correction method, which can be a BP artificial neural network (see paragraph 3 on page 4); the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectra of unknown samples are preprocessed, and the principal component scores calculated by partial least squares method are input into the established artificial neural network model to predict the properties of the unknown samples (see paragraph 5 on page 5).
524’ doesn’t explicitly disclose the resin powder being any one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder and another type of data input into the prediction model is one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data.
However, disclosing the prediction of the physical properties of polypropylene resin powder samples, applying this method to either absorbent resin powder or an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder are known and actively used in the field. This involves using various techniques, including machine learning and Raman spectroscopy, to model and control the properties of the resin during production.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resin powder being one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder since it is a routine application in the art and will yield predictable results. The rational being by predicting properties and controlling them during production, manufacturers can optimize the process for higher water absorption rates, improved damage resistance, and other desirable characteristics.
Still lacking the limitation such as, another type of data input into the prediction model is one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data.
However, 524’ does disclose that chemometrics is a method of designing or selecting the best chemical measurement method by means of mathematics, statistics and computer science. Further, predicting physical properties using one or more processed data generated from near-infrared measurement data is known as chemometrics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of 524’ by using one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data as input data to predict the physical property since it is common and known in the art and will achieve predictable results such as ease of operation and efficiency.
As to claim 2, 524’ further discloses forming a calibration set with representative polypropylene resin granular samples (equivalent to resin powder): preprocessing the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the powder sample (equivalent to a near-infrared measurement data obtaining step of obtaining near-infrared measurement data which indicates a near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder) by second-order differential, and then performing regression analysis with corresponding isotactic index basic data by mathematical methods to establish a calibration model (equivalent to data of a prediction model is (1) a combination of near-infrared measurement data and physical property information, the near-infrared measurement data containing near-infrared absorption spectra of a plurality of produced resin powders which have been previously produced and have each known physical property, the physical property information being on end products each of which is associated with the near-infrared measurement data) (see paragraph 4 on page 2); the regression analysis adopts a multivariate
correction method, which can be a BP artificial neural network (see paragraph 3 on page 4).
Further, it is a common approach in the art to use another set of near-infrared measurement data and the information corresponding to the intermediate product as the data combination for machine learning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use another set of near-infrared measurement data and the information corresponding to the intermediate product as the data combination for machine learning for advantages such as, enhanced predictive accuracy, improved process understanding and optimization.
As to claims 3-5, 524’ discloses (see paragraph 3 on page 4) that the regression analysis employs a multivariate calibration method, which can be multiple linear regression (MLR), partial least squares 15 (PLS), robust partial least squares (RPLS), locally weighted regression (LWR), or BP artificial neural network (ANN), with partial least squares (PLS), locally weighted regression (LWR), or BP artificial neural network (ANN) being preferred, and BP artificial neural network (ANN) being more preferred.
As to claim 6, wherein the prediction information includes at least any one of (1) a mass average particle diameter (gel D50) of a hydrogel which is the intermediate product, (2) an absorption capacity without load (CRC) of the resin powder, (3) an absorption capacity under load (AAP) of the resin powder, (4) a saline flow conductivity (SFC) of the resin powder, (5) a mass average particle diameter (D50) of the resin powder, and (6) an amount of a solid component contained in the resin powder or a solid fraction of the resin powder would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made. Selecting to find a specific information would amount to a recitation of the intended use of the patented invention, without resulting in any structural difference between the claimed invention and the structure disclosed by 524’, and therefore fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain prediction information that includes at least one of (1) a mass average particle diameter (gel D50) of a hydrogel which is the intermediate product, (2) an absorption capacity without load (CRC) of the resin powder, (3) an absorption capacity under load (AAP) of the resin powder, (4) a saline flow conductivity (SFC) of the resin powder, (5) a mass average particle diameter (D50) of the resin powder, and (6) an amount of a solid component contained in the resin powder or a solid fraction of the resin powder to obtain the desired information.
As to claim 11, regarding the technical solution “a step of calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light reflected by the resin powder”, 524’ discloses a method for determining the isotactic index of polypropylene resin (equivalent to a measuring method) and specifically discloses the following content (see paragraphs 4-5 on page 2 of the description): forming a calibration set with representative polypropylene resin granular samples (equivalent to resin powder), the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the polypropylene resin sample is used as the determination parameter (equivalent to irradiating the resin powder with near-infrared radiation), use the integrating sphere diffuse reflectance spectrum sampling accessory to measure the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum while the sample cup is rotating (equivalent to calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light reflected by the resin powder), the average spectral data of multiple parallel measurements should be taken as the sample data.
Further, measuring a near-infrared absorption spectrum of a resin powder, the near-infrared absorption spectrum being used in the method, the resin powder being either an absorbent resin powder or an intermediate product generated in the producing process of the absorbent resin powder is common and known in the art in predicting the physical properties of the absorbent resin powder.
Moreover, considering the teachings of 524’ and common knowledge, the prediction of the physical properties of polypropylene resin powder samples, applying this method to either absorbent resin powder or an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder is a routine application in the art, with predictable technical effects.
In addition, for the technical solutions of “a step of calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light transmitted by the resin powder” and “a step of calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light reflected by the resin powder and light transmitted by the resin powder”, it is a common approach in the art to use the transmitted light or reflected light and transmitted light for measurement.
Therefore, by combining the common knowledge in the art with the teachings of 524’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of 524’ wherein the method comprises measuring at least one of light reflected by the resin powder and light transmitted by the resin powder, the resin powder being any one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder to obtain predictable result such as optimized performance.
As to claim 12, selecting which property to predict (e.g. D50, CRC, AAP, SFC, moisture content, residual monomers, bulk density, etc.) does not alter the underlying method steps taught by 524’. It names the intended result of the prediction model. Such recitations of an intended use or desired output, without a structural or process change, fails to patentably distinguish over 524’. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963).
Further, under KSR and ordinary skill reasoning, once a method of collecting NIR spectra, processing, and applying multivariate models to predict a physical property is taught, it would be obvious to apply the same workflow to predict other properties of polymer/resin powders and their intermediates where a correlation can be modeled. 524’ it self teaches that spectral features reflect chemical structure and that multivariate calibration captures those correlations (pages 1-5). The selection of which property to predict is a routine design choice made to meet production or quality-control objectives and yields predictable results (a property prediction) without requiring non-obvious modifications to the method.
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 524’ in view of Santos et al., (Santos, Alexandre & Silva, Fabricio & Lenzi, Marcelo & Pinto, Jose. (2005). Monitoring and Control of Polymerization Reactors Using NIR Spectroscopy. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering. 44-1-61.10.1080/pte-200046030, provided by applicant).
As to claims 7, 9 and 10, 524’ discloses (see the second-to-last paragraph on page 3) that for powder samples, preprocessing the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum data by second-order differential.
524’ discloses fails to explicitly disclose wherein the process for producing the resin powder includes a polymerization step and a drying step; the near-infrared absorption spectrum is measured at least any one of the following points in time: before the polymerization step, between the polymerization step and the drying step; and after the drying step; and any one or more production apparatuses which are used in the process for producing the resin powered are controlled on the basis of the prediction information which has been outputted in the predicting step; a production condition of the resin powder being controlled in any one or more steps for producing the resin powder (claim 9)
However, other preprocessing methods are all common approaches in the art as evidenced by Santos. (abstract, pages 1-2, section “Introduction” and page 5, 2nd and 3rd paragraph; Fig. 1, In-line, pages 7-12, section “COMMERICAL NIT TECHNOLOGY”; pages 17-18; section “MONITORING AND CONTROL OF POLYMERIZATION REACTORS”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of 524’ wherein the process for producing the resin powder includes a polymerization step and a drying step; the near-infrared absorption spectrum is measured at least any one of the following points in time: before the polymerization step, between the polymerization step and the drying step; and after the drying step; and any one or more production apparatuses which are used in the process for producing the resin powered are controlled on the basis of the prediction information which has been outputted in the predicting step and a production condition of the resin powder being controlled in any one or more steps for producing the resin powder for advantages such as identifying and correcting potential early in the process, reduce waste and improve overall efficiency of the production process.
Examiner’s Note: Even though the following references (cited in the IDS) were not used in the rejection, these references do teach that some of the limitations are common and known in the art. For example: US 2013175473A1 teaches a method for preparing a particulate water-absorbing agent containing a polyacrylic acid (salt)-type water absorbing resin as a main component and specifically discloses the method comprising a polymerization step, a drying step, and a surface-crosslinking step. Thus the reference teaches a method of producing a resin . Regarding measuring the near-infrared absorption spectrum before, between, or after different processes to achieve control of the production process, JPH11315137A discloses production of polyester resin and specifically discloses that the near-infrared spectroscopic characteristics of one or more of the raw material, intermediate reaction products, and final products during the above mentioned production process are continuously measured, the physical properties of the measured products are analyzed from the obtained near-infrared spectra, and the reaction conditions during the production process are controlled based on the analyzed data.
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 TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)272-5560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877