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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 has an incorrect line break in the middle of the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US Patent Application 2017/0066862 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, Matsumoto et al teaches a method of producing a polyacrylic acid salt based water absorbent resin by adding an additive and/or gas bubbles to a monomer (Abstract). Matsumoto et al further teaches preparing an aqueous solution comprising mixing an acrylic acid (salt) and neutralizing and adding an internal crosslinking agent and polymerization initiator (Paragraphs 139-155). Matsumoto et al further teaches adding a water-insoluble additive and/or gas bubbles to the aqueous solution wherein the water-insoluble includes a foaming agent and surfactant (Paragraphs 159, 163). Matsumoto et al further teaches a foaming agent such as a magnesium carbonate or calcium carbonate in combination with a nonionic surfactant (Paragraphs 192-193, 196). Matsumoto et al further teaches the amount of the foaming agent and surfactant or both preferably less than 1000ppm (which overlaps/satisfies the claimed range; a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I)) (Paragraphs 195, 197). Matsumoto et al further teaches mixing the solution by forced stirring with motive powder (which satisfies claimed high shear mixing) with a Reynolds number of more than or equal to 10,000 for equal to or less than 10 seconds (which overlaps/satisfies the claimed ranges; a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I)) (Paragraphs 211, 216). Matsumoto et al further teaches adding another additive to the water absorbent resin that can be added during any of steps of producing the polyacrylic acid salt water absorbing resin in an amount less than 1 part by weight (Paragraphs 295-296). Matsumoto et al further teaches polymerizing the aqueous solution, drying, milling and classifying the hydrogel polymer (Paragraphs 242, 261-262). Matsumoto et al further teaches surface crosslinking (Paragraphs 266-273). However, Matsumoto et al fails to specifically disclose adding the foam stabilizer and performing the high shear mixing at Reynolds number of 10,000 or more before adding the foaming agent and drying, pulverizing and classifying in the presence of the surface crosslinking agent.
With regard to adding the foam stabilizer and performing the high shear mixing at Reynolds number of 10,000 or more before adding the foaming agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided adding the foam stabilizer and performing the high shear mixing at Reynolds number of 10,000 or more before adding the foaming agent because changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). Furthermore, Matsumoto et al further teaches adding another additive to the water absorbent resin that can be added during any of steps of producing the polyacrylic acid salt water absorbing resin in an amount less than 1 part by weight; hence, Matsumoto et al also encompasses a water-insoluble surfactant followed by the high shear mixing at Reynolds number of 10,000 or more, the addition of another additive, such as foaming agent, after this step would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
With regard to drying, pulverizing and classifying in the presence of the surface crosslinking agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided drying, pulverizing and classifying in the present of the surface crosslinking agent in order to surface crosslink the water-absorbent particles simultaneously with pulverizing and drying. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US Patent Application 2017/0066862 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-7, 9 above, and in further view of Name et al (WO Patent 2019/190120).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Matsumoto et al teaches the features above. However, Matsumoto et al fails to specifically disclose sodium bicarbonate and sodium dodecyl sulfate.
In the same field of endeavor, Nam et al teaches super absorbent polymers and method of making (Abstract) comprising using a foaming agent such as a carbonate or sodium bicarbonate (Paragraph 72) and a foam stabilizer comprising a surfactant such as sodium dodecyl sulfate or sodium stearate (Paragraph 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sodium bicarbonate or sodium dodecyl sulfate in Matsumoto et al in view of Nam et al in order to provide the claimed foaming agent and foaming stabilizer/surfactant. Simple substitution of one known foaming agent or foaming stabilizer/surfactant for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 March 13, 2026