DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending, of which claim 9 has been withdrawn.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the polymer absorbent has an ion-exchange rate of 50% or greater for a polyvalent ion. This limitation was previously recited in claim 2. On page 5, Applicant argues that, because claim 2 was not subject to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in the prior office action, claim 1 as amended overcomes the 102 rejections. Examiner disagrees and notes that claim 2 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in addition to 103, and as such, amended claim 1 is also rejected under both §102 and §103.
On pages 6-7 of the response, Applicant argues that the ion-exchange rate for polyvalent ions is a functional property that is dependent on more than the polymer composition. Applicant argues that process conditions for making the polymer also affect ion-exchange rate.
Examiner notes that the term “ion-exchange rate” is not defined in the application. Further, there does not appear to be any well-known or commonly used standard in the art used to determine the ion-exchange rate of a polymer. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an ion-exchange rate of 50% is that conditions exist wherein the polymer is capable of removing 50% of a polyvalent ion. Given that WO 2020262343 (“Kikuchi”) teaches an ion exchange capacity for the polyvalent ion of greater than 4.0 mg eq/g, it is clear that the prior art polymer is capable of exchanging at least 50% of polyvalent ions in a solution given the proper conditions.
On page 7, Applicant attempts to show some of the differences in synthesis conditions between the prior art and the instant invention that would lead to a difference in ion-exchange rate. In particular, Applicant notes that the hydrolysis conditions used in the instant application are zinc bromide/dichlorotheane at 40 °C for 24 hours and then sequential methanol/HCl/NaOH/water treatment. Examiner notes that these conditions are exactly identical to the conditions used in Kikuchi (compare paragraph [0118] of Kikuchi to paragraph [0116] of the instant application). In fact, most of the paragraphs describing how to make absorbent A of the instant application appear to be nearly word-for-word copies of Kikuchi (compare paragraphs [0104]-[0116] of the instant application with paragraphs [0108]-[0118] of Kikuchi). Given that the materials for making absorbent A of Kikuchi are identical to the materials for making absorbent A of the instant application, and given that the methods used are nearly word-for-word identical, absorbent A of Kikuchi and absorbent A described in the instant specification are clearly identical materials, or any minute differences are obvious. As absorbent A of the instant application has an ion-exchange rate of 50% or greater (see e.g. FIG. 10), claim 1 is still obvious over Kikuchi.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020262343 (“Kikuchi”, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi teaches an absorbent for absorption of liquid (see e.g. paragraph [0001]). The absorbent of Kikuchi is a composite comprising a polymer absorbent referred to “Absorbent A” and a superabsorbent polymer (see e.g. paragraph [0049]). The polymer absorbent has a hydrophilic continuous skeleton and continuous pore (see e.g. paragraph [0007]). The polymer absorbent also has -COOH and COONA groups (see e.g. paragraph [0051]). The total ion exchange capacity is more than 4.0 mg eq/g (see e.g. paragraph [0036]).
Kikuchi does not provide the ion exchange rate for the absorbent. However, as noted above, the term “ion-exchange rate” is not defined in the application, nor is there any well-known or commonly used standard in the art used to determine the ion-exchange rate of a polymer. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that the absorbent is capable of removing 50% of a polyvalent ion from a solution under at least one set of conditions. Given that the absorbent of Kikuchi has as ion exchange capacity of greater than 4.0 mg eq/g (see e.g. paragraph [0036]), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that conditions exist where the absorbent would be able to remove 50% of a polyvalent of a solution.
Further, as noted above, Absorbent A of Kikuchi appears to be substantially identical to Absorbent A of the instant application. The materials and methods described and used by Kikuchi to make Absorbent A are nearly word-for-word identical to the materials and methods described in the instant specification to make Absorbent A (compare paragraphs [0104]-[0116] of the instant application with paragraphs [0108]-[0118] of Kikuchi). As the two absorbents are substantially the same, they would have the same polyvalent ion exchange rate under any conditions.
As noted in MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Here, given the identical or nearly identical structure and composition of the absorbents, and the identical method of making the absorbents, the Absorbent A of Kikuchi is considered to have the same properties and characteristics as Absorbent A of the instant application. Absorbent A of the instant application is capable of removing at least 50% of a polyvalent ion (see e.g. FIG. 10), and therefore Absorbent A of Kikuchi is considered capable of removing at least 50% of a polyvalent ion.
Alternatively, even in the absorbent of Kikuchi is slightly different than the absorbent of the instant application, given the nearly identical materials, methods, and structure, any slight differences in properties would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Kikuchi teaches that the polymer absorbent has a liquid absorption of well over 30 g/g (see e.g. paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi teaches that the void percentage is 85% or more (see e.g. paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi teaches that the polymer absorbent has an average pore diameter of 1-1000 mm (see e.g. paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi teaches that the polymer absorbent can be a monolithic absorbent (see e.g. paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Kikuchi teaches that the polymer absorbent can be a hydrolysate of a crosslinked polymer of (meth)acrylic acid ester and a divinyl compound, such as divinyl benzene (see e.g. paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Kikuchi teaches that the superabsorbent polymer can be an acrylic acid based superabsorbent polymer in sodium form, which would therefore have a sodium cation on the surface (see e.g. paragraph [0050]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights