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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herfert et al. (US20060252913A1; cited in IDS dated 07/27/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Herfert teaches a method of preparing a super adsorbent polymer that includes a neutralized, acrylic-acid monomer where the neutralization is up to about 80 percent of the acid types (i.e. a partially neutralized moiety), an internal crosslinking agent, a photoinitiator, and a redox initiator, where the redox initiator includes a pairing of a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent ([0023]; [0025]; [0026]; [0030]; [0052]-[0053]; Abstract). Herfert further teaches sodium bicarbonate is included in the method ([0035]; [0102]), which is equivalent to the instantly claimed foaming agent because sodium bicarbonate is explicitly listed as a foaming agent (see at least Claim 6 for a listing of foaming agents of the instant invention).
Herfert teaches the method includes performing a partial neutralization of acrylic acid monomer, crosslinking to form polymerized hydrogel, comminuting the SAP hydrogel and drying to form particles of the hydrogel, and further performing a surface crosslinking treatment with a surface crosslinking agent ([0023]-[0026]; [0030]; [0069]-[0074]).
Herfert teaching that a crosslinked polymerized hydrogel is comminuted (i.e. pulverized, milled, ground, etc.) and dried prior to performing a further surface crosslinking treatment is equivalent to forming a “base resin” and anticipates the claimed limitation. See Pg. 4, par. 3 in the instant specification for description of a “base resin”.
Herfert further teaches an example where the method includes 0.018 g DAROCUR 1173, 0.040 g of hydrogen peroxide, and 0.015 g of sodium sulfite ([0126]). Herfert teaches DAROCUR 1173 is a photoinitiator ([0057]-[0065]), hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizing agent ([0055]) and sodium sulfite is a reducing agent ([0055]). Converting the mass of the reagents taught by Herfert to mol in order to compare with the instantly claimed limitation “each of the reducing agent and the oxidizing agent is contained in an amount of greater than 1 mol to 13 mol or less based on 1 mol of the photoinitiator,” Herfert teaches a ratio of 10.7 mol of oxidizing agent to 1 mol photoinitiator and a ratio of 1.09 mol of reducing agent to 1 mol of photoinitiator.
Calculations:
DAROCUR 1173 molar mass = 164.2
sodium sulfite molar mass = 126.043
hydrogen peroxide molar mass = 34.014
0.018 g / 164.2 g/mol = 0.00011 mol DAROCUR 1173
0.015 g / 126.043 g/mol = 0.00012 mol sodium sulfite
0.04 g / 34.014 g/mol = 0.0012 mol hydrogen peroxide
0.0012 mol hydrogen peroxide / 0.00011 mol DAROCUR 1173 = 10.7
0.00012 mol sodium sulfite / 0.00011 mol DAROCUR 1173 = 1.09
Regarding claim 5, Herfert anticipates the method of claim 1.
Herfert further teaches the reducing agent can be ascorbic acid and the oxidizing agent can be hydrogen peroxide ([0053]).
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 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 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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herfert et al. (US20060252913A1; cited in IDS dated 07/27/2023) in view of Herth et al. (US20110095227A1; cited in IDS dated 07/08/2024).
Regarding claim 2, Herfert anticipates the method of claim 1.
Herfert further teaches an example where the method includes 0.018 g DAROCUR 1173, 0.040 g of hydrogen peroxide, and 0.015 g of sodium sulfite ([0126]). Herfert teaches DAROCUR 1173 is a photoinitiator ([0057]-[0065]), hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizing agent ([0055]) and sodium sulfite is a reducing agent ([0055]). Converting the mass of the reagents taught by Herfert to mol in order to compare with the instantly claimed limitation “each of the reducing agent and the oxidizing agent is contained in an amount of greater than 2 mol to 12 mol or less based on 1 mol of the photoinitiator,” Herfert teaches a ratio of 10.7 mol of oxidizing agent to 1 mol photoinitiator. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Herfert (10.7 mol of oxidizing agent to 1 mol photoinitiator) overlaps with the claimed range (the oxidizing agent is contained in an amount of greater than 2 mol to 12 mol or less based on 1 mol of the photoinitiator). Therefore, the range in Herfert renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires “the reducing agent… is contained in an amount of greater than 2 mol to 12 mol or less based on 1 mol of the photoinitiator,” to which Herfert teaches the reducing agent is included in a mol ratio of 1.09 mol per 1 mol of photoinitiator.
Herth teaches a method of preparing a superadsorbent polymer that includes a redox initiator and a photoinitiator, where the redox initiator components include an oxidizing and reducing component each present in a range between 0.000005 and 0.5 wt.% and the photoinitiator is present in a range between 0.001 and 0.1 wt.% ([0076]). Herth teaches ascorbic acid is a reducing agent and teaches the photoinitiator can be 2,2'-azobis(2-amidinopropane) hydrochloride ([0076]), both of which are listing in the instant specification as examples for each agent (see at least Pg. 9 in the instant specification. Accordingly, converting the range taught by Herth to a mol ratio provides a reducing agent to mol ratio ranging between 0.000006 to 62 taught by Herth. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Herth (0.000006 to 62 mol of reducing agent to 1 mol photoinitiator) overlaps with the claimed range (the reducing agent is contained in an amount of greater than 2 mol to 12 mol or less based on 1 mol of the photoinitiator). Therefore, the range in Herfert renders obvious the claimed range.
Calculations:
Hydrogen peroxide molar mass = 34.014
2,2'-azobis(2-amidinopropane) hydrochloride molar mass = 271.19 g/mol
Ratio of peroxide to azo = 34.014 / 271.19 = 0.125
Low end of reducing agent = 0.000005 * 0.125 = 6.3 x 10^-7
High end of reducing agent = 0.5 * 0.125 = 0.0627
Low end of reducing agent per mol azo = 6.3 x 10^-7 / 0.1 = 6.3 x 10^-6
High end of reducing agent per mol azo = 0.0627 / 0.001 = 62.7
Advantageously, providing the range of reducing agent to photoinitiator taught by Herth provides a super adsorbent polymer with very long chain polymers that allows the super adsorbent polymer to adsorb additional water in faster time ([0033]; ([0076]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a range between 0.000006 to 62 mol of reducing agent to 1 mol photoinitiator in the method of Herfert in order to provide very long chain polymers that allow super adsorbent polymers to adsorb additional water in faster times, as taught by Herth.
Regarding claim 4, Herfert anticipates the method of claim 1.
Herfert further teaches the reducing agent can include sodium metabisulfite ([0053]).
The claim further requires “the oxidizing agent is sodium persulfate” to which Herfert is silent.
Herth teaches a method of preparing a superadsorbent polymer that includes a redox initiator, where the oxidizing agent includes alkali metal persulphates ([0076]). Sodium is an alkali metal.
Advantageously, providing the oxidizing agents taught by Herth provides a super adsorbent polymer with very long chain polymers that allows the super adsorbent polymer to adsorb additional water in faster time ([0033]; ([0076]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an oxidizing agent of an alkali metal persulfate, such as sodium persulfate, in the method of Herfert in order to provide very long chain polymers that allow super adsorbent polymers to adsorb additional water in faster times, as taught by Herth.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herfert et al. (US20060252913A1; cited in IDS dated 07/27/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Herfert anticipates the method of claim 1.
Herfert further teaches the redox initiators (i.e. the reducing agent and the oxidizing agent) are each used in an amount of about 2x10^-5 to about 2x10^-2 mole percent based on the moles of the monomer ([0053]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Herfert (about 2x10^-5 (0.00002) to about 2x10^-2 (0.02) mole percent) overlaps with the claimed range (greater than 0.0015 mol% to less than 0.02 mol%). Therefore, the range in Herfert renders obvious the claimed range.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herfert et al. (US20060252913A1; cited in IDS dated 07/27/2023) in view of Wattlebled et al. (US20140054497A1; cited in IDS dated 07/08/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Herfert anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the foaming agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, potassium bicarbonate, potassium carbonate, calcium bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, magnesium bicarbonate, and magnesium carbonate,” to which Herfert teaches sodium carbonate is present in the method, however does not specify it is a “foaming agent.”
Wattlebled teaches a method of preparing a water-adsorbing polymer that includes a blowing agent, where the blowing agent includes carbonates from the group of lithium carbonate, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, rubidium carbonate, cesium carbonate, or higher valency metal ions such as beryllium carbonate, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, strontium carbonate or mixtures thereof (Abstract; [0020]). Wattlebled teaches the blowing agent serves as a source of gas to generates bubbles ([0005]). The instant specification describes the foaming agent as serving to produce carbon dioxide gas (Pg. 1-2).
Accordingly, given that the blowing agents of Wattlebled are the same chemicals as those claimed and serve the same purpose as the claimed foaming agent, the blowing agent of Wattlebled is interpreted as equivalent and synonymous with the foaming agents of the instant invention.
Advantageously, the blowing agent of Wattlebled proves homogenous distribution through the hydrogel that provides a water-adsorbing polymer having a higher swell rate ([0024]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a carbonate based foaming agent as taught in Wattlebled in the method of Herfert in order to provide a homogenous distribution of foaming agent during the process that provides a water-adsorbing polymer having a higher swell rate, as taught by Wattlebled.
Regarding claim 7, Herfert anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the foaming agent is contained in an amount of 0.05 to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the acrylic acid-based monomer,” to which Herfert is silent.
Wattlebled teaches a method of preparing a water-adsorbing polymer that includes a blowing agent, such as carbonates from the group of lithium carbonate, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, rubidium carbonate, cesium carbonate, or higher valency metal ions such as beryllium carbonate, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, strontium carbonate or mixtures thereof, where the sodium carbonate blowing agent is present at 0.5% by weight based on the monomer (Abstract; [0020]; [0117]). Wattlebled teaches the monomer is acrylic acid ([0117]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Wattlebled (0.5% (i.e. 0.5 parts by weight) by weight blowing agent based on monomer) overlaps with the claimed range (0.05 to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the acrylic acid-based monomer). Therefore, the range in Herfert renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including the blowing agent at 0.5% by weight as taught by Wattlebled provides a homogenous distribution through the hydrogel that produces a water-adsorbing polymer having a higher swell rate ([0024]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide 0.5% by weight of a carbonate based foaming agent in the method of Herfert in order to provide a homogenous distribution of foaming agent during the process that produces a water-adsorbing polymer having a higher swell rate, as taught by Wattlebled.
Regarding claim 8, Herfert anticipates the method of claim 1.
Herfert further teaches the method comprises the steps of polymerizing a monomer mixture containing partially neutralized acrylic acid with a photoinitiator and an internal crosslinking agent, where the cross-linking agent performs internal crosslinking ([0025]-[0026]). This teaching is equivalent to claimed “step i).”
The claim further requires “ii) adding a thermal initiator, a foaming agent, and a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent forming a redox pair with each other to the mixture obtained in i),” to which Herfert does not teach a foaming agent being added in this order.
Wattlebled teaches a method for preparing a superadsorbent polymer that first prepares a partially neutralized mixture of acrylic acid monomer, followed by adding a thermal initiator in the form of sodium peroxodisulphate, a foaming agent in the form of sodium carbonate, an oxidizing agent in the form of hydrogen peroxide, and a reducing agent in the form of ascorbic acid ([0020]; [0068]-[0069]; [0070]; [0117]).
Wattlebled teaches the reducing agent and the oxidizing agent form a redox catalyst, or redox system ([0070]; [0072]). Wattlebled teaches the reducing component is preferably ascorbic acid, glucose, sorbose, mannose, ammonium hydrogensulphite, Sulphate, thiosulphate, hyposulphite or Sulphide, alkali metal hydrogensulphite, Sulphate, thiosulphate, hypoSulphite or Sulphide, metal salts such as iron(II) ions or silver ions, or sodium hydroxymethylsulphoxylate ([0070]). Accordingly, Wattlebled teaching a redox system that includes a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent, with overlapping chemicals (see [0069]-[0071]) to those instantly claimed is interpreted as equivalent to “a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent forming a redox pair with each other to the mixture obtained”.
Advantageously, preparing superadsorbent polymers by the method of Wattlebled produces a water-adsorbing polymer having a higher swell rate and increased rate for adsorption of aqueous solutions ([0008]-[0012]; [0024]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to first prepares a partially neutralized mixture of acrylic acid monomer, followed by adding a thermal initiator in the form of sodium peroxodisulphate, a foaming agent in the form of sodium carbonate, an oxidizing agent in the form of hydrogen peroxide, and a reducing agent in the form of ascorbic acid in the method of Herfert in order to produce a water-adsorbing polymer having a higher swell rate and increased rate for adsorption of aqueous solutions, as taught by Wattlebled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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 A. Merkling can be reached on (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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights