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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the process step of dependent claim 3 in the reply filed on 7/24/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 read on the elected invention. As such, claim 4 is withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 3 and 4 do not add any additional distinct special technical feature beyond that already recited in generic independent claim 1. This is not found persuasive because for the reasons of record namely the groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features because dependent claim 3 requires the addition of hydrogen peroxide during the gel-crushing step, whereas dependent claim 4 requires the addition of hydrogen peroxide during the polymerization step of the monomer.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is very indefinite in regard to the following limitations. 1) in lines 9-10 of the claim, the limitation of: “is heated during the drying step so that a maximum reaching temperature of the crosslinked hydrogel polymer exceeds 160oC,”, and 2) in line 11 of the claim, the limitation of: “is heated after the drying step so that a maximum reaching temperature of the dry polymer exceeds 160oC.” [Emphasis added]. The use of the word “maximum” makes no sense at all in the context of the claimed limitations. Replacing the word “maximum” with the word --minimum--, would correct this indefinite issue.
Dependent claims 5 and 9 are both indefinite in regard to the limitations of: “a monomer concentration”, “a temperature”, “a polymerization time” and “a polymerization temperature”. [Emphasis added]. The use of the article “a” seems to implies that which follows is set forth by way of an illustration/possibility and not by way of limitation. If Applicant in the future wants to actually require that said monomer concentration, said temperature, said polymerization time, and said polymerization temperature, meet the set forth numeric ranges, applicant will need to replace the articles “a” by the word --the--.
Dependent claim 6 is also indefinite in regard to the limitation of: “wherein a mass average particle size” [Emphasis added]. The use of the article “a” seems to implies that which follows is set forth by way of an illustration/possibility and not by way of limitation. If Applicant in the future wants to actually required that the mass average particle size meets the set forth numeric range, applicant will need to replace the article “a” by the word --the--.
Dependent claim 8 is also indefinite in regard to the limitation of: “an amount of the internal crosslinking agent used” [Emphasis added]. The use of the article “an” seems to implies that which follows is set forth by way of an illustration/possibility and not by way of limitation. If Applicant in the future wants to actually required that the amount of the internal crosslinking agent used meets the set forth numeric range, applicant will need to replace the article “an” by the word --the--.
Dependent claim 11 is also indefinite in regard to the limitation of: “wherein an absorption capacity (CRC) of the water-absorbing resin after the drying step is 40 g/g or more.” for a number of reasons. A) The use of the article “an” seems to implies that which follows is set forth by way of an illustration/possibility and not by way of limitation. If Applicant in the future wants to actually required the listed (CRC) numeric range for the water-absorbing resin after the drying step, applicant will need to replace the article “an” by the word --the--. B) It is unclear under what conditions (e.g. temperature, pure water, salt water, under a load, not under a load etc..) were used as the baseline for the listed (CRC) numeric range.
All other claims are also being rejected here as being either directly or indirectly dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Examination Note.
In light of the indefinite nature of applicant’s claims, especially dependent claims 5-6, 8-9 and 11 (see above), the most reasonable broadest interpretation of their scope will be used for the following prior-art art rejections. This most reasonable broadest interpretation is that the various limitations, set forth in dependent claims 5-6, 8-9 and 11, are set forth by way of an illustration/possibility only, and are thus not actually required limitations.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006199805 A.
JP discloses water-absorbing resins having excellent water absorption properties, such as under high load pressure. Said water-absorbing resins are made to have hardly any residual monomers, see abstract and claims.
The disclosed process of making the water-absorbing resins comprises polymerizing 50 to about 100 mol% of a monomer (e.g. ammonium (meth)acrylate), in combination with 0.001-2 mole% of a hydroperoxide polymerization/radical initiator (preferably hydrogen peroxide), 0.005-3 mole% of an internal cross-linker such as (poly)ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate. The polymerization initiation temperature is normally 0-70oC, but preferably starts at 30oC and rises to 100oC in 4 minutes. After polymerization, the internally crosslinked hydrogel resin is subjected to a coarse crushing step to increase its surface area prior to drying. The drying step is conducted at a temperature of 70-180oC. Following drying, another crushing step is performed resulting in weight average particle size of more preferably 100-850 microns. The water-absorbing resin particles are then heat-treated in the range of 163-250oC, see paragraphs [0040]-[0046], [0049]-[0051], [0055], [0058]. An optional, surface/post crosslinking step may be performed after the drying step, see paragraphs [0049] and [0005].
JP further discloses that a higher balance of water absorption capacity for the resin particles is better, and discloses that it is 55 or more or preferably 60 or more, see paragraph [0064]. JP further discloses that the performance under pressure for the resin particles is most preferably 35 g/g or more, see paragraph [0073]. JP further discloses that the water retention amounts are more preferably 45 g/g or more or most preferably 60 g/g/ or more, see paragraph [0082].
Applicant’s claims are deemed to be anticipated over said disclosure, and more specifically over JP’s methods of producing the water-absorbing resins as set forth in Examples 1 and 7-10.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006199805 A.
JP has been described above and differs from applicant’s claimed invention in that does not seem to be a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a specific example) to where after the drying step, the water absorbing resin particles are subjected to a further surface/post crosslinking step.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use JP’s disclosure that an optional surface/post crosslinking step may be performed after the drying step, (see paragraphs [0049] and [0005]), as strong motivation to actually perform a surface/post crosslinking step on the dried water absorbing resin particles for the well-known benefits surface/post crosslinking imparts to internally crosslinked water absorbing particles (e.g. improved particle integrity to prevent unwanted friability). It goes without saying that surface/post crosslinking water absorbing particles is notoriously well known in the art, and would thus have been at once envisaged by the ordinary artisan.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dairoku et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2006/0183828 A1.
Dairoku et al. discloses the production of water absorbing resins with reduced residual monomers. More particularly, according to the present invention, a water absorbent resin which includes a small amount of residual monomer and has a favorable physical property can be obtained while effectively reutilizing the fine powder generated in the production step of the water absorbent resin, without increasing using amount of an additive (at least one selected from the group consisting of thermal initiators, oxidizing agents and reducing agents) for reducing the residual monomer. In other words, the method for production of a water absorbent resin of the present invention is a method in which the residual monomer can be efficiently reduced, and in addition, an effect in terms of the production cost, i.e., recycling of the fine powder, can be also achieved similarly to conventional recycling methods of fine powder through agglomeration, see abstract.
A preferred essential additive is an oxidizing agent, such as hydrogen peroxide and/or sodium persulfate and is added at a concentration of 0.0001-1 weight %, see paragraphs [0019], [0025]-[0027] and [0051] and Example 4.
Dairoku et al. discloses in paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0062]-[0069], [0071], [0074] and [01117], that an optional surface/post crosslinking step may be performed on the dried water absorbing internally crosslinked hydrogel polymer particles.
Dairoku et al.’s independent claim 1 reads as followed: “method for production of a water absorbent resin which comprises: a step of obtaining a polymer gel having a water absorbing property, a step of obtaining an agglomerated gel by adding an aqueous fluid containing at least one additive selected from the group consisting of thermal initiators, oxidizing agents and reducing agents to the fine powder which is obtained in the production of a water absorbent resin and has a weight average particle diameter falling within the range of 10 to 150 microns and a step of drying while allowing said agglomerated gel and said polymer gel to coexist” [Emphasis added]. Thus Dairoku et al.’s independent claim 1 makes clear that the oxidizing agent(s) is/are added prior to the drying step of the produced internally crosslinked hydrogel polymer.
Applicant’s attention is drawn to Dairoku et al.’s Example 1 which teaches a process that encompasses Applicant’s claimed method for producing a water-absorbing resin in all aspects with only the following exceptions: 1) instead of using an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide as the essential additive, an aqueous solution of sodium persulfate is used as the essential additive and 2) there is no surface/post crosslinking step performed on the dried internally crosslinked resin particles as required in Applicant’s dependent claim 12, but said surface/post crosslinking process step is set forth in Dairoku et al.’s Example 4. Please note that Dairoku et al.’s internal crosslinking agent used in Example 1, is polyethylene glycol diacrylate which reads directly on applicant’s internal crosslinking agent as set forth in dependent claim 13.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Dairoku et al.’s above disclosure to the basic functional equivalence of hydrogen peroxide and sodium persulfate, as strong motivation to actual substitute hydrogen peroxide for sodium persulfate in the aqueous additive solution applied to the internally crosslinked hydrogel particles prior to their drying step. It is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art rejection. To use a concentration of hydrogen peroxide that falls within Applicant’s claimed concentration range of 50 ppm or more (i.e. 0.0005 wt.% or more) is at once envisaged because said concentration amount falls directly within Dairoku et al.’s disclosure of the essential additive being added at a concentration of 0.0001-1 weight %.
Likewise, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Dairoku et al.’s disclosure, see paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0062]-[0069], [0071], [0074], [01117] and Example 4, that an optional surface/post crosslinking step may be performed on the dried water absorbing internally crosslinked hydrogel polymer particles, as strong motivation to actually perform a surface/post crosslinking step on the dried water absorbing internally crosslinked hydrogel polymer particles, thus fully meeting the limitation of applicant’s dependent claim 12. Please note that Dairoku et al.’s Example 4 directly teaches a surface/post crosslinking step was performed on the dried water absorbing internally crosslinked hydrogel polymer particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights