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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended, and claims 6-8 are newly added.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (US20200009529A1, published 9 January 2020).
In regard to claim 6, Nam et al. teaches a method of crosslinking a polymer via a reaction between a polymer powder and an aqueous solution of a crosslinking agent (Comparative Example 1, [0154]; steps described in Example 1, [0148]). Nam et al. further teaches that the crosslinking agent is ethylene carbonate, an alkylene carbonate, in a 0.0004:1 mass ratio with respect to the solid polymer particles and in a 0.0133:1 mass ratio with respect to water (Comparative Example 1, [0154]). The ratios of ethylene carbonate to solid polymer particles and ethylene carbonate to water in the crosslinking solution are within the instantly claimed ratios of 0-0.00110:1 and 0.009-0.027:1 respectively. The reaction results in a surface crosslinked powder [0148]. The crosslinking using ethylene carbonate is accomplished in a single step, and therefore the method disclosed is a method comprising a single step of crosslinking a polymer with a surface crosslinking agent. The inclusion of other steps in the method is still anticipatory of the claim as instantly constructed.
In regard to claim 8, Nam et al. teaches that the crosslinking agent solution includes methanol, a monohydridic alcohol [0154].
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20200368722A1, published 26 November 2020).
In regard to claims 1 and 5, Kim et al. teaches a method of producing water absorbent particles comprising a step of crosslinking polymer particles by contacting 100 g of a polymer powder with a surface crosslinking agent solution comprising 3.2 g of water, 4.0 g of methanol, 0.088 g of ethylene carbonate as a crosslinking agent, and 0.01 g of silica [0115]. The disclosed ethylene carbonate is an alkylene carbonate and the mass ratio of surface crosslinking agent to polymer particles is 0.0088, which is within the instantly claimed range of 0.00045-0.00110. Kim et al. does not teach that a mass ratio of the alkylene carbonate (ethylene carbonate) to water in the crosslinking agent solution is between 0.009-0.027 as instantly claimed, as the disclosed ratio is 0.0275 EC/H2O. However, Kim et al. suggests that that the ratio of water to crosslinking agent has an effect on the efficacy of the crosslinking agent in forming a crosslinked layer on individual polymer particles and decreasing particle agglomeration. Kim et al. suggests that the crosslinking agent and water may be added in a combination not to exceed 0.5-10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts of polymer particles [0096]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed range of 0.009-0.027 crosslinking agent/water from the 0.00275 ratio disclosed by Kim et al. through process optimization, since Kim et al. suggests that the ratio of a crosslinking agent to water is a result-effective variable and since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claims 3 and 7, Kim et al. teaches that the crosslinking agent solution contains methanol, which is a monohydric alcohol.
In regard to claim 4, Kim et al. teaches ethylene carbonate as the crosslinking agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regard to newly added claims 6 and 8, Nam et al. teaches the reaction of polymer with a first crosslinking liquid to yield a cross-linked polymer powder. This polymer powder is then subjected to a second crosslinking solution which anticipates all of the limitations of claims 6 and 8. The process of contacting the polymer particles (which have been, to some degree, crosslinked by another step) with a crosslinking agent solution, is conducted in a single step of contact and reaction [0149]. As such the method comprises a single step of crosslinking a polymer (i.e. surface-crosslinked polymer powder) with a surface crosslinking agent. Applicant’s notion that the method described by Nam et al. is distinct from claim 6 is not commensurate with the actual scope of claim 6’s language.
Conclusion
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 MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights