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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
In Fig. 2(a) reference character “20” and “20a” are pointing to the same structure
In Fig. 4, two instances of reference character “208” are present. It appears as the “208” which points to the striped patter should be “206” according to Applicant’s specification on page 71, lines 18-20
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 2 paragraphs in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “poly(meth)acrylic acid (salt)-based”. It is unclear why “salt” is in parentheses and therefore is the claim is claimed invention or merely optional. Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
The term “high-viscosity” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the viscosity level of the liquid should be to be considered “high-viscosity” and therefore the metes and bounds of the claims are not defined.
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 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0226412) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/24/2023).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Machida et al. discloses a water absorbing polyacrylic acid (salt) resin powder which contains open and closed cells (equivalent to the “cavity” and “void” as presently claimed). (Abstract, Fig. 2, par. [0346]-[0352]). Machida et al. discloses that the internal cell ratio is in the range of 0.1 to 2.5% which can be controlled by gel grinding energy and water-soluble content of the resin (par. [0352]), overlapping with the void ratio presently claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Machida et al. does not explicitly disclose the content or ratio of open cells in the water absorbing resin powder. However, Machida et al. discloses substantially eliminating closed cells by converting them into open cells by breaking up the water resin particles. (par. [0346], [0449] and Fig. 2-3). Machida et al. teaches this open cell elimination is useful for calculating the real density of the water absorbent resin, absorbing rate and permeability potential. (par. [0346] and [0352]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the content of open cells (equivalent to the claimed cavities) and minimize the amount of closed cells (equivalent to claimed voids), thereby resulting in a void ratio that would be as close to 0% by volume (based on the language of “almost no closed cells”) and an open cell content that is as high as required for substantially eliminating the content of closed cells, since opening the closed cells will cause them to be converted to open cells as shown in Fig. 3.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the content of open and closed cells in view of the teachings in Machida et al. that this affects the real density of the water absorbent resin, absorbing rate and permeability potential. (par. [034]6 and [0352]). It is the stated goal of the reference to essentially remove all of the closed cells by converting them to open cells by grinding (Fig. 3), thereby implying a result effective relationship to the performance of the water absorbing resin material. (see MPEP 2144.04 II).
Regarding claim 2, Machida et al. discloses a CRC of 25 g/g or more. (par. [0360]).
Regarding claim 3, Machida et al. discloses an AAP of 20 g/g or more. (par. [0356]). While the AAP is measured using a different pressure (4.8 kPa vs 2.06 kPa), in view of the open-ended claim limitation and disclosed in Machida et al. of 20 g/g, it would be expected to substantially overlap with the claimed range when measured using a different pressure.
Regarding claim 4, Machida et al. discloses a moisture content of not greater than 1 wt%. (par. [0447]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0226412) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/24/2023) in view of Torii et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0193641).
Machida et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Machida et al. does not disclose the absorption time of a high-viscosity liquid is 140 seconds or shorter as claimed.
Torii et al. teaches a polyacrylic acid (salt)-based water absorbent material having improved properties and including a closed/open cell configuration similar to that one in Machida et al. (Abstract and Fig. 2-3). Torii et al. teaches that the desired absorption speed of the water absorbent particulate material should be 90 seconds or less and can be controlled by the production method of the particle. (par. [0210]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the production method of the particle in Machida et al. to have an absorption speed of 90 seconds or less as disclosed in Torii et al., which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obtain a water absorbing resin having an absorption speed of 90 seconds or less as disclosed in Torii et al. in order to obtain a water absorbent material having improved properties.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0226412) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/24/2023) in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0119452).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Machida et al. discloses a water absorbing polyacrylic acid (salt) resin powder which contains open and closed cells (equivalent to the “cavity” and “void” as presently claimed). (Abstract, Fig. 2, par. [0346]-[0352]). Machida et al. discloses that the internal cell ratio is in the range of 0.1 to 2.5% which can be controlled by gel grinding energy and water-soluble content of the resin (par. [0352]), overlapping with the void ratio presently claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Machida et al. discloses substantially eliminating closed cells by converting them into open cells by breaking up the water resin particles. (par. [0346], [0449] and Fig. 2-3). Machida et al. teaches this open cell elimination is useful for calculating the real density of the water absorbent resin, absorbing rate and permeability potential. (par. [0346] and [0352]).
Machida et al. does not explicitly disclose the content or ratio of open cells in the water absorbing resin powder.
Yoon et al. teaches a porous superabsorbent polymer material having improved performance which includes a plurality of open pores (i.e. cavities as claimed). (Abstract). Yoon et al. teaches controlling the porosity of the water absorbing particles to be 0.74 or more relative to the total volume of the resin particle (par. [0031]) wherein this is 90-100% of the pores present. (par. [0096]). These open pores allow for improved absorption rate due to the diffusion of water inside the open pores. (par. [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the content of open cavities in Machida to be 0.74 (74%) of the volume of the resin material in view of the teachings of Yoon et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a cavity content in the range of 0.74 in view of the teachings of Yoon et al. regarding the improved absorption rate as the result of the presence of the cavities.
Regarding claim 2, Machida et al. discloses a CRC of 25 g/g or more. (par. [0360]).
Regarding claim 3, Machida et al. discloses an AAP of 20 g/g or more. (par. [0356]). While the AAP is measured using a different pressure (4.8 kPa vs 2.06 kPa), in view of the open-ended claim limitation and disclosed in Machida et al. of 20 g/g, it would be expected to substantially overlap with the claimed range when measured using a different pressure.
Regarding claim 4, Machida et al. discloses a moisture content of not greater than 1 wt%. (par. [0447]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0226412) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/24/2023) in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0119452), further in view of Torii et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0193641).
Machida et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Machida et al. does not disclose the absorption time of a high-viscosity liquid is 140 seconds or shorter as claimed.
Torii et al. teaches a polyacrylic acid (salt)-based water absorbent material having improved properties and including a closed/open cell configuration similar to that one in Machida et al. (Abstract and Fig. 2-3). Torii et al. teaches that the desired absorption speed of the water absorbent particulate material should be 90 seconds or less and can be controlled by the production method of the particle. (par. [0210]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the production method of the particle in Machida et al. to have an absorption speed of 90 seconds or less as disclosed in Torii et al., which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obtain a water absorbing resin having an absorption speed of 90 seconds or less as disclosed in Torii et al. in order to obtain a water absorbent material having improved properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 05/13/2026
Prosecution Insights