DETAILED ACTION
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
The grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1-15 are the same as those set forth in the previous Office action mailed on Jan. 15, 2026. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/096230 A1 (herein “Yun”) in view of WO 00/69264 A1 (herein “Ottersbach”). US 2022/0346379 A1 is referred to herein as a translation of Yun. A computer-generated English translation of Ottersbach is attached to the Office action mailed on Jan. 15, 2026 and is referred to herein.
As to claims 1-5: Yun describes superabsorbent polymers (see the abstract). The polymers include units of monomers commonly used in superabsorbent polymers (see ¶ [0057]), more preferably acrylic acid that is partly neutralized (see ¶ [0059]). The polymers further include units of an internal crosslinking agent (see ¶¶ [0060]-[0063]). The polymers further include units of an antimicrobial monomer comprising a guanidine moiety (see ¶¶ [0039]-[0047]). The polymer is surface-treated by a surface crosslinking agent (see ¶¶ [0095]-[0101]).
Yun does not disclose a monomer according to the presently recited chemical formula.
Ottersbach describes inherently microbicidal and antimicrobial macromolecules (see p. 1 and the top of p. 3 of the translation). The polymers include units of nitrogen-containing monomers such as tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate and at least one further vinyl monomer such as acrylic acid, among others (see the second paragraph of p. 4 of the translation).
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B).
In the present case, Yun describes a polymer which differs from the presently claimed polymer by the substitution of the guanidine-containing monomers with a monomer of the present chemical formula. The substituted component (monomers according to the present chemical formula), such as tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate, and its antimicrobial function were known in the art, as evidenced by the discussion above regarding Ottersbach. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate for all or part of the guanidine-containing monomers of Yun’s polymer, and the results of the substitution (an alternative antimicrobial polymer) would have been predictable.
In light of this discussion, it is apparent that the presently claimed invention is arrived at by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have substituted tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate for all or part the guanidine-containing monomers of Yun’s polymer, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
As to claim 6: Yun further discloses that the antimicrobial monomer is used in an amount of 0.01 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of water-soluble ethylene-based unsaturated monomer (see ¶ [0049]). This range of amounts overlaps the presently recited range of amounts. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claims 7-8: Because the polymer suggested by the combination of Yun and Ottersbach would contain the same repeating units as does the present polymer, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the polymer suggested by the combination of Yun and Ottersbach would have the same properties as the present polymer, including the presently recited antibacterial property against gram-negative bacteria.
As to claim 9: Yun further discloses that the CRC of the polymer is 29 g/g or more, or 30 g/g or more, and 50 g/g or less, or 40 g/g or less (see ¶ [0108]). Additionally, because the polymer suggested by the combination of Yun and Ottersbach would contain the same repeating units as does the present polymer, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the polymer suggested by the combination of Yun and Ottersbach would have the same properties as the present polymer, including the presently recited CRC.
As to claim 12: Yun further discloses that the polymer is used for hygiene products (see ¶ [0020]).
As to claim 13: Yun further discloses that the polymer is classified into polymers having a particle size of about 150 μm to about 850 μm (see ¶ [0091]).
As to claim 10: Yun describes superabsorbent polymers (see the abstract). The polymers are made by polymerizing monomers commonly used in superabsorbent polymers (see ¶ [0057]), more preferably acrylic acid that is partly neutralized (see ¶ [0059]); an internal crosslinking agent (see ¶¶ [0060]-[0063]); and an antimicrobial monomer comprising a guanidine moiety (see ¶¶ [0039]-[0047]). The polymerization is performed in the presence of an initiator (see ¶ [0055]) and forms a hydrogel polymer (see ¶ [0017]).
The hydrogel is subjected to drying, pulverizing, and classifying to form a base polymer powder (see ¶ [0018]). The base polymer powder is subjected to crosslinking by heat treatment in the presence of a surface crosslinking agent (see ¶¶ [0019] and [0095]-[0101]).
Yun does not disclose a monomer according to the presently recited chemical formula.
Ottersbach describes inherently microbicidal and antimicrobial macromolecules (see p. 1 and the top of p. 3 of the translation). The polymers include units of nitrogen-containing monomers such as tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate and at least one further vinyl monomer such as acrylic acid, among others (see the second paragraph of p. 4 of the translation).
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B).
In the present case, Yun describes a polymer which differs from the presently claimed polymer by the substitution of the guanidine-containing monomers with a monomer of the present chemical formula. The substituted component (monomers according to the present chemical formula), such as tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate, and its antimicrobial function were known in the art, as evidenced by the discussion above regarding Ottersbach. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate for all or part of the guanidine-containing monomers of Yun’s polymer, and the results of the substitution (an alternative antimicrobial polymer) would have been predictable.
In light of this discussion, it is apparent that the presently claimed invention is arrived at by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have substituted tertbutylaminoethyl methacrylate for all or part the guanidine-containing monomers of Yun’s polymer, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
As to claim 11: Yun further discloses that the antimicrobial monomer is used in an amount of 0.01 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of water-soluble ethylene-based unsaturated monomer (see ¶ [0049]). This range of amounts overlaps the presently recited range of amounts. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 14: Yun further discloses that the internal crosslinking agent may be included in an amount of 0.01 to 1 part by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the water-soluble ethylene-based unsaturated monomer (see ¶ [0063]). Yun further discloses that the surface crosslinking agent may be introduced in an amount of 0.001 part by weight to 5 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the base polymer powder (see ¶ [0102]).
The hydrogel polymer may have a water content of 40% by weight to 80% by weight with respect to the total weight of the hydrogel polymer (see ¶ [0079]), and the water content of the dried polymer may be about 5% by weight to about 10% by weight (see ¶ [0087]).
The surface crosslinking agent is thus used in an amount of about 0.00067 to 1.053% by weight with respect to the total weight of the hydrogel polymer. This range of amounts overlaps the presently recited range of amounts. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 15: Yun further discloses that the hydrogel polymer may have a water content of 40% by weight to 80% by weight with respect to the total weight of the hydrogel polymer (see ¶ [0079]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Apr. 10, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (bridging pp. 2-3 of Remarks) that Yun teaches structures that have an antimicrobial function from a guanidine moiety whereas Ottersbach teaches a monomer having an alkylamine moiety. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute Yun’s guanidine group-containing monomer with Ottersbach’s amine group-containing monomer.
This argument is not persuasive because it does not explain why the substitution would not have been expected to be successful, including what particular aspect(s) of the process of making the substitution would not have been expected to be successful. Applicant’s argument identifies a structural distinction among the antimicrobial structural units of Yun and Ottersbach, but it does not explain why such a structural distinction would be pertinent to an expectation of success to substitute one of the units for the other.
Applicant argues (middle of p. 3 of Remarks) that Ottersbach does not teach the use of antimicrobial monomers to be incorporated as a unit into a polymer itself.
This argument is unpersuasive because it is not consistent with Ottersbach’s disclosure of copolymers (see the second paragraph of p. 4 of the translation) into which the antimicrobial monomers are incorporated as repeating units.
Applicant points to a disclosure in Ottersbach (p. 2 of the translation of Ottersbach) regarding prior patents that describe the use of polymers are matrices or carriers for added microbicidal agents. Applicant argues that substituting Yun’s guanidine moiety with Ottersbach’s amine moiety would destroy Ottersbach’s operation principle.
This argument is unpersuasive because the cited portion of Ottersbach is a description of the work of others rather than of the work of Ottersbach. Neither the Yun reference nor the Ottersbach reference is drawn to the use of polymers as matrices or carriers for added microbicidal agents.
This argument is also unpersuasive because it does not explain why the polymer obtained by substituting Ottersbach’s monomer into Yun would not maintain the principle of operation set out in Ottersbach – that is, why Ottersbach’s monomer would not be expected to maintain its antimicrobial function if used in the polymers of Yun’s hygiene articles.
Applicant argues that the substitution of Yun’s guanidine moiety with Ottersbach’s amine moiety is taught away from or discouraged from the teaching of Ottersbach.
"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 27 F3d 551.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory in nature; Applicant’s argument does not explain the manner in which Ottersbach would discourage using Ottersbach’s monomer in Yun’s hygiene articles.
The rejection over Yun in view of Ottersbach that was set forth in the Office action mailed on Jan. 15, 2026 has been maintained above in paragraphs 5-28.
Conclusion
This action is properly final because the claims are rejected on the same grounds as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed on Jan. 15, 2026. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). See MPEP § 706.07(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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant's reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights