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 .
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.
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the in the reply filed 3 February 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-21 and 23-28 are pending. Claims 5, 8-9, 12, 14, 16, and 22 have been cancelled.
In view of the amendments, the prior objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 15, and 17-20, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patiño (Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110, 3227-3234) in view of Chen et al. (ACS Materials Lett. 2020, 2, 1545−1554, including the associated Supporting Information; published online 21 October 2020), and with respect to claim 7, as evidenced by Sueltemeyer et al. (Plant Physiol. 1986, 81, 372-375), and with respect to claim 24, as evidenced by USGS (“Definition of “Brackish”, Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://ne.water.usgs.gov/ogw/review/brackish.html>; 30 August 2013).
Regarding claim 1, Patiño teaches a method for harvesting microalgae from a medium (a new methodology to harvest fresh water microalgae cultures by extracting the culture medium with superabsorbent polymers; abstract), the method comprising (a) adding porous superabsorbent polymer beads (SAP spherical particles, p. 3228, column 2, paragraph 3) to the medium (microalgae cultures … were placed in a [6-L] tubular reactor with [20 g/L] of SAP. Also, an experiment with 20 g/L of SAP was performed with an initial biomass concentration of 0.59 g/L in a 6-L tubular reactor; p. 3228, column 2, paragraph 3 to p. 3229, column 1, paragraph 3); (b) allowing water in the medium to absorb into pores in the porous superabsorbent polymer beads to form hydrated beads, the microalgae remaining outside the beads (structure of the SAP lets water and ions from salts, to be absorbed, but not the microalgal cells.; page 3228, column 2, paragraph 2); and (c) separating the microalgae remaining outside the beads from the hydrated beads, thereby harvesting the microalgae (the cells were drained through the bottom of the bioreactor and used; p. 3232, column 1, paragraph 2). Patiño also teaches a desire to keep harvesting time low (in order to reduce harvesting time; p. 3231, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Patiño does not specifically teach pores in the superabsorbent polymer beads, though they can be inferred to exist because “the structure of the SAP lets water and ions from salts be absorbed, but not the microalgal cells” (page 3228, column 2, paragraph 2). Patiño also does not teach the superabsorbent polymer beads being prepared from a reaction mixture containing ionic monomers, a crosslinker, and 2.5 to 5 wt% of a porogen, or the size of the pores in the superabsorbent polymer beads being between about 0.1 micrometers and about 1 micrometer.
However, Chen teaches porous super absorbent polymer beads for fast and effective microfiltration among target species of different sizes (p. 1551, col. 2, ¶2), and that these beads exclude large undesired components such as bacteria and blood cells (abstract). Chen further teaches these beads reach maximum swelling capacity in less than 5 minutes (p. 1547, col. 2, ¶ 2) and that they have a pores of 0.5-1 micrometer (p. 1546, col. 2, ¶ 2), which lies within the instantly claimed range of 0.1 micrometers to 1 micrometer. Chen additionally teaches that the beads are prepared from a reaction mixture containing ionic monomers (sodium acrylate), a crosslinker (N,N’-methylenebis(acrylamide) (MBA)), and a porogen (polyethyleneglycol; “Preparation of PSAP Beads”, p. 1552), where the porogen is present at 2.5 wt% and at 5 wt% (at a PEG content of 2.5 or 5 wt %, the PSAP beads reveal a continuous polymer network with small spherical pores; p. 1547, col. 2, Figure 2a and Figure S2). Figure S2 (copied below) reveals that beads prepared at 5 wt% porogen (PEG) have pores in the claimed range of 0.1 to 1 micrometer.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 in the method of Patiño the porous superabsorbent polymer beads of Chen, which have a pore size of 0.5 to 1 micrometer and which are prepared from a reaction mixture containing ionic monomers, a crosslinker, and a porogen at 2.5 wt% or 5 wt%, each of which fall in the instantly claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Chen teaches that their beads swell much faster than the beads of Patiño (<5 min versus hours for Patiño (Fig. 3)), while effectively and selectively absorbing water and ions while rejecting large components such as cells (the interconnected pores inside the bead construct water channels and achieve separation of target species based on size exclusion, which allows the sorption of all small molecules (e.g., ions and sugars) … while rejecting large components (e.g., bacteria and blood cells); p. 1546, col. 2, ¶ 2), which are the same goals Patiño had for their SAP beads.
Regarding claim 2, Patiño teaches a method for increasing the concentration of microalgae in a medium (the new methodology allowed concentrating the biomass of C. reinhardtii [microalgae] cultures, p. 3233, column 1, paragraph 1), the method comprising (a) adding porous superabsorbent polymer beads to the medium (microalgae cultures … were placed in a [6-L] tubular reactor with [20 g/L] of SAP. Also, an experiment with 20 g/L of SAP was performed with an initial biomass concentration of 0.59 g/L in a 6-L tubular reactor; p. 3228, column 2, paragraph 3 to p. 3229, column 1, paragraph 3); (b) allowing water in the medium to absorb into pores in the porous superabsorbent polymer beads to form hydrated beads (the structure of the SAP lets water … be absorbed; p. 3228, column 2, paragraph 2), thereby increasing the concentration of microalgae in the medium (Figure 4 shows the increase in concentration in the medium) and separating the microalgae from the hydrated beads (the cells were drained through the bottom of the bioreactor and used; p. 3232, column 1, paragraph 2).
Patiño does not specifically teach pores in the superabsorbent polymer beads, though they can be inferred to exist because “the structure of the SAP lets water and ions from salts be absorbed, but not the microalgal cells” (page 3228, column 2, paragraph 2). Patiño also does not teach the superabsorbent polymer beads being prepared from a reaction mixture containing ionic monomers, a crosslinker, and 2.5 to 5 wt% of a porogen, or the size of the pores in the superabsorbent polymer beads being between about 0.1 micrometers and about 1 micrometer.
However, Chen teaches porous super absorbent polymer beads for fast and effective microfiltration among target species of different sizes (p. 1551, col. 2, ¶2), and that these beads exclude large undesired components such as bacteria and blood cells (abstract). Chen further teaches these beads reach maximum swelling capacity in less than 5 minutes (p. 1547, col. 2, ¶ 2) and that they have a pores of 0.5-1 micrometer (p. 1546, col. 2, ¶ 2), which lies within the instantly claimed range of 0.1 micrometers to 1 micrometer. Chen additionally teaches that the beads are prepared from a reaction mixture containing ionic monomers (sodium acrylate), a crosslinker (N,N’-methylenebis(acrylamide) (MBA)), and a porogen (polyethyleneglycol; “Preparation of PSAP Beads”, p. 1552), where the porogen is present at 2.5 wt% and at 5 wt% (at a PEG content of 2.5 or 5 wt %, the PSAP beads reveal a continuous polymer network with small spherical pores; p. 1547, col. 2, Figure 2a and Figure S2). Figure S2 (copied above) reveals that beads prepared at 5 wt% porogen (PEG) have pores in the claimed range of 0.1 to 1 micrometer.
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 in the method of Patiño the porous superabsorbent polymer beads of Chen, which have a pore size of 0.5 to 1 micrometer and which are prepared from a reaction mixture containing ionic monomers, a crosslinker, and a porogen at 2.5 wt% or 5 wt%, each of which fall in the instantly claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Chen teaches that their beads swell much faster than the beads of Patiño (<5 min versus hours for Patiño (Fig. 3)), while effectively and selectively absorbing water and ions while rejecting large components such as cells (the interconnected pores inside the bead construct water channels and achieve separation of target species based on size exclusion, which allows the sorption of all small molecules (e.g., ions and sugars) … while rejecting large components (e.g., bacteria and blood cells); p. 1546, col. 2, ¶ 2), which are the same goals Patiño had for their SAP beads.
Regarding claim 3, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño also teaches the microalgae being Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, which falls into the group Chlamydomonas sp., thereby meeting the limitation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño teaches in step (b) microalgae being concentrated in the medium (Figure 4 shows the increase in algal (biomass) concentration as water is absorbed).
Regarding claim 7, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño teaches the medium being a microalgal suspension. While Patiño does not refer to the initial culture as a suspension, Patiño does use the term re-suspended (abstract) to describe the process of adding culture medium back to the harvested algae, which teaches that they were originally in a suspension. Also, it is noted that C. reinhardtii microalgae necessarily form algal suspensions, as evidenced by Sueltemeyer (the dark green cell suspension; p. 372, column 2, paragraph 5).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Chen teaches the porous super absorbent polymer beads comprising a copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate (Preparation of PSAP Beads describes a method that would make such a copolymer; p. 1552, col.1, ¶ 2), thereby meeting the limitations of claims 10 and 11.
Regarding claim 13, “water absorbency” is interpreted here as meaning the mass of the water a polymer absorbed relative to its own mass when submersed in saline media. Modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Chen teaches a water absorbency (swelling ratio in saline media) of their beads when prepared with 5 wt% porogen of ~25 g g-1 (Fig. 2d), which falls in the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 14, where the porogen is poly(ethylene glycol).
Regarding claim 17, “water absorbency” is interpreted here as meaning the mass of the water a polymer absorbed relative to its own mass when submersed in saline media. Modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Chen teaches a water absorbency (swelling ratio in saline media) of their beads when prepared with 5 wt% porogen of ~25 g g-1 (Fig. 2d), which falls in the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño further teaches an initial biomass density of the medium being 0.59 g/L (initial biomass concentration; Figure 4), which falls into the instantly claimed range of between about 0.2 g L-1 and about 70 g L-1.
Regarding claim 19, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño further teaches the final biomass density of the medium being about 35 g/L (biomass concentration at 5.5 h; Figure 4), which falls into the instantly claimed range of between about 0.4 g L-1 and about 150 g L-1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Chen teaches that their PSAP beads exclude over 80% of both E. coli (higher than 80% E. coli rejection even at a PEG content of 20 wt %; p. 1549, col. 1, ¶ 1) and red blood cells (∼88% of the cells are excluded and removed from the beads; p. 1550, col. 1, ¶ 1). Because microalgae have sizes between these two types of cells, and because the rejection efficiency is expected to be largely size dependent as taught by Chen (rejection efficiency slightly decreases since more bacteria attach to the enlarged water channels; p. 1549, col. 1, ¶ 1), it is also expected that these PSAP beads when used in the method of modified Patiño will exclude greater than 80% of algal cells, thereby giving a harvesting efficiency of greater than 80% and meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
It is also noted that the beads disclosed by Chen are prepared by a method nearly identical (1552, col. 1, ¶ 2) to those instantly disclosed ([0090]), and so are expected to have the same harvesting efficiency as those claimed.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of [their] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 4380, 483-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claim 24, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño teaches the medium is Suekoa culture medium (p. 3229, col.1, ¶ 3), which is has a salinity of 2.77 grams of salt per liter (Table S1 of Patiño, modified to include MW and g/L is presented below), which meets the limitations of being brackish water, as evidenced by USGS ([brackish water] is considered by many investigators to have dissolved-solids concentration between 1,000 and 10,000 milligrams per liter).1
Regarding claim 25, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Chen teaches the water absorbency is in the range of approximately ~15 g to ~80 g g-1 when the amount of crosslinker is 0.2% and the amount of porogen is 2.5 wt%-20 wt%. At 5% porogen the water absorbency is ~25g g-1, which lies outside the instantly claimed range.
However, Chen also teaches that by lowering the concentration of crosslinker to 0.1 wt% from the 0.2 wt% used in the embodiments of Fig. 2 (p. 1552, “Preparation of PSAP Beads”), a swelling ratio can be increased from ~50 (Fig. 2D) to ~120 (Fig. S10). Chen further teaches that at lower crosslinker concentration the beads will have a more relaxed network with a uniform pore distribution (p. S9 and Fig. S11 of Supporting Information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the concentration of crosslinker in the beads, along with the weight percent of porogen, to achieve swelling ratios in the claimed range of 50 g g-1 to 100 g g-1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the desired balance of water absorbency (swelling ratio), pore size, and pore uniformity, as taught by Chen.
It is noted that the courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed ranges or water absorbency merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 26, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño teaches using absorbent polymer beads at 10 g/L (Table II), which lies in the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 27, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where the polymer beads are made of the same monomers as the instant invention, and therefore will have the same negatively charged surfaces that electrostatically repulse microalgae.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patiño (Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110, 3227-3234) in view of Chen et al. (ACS Materials Lett. 2020, 2, 1545−1554; published online 21 October 2020), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Show and Lee (Algal Biomass Harvesting in Biofuels from Algae, Chapter 5, Elsevier, 2014, p. 85-110; hereinafter “Show”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Patiño teaches a method for harvesting microalgae using super absorbent polymer beads with all the limitations of claim 1. Modified Patiño does not teach the microalgae being dried after separation from the hydrated beads.
However, Show teaches that drying is often performed after cultivation and dewatering of algal biomass in a biofuel production process (p. 86, paragraph 3 and Fig. 5.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Patiño by drying the microalgae after separating from the hydrated beads (dewatering the algae) as taught by Show. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is a well-known step en route to obtaining a biofuel product and therefore represents the use of known technique (drying) to improve similar methods of algae harvesting in order to make them applicable in a larger biofuel production scheme. MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claims 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patiño (Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110, 3227-3234) in view of Chen et al. (ACS Materials Lett. 2020, 2, 1545−1554; published online 21 October 2020), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 20516).
Regarding claims 21 and 28, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach repeating steps (a) and (b), as required by claims 21 and 28.
However, Xie teaches that the concentration of microorganisms using superabsorbent polymer beads can be completed in multiple steps by repeating the steps of adding porous superabsorbent polymer beads to the medium and allowing water in the medium to absorb into pores in the porous superabsorbent polymer beads to form hydrated beads (the same water samples subsequently underwent five consecutive concentrating steps. In each step, 0.03–0.05 g of the SAP beads were added to the water sample; the beads were then allowed to absorb water for 10 min; p. 3, paragraph 1). Xie also teaches that this technique affords low volumes and high concentrations of microorganism (p. 3, paragraph 1 and Fig. 3).
Regarding the harvesting efficiency, Xie also teaches that the fifth repetition of steps a) and b) can exhibit harvesting efficiency (for E. coli) of greater than 95%, depending upon the initial concentration of microorganisms (Table S1 of the Supplementary Information). Xie further teaches in Table S1 that for at least some concentrations there is little if any change in harvesting efficiency between the first and fifth repetition; e.g., at an initial concentration of 9.2 x 103 CUF/mL the first repetition has an efficiency of 95.6% and the fifth repetition has an efficiency of 96.7%. Furthermore, Chen teaches that their beads exclude cells from being adsorbed at greater than 95% efficiency (E. Coli rejection, Figure 3a), which would allow them to be harvested at that efficiency. Thus, it would be expected that through routine experimentation one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve harvesting efficiencies of greater than 95% in the fifth repetition using the method of modified Patiño.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to repeat steps (a) and (b) in the method of modified Patiño five times, where the fifth repetition exhibits a harvesting efficiency of at least 95%, as taught by Xie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to further control volume and concentration of microorganisms (microalgae), as taught by Xie (p. 3, paragraph 1 and Fig. 3), and desired by Patiño (p. 3232, column 2, paragraph 2), and to recover the most microalgae.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patiño (Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110, 3227-3234) in view of Chen et al. (ACS Materials Lett. 2020, 2, 1545−1554; published online 21 October 2020), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (Bioresource Technology 2018, 249, 713–719) as evidenced by Culture Collection (“f/2 Medium”, Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.ccap.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/MR_f2.pdf>; Created on 05 Nov 2019; Accessed 26 March 2026) and NOAA (“Sea Water”, <URL: https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/ocean/sea-water>, Accessed 27 March 2026).
Regarding claim 23, modified Patiño teaches the method of claim 1, where Patiño teaches the medium for their algae is Suekoa culture medium (p. 3229, col.1, ¶ 3), which has a salinity of 2.77 grams of salt per liter (Table S1 of Patiño, modified to include MW and g/L is presented below), which is about 0.3% and lies outside the instantly claimed range of about 1.0% to about 5%.
However, Wei also teaches harvesting microalgae using porous superabsorbent polymer beads (abstract), including the harvesting of marine algae from f/2 media (the performance of the PSAPs on the microalgae harvesting, a comparison of the absorbency between the freshwater medium (SE and BG11-M) and the seawater medium (f/2 medium) was conducted; p. 716, col. 2). Culture Collection reveals that f/2 medium is prepared from natural seawater with small amounts of additives, and NOAA reveals that natural sea water has a salinity of 33-37 ppt (¶ 2), or 3.3-3.7%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of modified Patino to marine algae grown in saline media with a salinity of 3.3-3.7%, which falls in the instantly claimed range, as taught by Wei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to harvest algae that are better cultured in such media, such as marine Chlorella sp. SSCCC-8, as taught by Wei (Section 2.1.1).
It is noted that even though Wei concludes their particular method is better suited to freshwater media, it still would have been obvious to apply the method of modified Patino in saline media because Chen teaches that their beads function better than those of Wei in saline solutions. In particular, Wei teaches that at salinity of 0.5-1.5% (5-15 g/L) the water absorbency of their beads is 20-30 g g-1 (Fig. 2a), while the beads of Chen can achieve water absorbencies of up to ~120 g g-1 at 0.9% salinity (Fig. 2d and Fig. S10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, page 9-11 of the reply filed 3 February 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 9, that Chen does not teach porous absorbent beads with pore sizes ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 micrometers when using 2.5 wt% to 5 wt% porogen. In particular, Applicant points to Fig. 2c to show that at porogen content below 5%, only pores of less than 0.05 microns are formed. However, it is noted that Fig. 2c as a whole shows only pore sizes between ~0.04 and 0.3 micrometers, yet Chen descries their own beads as having pores between 0.5 and 1 micrometer (p. 1546, col. 2, ¶ 2). The reason for this discrepancy is explained by Chen: the pore sizes estimated by MIP, and plotted in Fig 2c, only provide information concerning a dry polymer in the unswollen state, but not at the conditions in which it usually works (p. 1547, col. 2, ¶ 2). Figure S2 (included above) shows the pores in a PSAP prepared with 5% porogen, and these are clearly in the 0.1 to 1 micrometer range. It is noted that the instant claims do not distinguish between dry and swollen pore size, and the broadest reasonable interpretation would include sizes under either condition.
Applicant further argues, page 10, that one of ordinary skill would not select the beads with only 2.5 wt% to 5 wt% porogen because they do not have the highest swelling ratios. However, there may be other reasons to select the beads disclosed with 2.5 wt% to 5 wt% porogen, including their different pore size and morphology compared to the beads with higher porogen content (p. 1547, col. 1). Furthermore, the Supporting Information of Chen teaches that the pore size distribution and water absorbency can be varied by changing not only the amount of porogen, but also the amount of crosslinker. Thus, Chen teaches at least two variables, porogen content and crosslinker content, that one of ordinary skill in the art would vary by routine optimization to arrive at porous superabsorbent beads with the desired balance of water absorbency and pore size/pore uniformity, and would not be limited only to the water absorbency and porogen content relationship depicted in Fig. 2d.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, pages 10-11, are based upon the allowability of claim 1, or the same features as claim 1, and are therefore moot in view of the rejection of claim 1 presented 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 Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
1 It is noted that while this concentration of salts was considered as meeting the definition of “saltwater” in the prior Office action, the terms “brackish” and “saltwater” are each subject to broad interpretation and encompass overlapping ranges of salinity, as supported by the cited USGS definitions of saline and brackish water.