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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW202039683A, (machine translation attached) in view of Pourjavadi et al, “Synthesis and super-swelling behavior of a novel protein-based superabsorbent hydrogel”, alone, or further in view of Bucevschi et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0147588.
TW’683 discloses a water absorbent resin composition comprising an acid group-containing monomer aqueous solution, wherein a neutralization rate of the acid group-containing monomer is not less than 45 mol percent, the pH value of the solution is less than or equal to 7, and further comprising a crosslinking agent and a thermal decomposition polymerization initiator and/or a redox polymerization initiator. See first full paragraph page 1. Suitable monomers include carboxylic acid monomers. See page 2, 13th full paragraph. The composition can further comprise a surface treatment agent. See page 4, 5th full paragraph.
TW ‘683 differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose adding hydrolyzed collagen to the composition in the claimed amount.
However, Pourjavadi teaches incorporating collagen into superabsorbent hydrogels formed from carboxylic acids improved the absorbency of the hydrogel. See conclusion, page 823.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated collagen into the superabsorbent composition of TW ‘683 and to have selected the most effective amount and molecular weight of the hydrolyzed collagen through the process of routine experimentation in order to optimize the absorbency of the superabsorbent.
Pourjavadi includes a single example with a range of hydrolyzed collagen in amounts of about 12-66%. However, Pourjavadi does not teach a particular range per se, with fixed end points. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation and at least a reasonable expectation of success in trying lower amounts of hydrolyzed collagen because there is always a reason to use the least amount of any component which will still produce an acceptable result for reasons of economy. Additionally, if Pourjavadi alone would not provide a rationale for reducing the amount of hydrolyzed collagen, Bucevschi teaches adding collagen hydrolysate to a superabsorbent polymer in amounts of 4-6%. See claims 1 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed amounts of 4-6% of the hydrolyzed collagen, (collagen hydrolysate), as taught by Pourjavadi and Bucevschi, to the composition of TW’683 in order to improve the absorbency of the superabsorbent as taught by Pourjavadi.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW202039683A, (machine translation attached) in view of Pourjavadi et al, “Synthesis and super-swelling behavior of a novel protein-based superabsorbent hydrogel” alone or in view of Bucevschi, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0231878.
TW ‘683 in view of Pourjavadi differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the source of the collagen is fish scales.
However, Wu discloses a method for making collagen from fish scales by subjecting the fish scales to protein hydrolase, (protease). See abstract, paragraphs 0028-0036 and example 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed collagen made from fish scales as taught by Wu in view of its ready availability and high purity. With regard to the particular protease used, it is noted that the particular process of extracting the collagen is a process limitation and therefore the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process difference results in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. Additionally, since Wu teaches extracting the collagen from the fish scales by hydrolyzing with a protease, it would have been obvious to have selected from among known protease to extract the collagen from the fish scales.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that TW ‘683 in view of Pourjavadi does not teach the claimed amount of hydrolyzed collagen. However, as set forth above, one of ordinary skill would have had a motivation to see if smaller amounts of hydrolyzed collagen still produced the desired results, since Pourjavadi does not teach a range or end point and provides an example with about 12 percent hydrolyzed collagen. Additionally, if Pourjavadi does not sufficiently provide motivation to use lesser amounts, newly applied Bucevschi teaches employing hydrolyzed collagen, (collagen hydrolysate) in amounts of 4-6% relative to the superabsorbent polymer.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights