DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, and 5-19 are pending and under consideration in this 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended to recite that the acid portion of the surface crosslinking agent is in the form of a Group IA or Group IIA salt. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach this limitation. Examiner agrees, and as such, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search an additional reference has been found that renders claim 1 obvious as described below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170015798 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method of making a superabsorbent polymer (see e.g. paragraph [0002]). Lee teaches that the method includes the step of performing a free radical polymerization on a superabsorbent polymer composition that comprises a free radical polymerization initiator, an unsaturated monomer solution and a free radical polymerization crosslinking agent (see e.g. paragraph [0011], as well as paragraph [0030] indicating that the base polymer is crosslinked and therefore must use a crosslinking agent). The resulting gel is pulverized, which is considered the same as smashing, and then size-sorted through a sieve, which is considered a type of screening (see e.g. paragraph [0152]). Next, a surface crosslinking reaction is performed on the particles using a surface crosslinking agent and reaction polymer to obtain the super absorbent polymer (see e.g. paragraphs [0099]-[0100]). The reaction polymer of Lee includes a polyacrylic acid segment 1-b and a segment that can include a polyethylene portion 1-a (see e.g. paragraph [0102]). Lee teaches that the acid portion can be in the form of a monovalent or divalent metal salt, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include group IA and IIA metals (see e.g. paragraph [0057]). The ratio of the ethylene containing segment to the acid containing segment can be as high as 100 : 1, which would include the claimed range (see e.g. paragraphs [0127]-[0128]). Per MPEP 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Although no specific example of Lee includes an ethylene segment to acid segment ratio that would be within the claimed range, given that the teachings of Lee overlap with the claimed range, claim 1 is obvious over Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches that the surface crosslinking is performed at 100-250 °C, which includes the entirety of the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the amount of reaction polymer used in the surface crosslinking is 0.01-3 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight polymer particles, which is entirely within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches that the unsaturated monomer concentration used can be 40% by weight to 65% by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee does not specifically provide the pH of the monomer solution. However, Lee teaches that the unsaturated monomer solution includes 70% neutralized acrylic acid (see e.g. paragraph [0150]). Examiner notes that this is the same degree of neutralization of the same monomer used in “Embodiment 1” of the instant application (see instant application at paragraph [0066]). As the instant application indicates that the pH of the 70% neutralized acrylic acid solution is 5.69, it is understood that the same solution used by Lee would have the same pH.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches that the polymerization can be a thermal polymerization, and as such, the initiator would be a thermal polymerization initiator (see e.g. paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches that the initiator is included in an amount of 0.001-1% with respect to the monomer solution, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches that the gel is dried at 160° C. to 180° C prior to pulverization and screening, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that the internal crosslinking agent is included in an amount of 0.001-1% by weight with respect to the monomer solution, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches that the pulverized superabsorbent polymer particles can have a size of 150-850 mm, which is entirely within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches that the amount of surface crosslinking agent is 0.001-5 parts by weight per 100 parts of the superabsorbent polymer particles, which is entirely within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee does not provide the T20 value for the superabsorbent polymer. However, the superabsorbent polymer of Lee uses very similar materials and the same methods as the instant application as described above. Further, the saline flow conductivity and centrifuge retention capacity of the superabsorbent polymer is the same as in the instant application (see e.g. paragraph [0031]). Given that Lee teaches substantially the same superabsorbent polymer having the same physical properties for those that are given in Lee, the T20 value of the superabsorbent polymer of Lee is assumed to be substantially identical to the claimed polymer as noted in MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches that the superabsorbent polymer can have a saline flow conductivity of up to 150×10−7 cm3*s/g, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches that the superabsorbent polymer can have a centrifuge retention capacity of 20-40 g/g, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 17 recites a specific type of polymer used in the surface crosslinking step. Unlike in Lee or that recited in claim 1, the surface crosslinking polymer of claim 17 has the ethylene segment directly bound to the acrylic acid segment. Although the polymer of Lee includes an -CH2-CH2- portion, this portion is not the portion directly bound to the acrylic acid segment, but instead the acrylic acid portion is bound to a -CH2-CR2- or -CH2-CHR- portion (see e.g. paragraph [0042]). That is, the acid segment of Lee is bound to a tertiary or quaternary carbon as opposed to the secondary carbon recited in claim 17. There is no teaching or suggestion in Lee to change the ethylene containing segment to have the acid portion bound to a secondary carbon.
Claims 18-19 depend from claim 17 and are novel and non-obvious over Lee for the same reason.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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
Prosecution Insights