DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration in this action.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20130310251 (“Smith”) as evidenced by US20180320010 (“Anton”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a method of making a superabsorbent polymer (see e.g. paragraph [0002]). The method includes free radical polymerization of an unsaturated monomer aqueous solution (see e.g. paragraph [0045]). The polymerization solution includes an unsaturated acrylic acid monomer, the free radical initiator and a crosslinking agent to obtain a colloid gel (see e.g. paragraph [0045]). The gel is then crushed and screened to remove particles outside the range of 150-850 mm (see e.g. paragraph [0047]). A surface crosslinking reaction is then performed (see e.g. paragraph [0027]). The surface crosslinking reaction polymer includes a surface crosslinking agent and a thermoplastic polymer, such as Michem Prime 48525R® (see e.g. paragraph [0012] and Table 2). As described by Anton, Michem Prime 48524R® is an ethylene/acrylic acid copolymer, and would thus contain both a polyethylene segment and a poly(acrylic acid) segment (see e.g. Anton at paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches that the surface crosslinking reaction polymer can be an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer, such as Michem Prime 48525R® (see e.g. Table 2), which would include both segments (1) and (2). As evidenced by Anton, the polymer is a sodium neutralized polymer, meaning that M in portion (2) is sodium, which is a group IA element (see e.g. Anton at paragraph [0105]). Anton shows that the Michem Prime 48525R® contains about 20% by weight of the acrylic acid segment, and thus 80% by weight of the ethylene segment, both of which are within the claimed ranges (Id.).
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches that the surface crosslinking is carried out at 150-225 °C, which includes the entirety of the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, as shown by Anton, the Michem Prime 48525R® is about 20% acrylic acid, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Anton at paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 5, Smith teaches that the crosslinking mixture can contain 0.01-5.0% of the thermoplastic polymer, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 6, in a specific example, Smith teaches that the concentration of the unsaturated monomer can be about 33%, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0093] describing 2400 g total acrylic acid in 7357 g total solution).
Regarding claim 7, Smith does not provide the pH of the unsaturated monomer solution, but does teach that the monomer is 50-80% neutralized (see e.g. claim 26). As noted in the instant application, the requisite pH corresponds to an acrylic acid neutralization of 45-85%, meaning that the solution of Smith is within the claimed range (see instant specification at paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches that the initiator can be a redox initiator (see e.g. paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith teaches that the initiator is included in an amount of 200 ppm, which is 0.02% and within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 10, in a specific example, Smith teaches drying at 175 °C prior to chopping and screening, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches using 0.001 to about 5.0 wt. % of the internal crosslinking agent, which is the same as the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches that the particles are between 150-850 microns, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches that the surface crosslinking agent is included in an amount of 0.001-5.0%, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches a method of making a superabsorbent polymer (see e.g. paragraph [0002]). The method includes free radical polymerization of an unsaturated monomer aqueous solution (see e.g. paragraph [0045]). The polymerization solution includes an unsaturated acrylic acid monomer, the free radical initiator and a crosslinking agent to obtain a colloid gel (see e.g. paragraph [0045]). A surface crosslinking reaction is then performed (see e.g. paragraph [0027]). The surface crosslinking reaction polymer includes a surface crosslinking agent and a thermoplastic polymer, such as Michem Prime 48525R® (see e.g. paragraph [0012] and Table 2). As described by Anton, Michem Prime 48524R® is an ethylene/acrylic acid copolymer, and would thus have the same structure as claimed (see e.g. Anton at paragraph [0105]). As evidenced by Anton, the polymer is a sodium neutralized polymer, meaning that M in structure (3) is sodium, which is a group IA element (see e.g. Anton at paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches that the surface crosslinking is carried out at 150-225 °C, which includes the entirety of the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 19, Smith teaches that the crosslinking mixture can contain 0.01-5.0% of the thermoplastic polymer, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 20, Anton shows that the Michem Prime 48525R® contains about 20% by weight of the acrylic acid segment, and thus 80% by weight of the ethylene segment, both of which are within the claimed ranges (see e.g. Anton at paragraph [0105]).
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.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith.
Regarding claims 14-15, Smith teaches the same method for forming a superabsorbent polymer as the instant application, using the same or very similar materials as shown in the rejections above. Although Smith does not expressly provide the T20 value for the formed super absorbent polymer as recited in claim 14 or the saline flow conductivity as recited in claim 15, given that the Smith teaches substantially the same product as the instant invention, the properties are assumed to be substantially identical. 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 processes to make the superabsorbent polymer, the superabsorbent polymer of Smith is considered to have the same properties and characteristics of the superabsorbent polymer of claims 14-15.
Alternatively even if the superabsorbent polymer of Smith is slightly different than the product of the instant application, given the nearly identical methods and materials, any slight differences in properties would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Smith expressly teaches that the centrifuge retention capacity is greater than 20g/g (see e.g. Table 2, examples 5-10).
Conclusion
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