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 .
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 7-8 are 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.
Dependent claim 7 is deemed to be indefinite in regards to the actual metes and bounds of the claimed moisture concentration range adsorbed on the super absorbent polymer particles, because of applicant’s use of the wording: “wherein a weight of moisture . . .” [Emphasis added]. The use of the article “a” implies that which follows is set forth as only one possible moisture weight range, out of other non-specified moisture ranges. If, in the future, applicant wants to positively require the set forth moisture weight concentration range, applicant will need to replace the article “a” by the word: --the--.
Dependent claim 8 is deemed to be indefinite in regards to the actual metes and bounds of the claimed anti-caking weight concentration range adsorbed on the super absorbent polymer particles, because of applicant’s use of the wording: “wherein a weight of the anti-caking agent . . .” [Emphasis added]. The use of the article “a” implies that which follows is set forth as only one possible weight range, out of other non-specified weight ranges for the anti-caking agent. If, in the future, applicant wants to positively require the set forth anti-caking weight concentration range, applicant will need to replace the article “a” by the word: --the--.
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:
For the following prior-art art rejections, the broadest reasonable interpretation will be given to the scope of applicant’s dependent claims 7 and 8, which will be that their set forth concentration ranges are non-limiting concentration ranges. Please see the above rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for details.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stueven et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2012/0058267 A1.
Stueven et al. discloses a process for preparing water-absorbing polymer particles by polymerizing a monomer solution or suspension comprising a) at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer which bears an acid group and may be at least partly neutralized, b) at least one crosslinker, c) at least one initiator, d) optionally one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomer copolymerizable with the monomer mentioned under a) and e) optionally one or more water-soluble polymer, comprising drying, grinding, classifying, and surface post crosslinking, an aqueous liquid being sprayed onto the surface post crosslinked water-absorbing polymer particles by at least one spray nozzle in a continuous horizontal mixer with moving mixing tools, wherein an inner wall of the mixer in contact with the product has a contact angle of less than 80o. with respect to water, see independent claim 1. Note: Applicant’s spraying moisture onto the super absorbent polymer embodiment limitation of dependent claim 6, is directly disclosed in Stueven et al.’s said independent claim 1. Likewise, Applicant’s super absorbent polymer limitation of dependent claim 9, is met by Stueven et al.’s said independent claim 1, and also met by all of Stueven et al.’s examples and disclosure of paragraph [0069].
Stueven et al.’s dependent claim 5 reads as followed: “The process according to claim 1, wherein the water-absorbing polymer particles fed to the mixer have a temperature of 40 to 80oC.”. Note: Said temperature range falls directly within applicant’s temperature range of dependent claim 2.
Stueven et al.’s dependent claim 6 reads as followed: “The process according to claim 1, wherein a residence time of the water-absorbing polymer particles in the mixer is from 1 to 180 minutes. Note: Applicant’s claimed water treatment process time of the superabsorbent polymer, as set forth in dependent claim 4, falls directly within Stueven et al.’s said disclosure.
Stueven et al.’s paragraphs [0108]-[0110] disclose that to further improve the properties of the wetted/remoistened post crosslinked water-absorbing polymer particles, the particles can be coated with various substances. Stueven et al. explicitly discloses that one means of overcoming the undesired caking tendency of the wetted/remoistened post crosslinked water-absorbing polymer particles, is to coat them with silica or other inorganic inert substances (e.g. aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, zeolite etc.). Note: Said anti-caking agents read direct on applicant’s anti-caking agents of dependent claim 10.
Stueven et al.’s paragraphs [0127] reads as followed: “The water-absorbing polymer particles produced by the process according to the invention have a moisture content of preferably 1 to 15% by weight, more preferably 1.5 to 10% by weight, most preferably 2 to 8% by weight, the water content being determined by EDANA recommended test method No. WSP 230.2-05 "Moisture Content" [Emphasis added]. Note: Said moisture ranges encompasses/overlap applicant’s moisture ranges of dependent claim 7.
Stueven et al. differ from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there is not a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a direct example) to where the wetted/remoistened post crosslinked water-absorbing polymer particles are actually coated with an anti-caking inorganic inert substance, such as silica, aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide etc..
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Stueven et al.’s above disclosure, especially the disclosure of paragraphs [0108]-[0110], as strong motivation to actually coat the wetted/remoistened post crosslinked water-absorbing polymer particles with an anti-caking inorganic inert substance, such as silica, aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide etc.. It is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Furthermore, to perform the anti-caking coating step of the wetted/remoistened water absorbing polymer particles with finely divided silica powder within a time period of 6 hours, as set forth in applicant’s dependent claim 5, would be at once envisage, because it would make no sense to unduly wait since waiting results in the loss/evaporation of moisture from said wetted/remoistened water absorbing polymer particles which directly contradicts the whole purpose of subjecting the water absorbing polymer particles to a wetting/remoistening step in the first place.
It is noted that applicant’s relative humidity range of 50% to 95% to conduct the water treatment, as set forth in dependent claim 3, is not explicitly disclosed by Stueven et al.. Nevertheless, it is held by the Examiner that Stueven et al.’s process step of: “an aqueous liquid being sprayed onto the surface post crosslinked water-absorbing polymer particles by at least one spray nozzle in a continuous horizontal mixer with moving mixing tools, wherein an inner wall of the mixer in contact with the product has a contact angle of less than 80o. with respect to water.” would by its nature generate very high humidity levels within the mixing apparatus, thus fully meeting the limitations of applicant’s dependent claim 3.
Finally, all of applicant’s other limitations, as set forth in the dependent claims, are also deemed to be obvious because they all fall within/overlap the above Examiner cited disclosure sections of Stueven et al.. Once again, it is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsubakimoto et al. U.S. Patent Number 4,734,478.
Tsubakimoto et al. discloses water absorbing polymer particles made from polymerizing and crosslinking ethylenically unsaturated monomers that may contain partially neutralized acid groups (e.g. acrylic acid and salts thereof etc.). Said water absorbing polymer particles are preferably then wetted/remoistened with water/aqueous liquid and then mixed with finely divided silica powder, see abstract, claims 1, 11 and 20-23.
Tsubakimoto et al.’s claim 11 reads as followed: “A water-absorbing agent obtained by adding an aqueous liquid to the water-absorbing agent of claim 1, stirring them, and pulverizing and granulating the resulting mixture.”.
Tsubakimoto et al.’s claim 20 reads as followed: “A water-absorbing agent obtained by mixing 100 parts by weight of the water-absorbing agent of claim 11 with 0.01 to 10 parts by weight of finely divided silica.”.
Tsubakimoto et al.’s claim 21 reads as followed: “The water-absorbing agent of claim 20 which is obtained by using 0 to 5 parts by weight of water.”.
Tsubakimoto et al.’s claim 22 reads as followed: “The water-absorbing agent of claim 21 which is obtained by using 0.5 to 4 parts by weight of water.”.
Applicant’s claims are deemed to be anticipated over Example 9, wherein 100 parts by weight of wetted/remoistened water absorbing polymer particles, obtained in Examples 6 and 7, are coated with 3 parts by weight and 5 parts by weight respectfully of finely divided silica. To perform this coating step of the wetted/remoistened water absorbing polymer particles with finely divided silica powder within a time period of 6 hours, as set forth in applicant’s dependent claim 5, would be at once envisage, because it would make no sense to unduly wait since waiting results in the loss/evaporation of moisture from said wetted/remoistened water absorbing polymer particles which directly contradicts the whole purpose of subjecting the water absorbing polymer particles to a wetting/remoistening step in the first place.
Please note that in Example 6, the water absorbing polymer particles synthesized in Example 1, are remoistened by three (3) part by weight water which is added dropwise to 100 parts of said water absorbing polymer particles. Also note that in Example 7, the water absorbing polymer particles synthesized in Example 2, are remoistened by four (4) part by weight water which is applied to 100 parts of said water absorbing polymer particles using a 2-fluid nozzle apparatus.
It is noted that applicant’s relative humidity range of 50% to 95% to conduct the water treatment, as set forth in dependent claim 3, is not explicitly disclosed by Tsubakimoto et al.. Nevertheless, it is held by the Examiner that Tsubakimoto et al.’s process step of spraying fine droplets of water on the water absorbing polymer particles would by its nature generate very high humidity levels within the mixing apparatus, thus fully meeting the limitations of applicant’s dependent claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubakimoto et al. U.S. Patent Number 4,734,478 in view of Stueven et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2012/0058267 A1.
Tsubakimoto et al. and Stueven et al. have both been described above. Tsubakimoto et al. differ from applicant’s claimed invention in that it is unclear what time frame was used for the wetting/remoistening step of the water absorbing polymer particles in Examples 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Stueven et al.’s disclosure of their dependent claim 6, that it is well known in the art to conduct the wetting/remoistening step over a period of 1 to 180 minutes, as motivation to perform Tsubakimoto et al.’s wetting/remoistening step within a time period of 3 to 15 minutes as set forth in applicant’s dependent claim 5. It is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-6 of copending Application No. 18/033,296 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicant’s claims are deemed to be a subset of the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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