RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the drawings made of record in the office action mailed on 05/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and arguments in the response filed 08/13/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of claims 1-6 made of record in the office action mailed on 05/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and arguments in the response filed 08/13/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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]).
The limitation “capable of absorbing a liquid having a viscosity of 5 mPa.S at 23oC in 140 seconds or shorter” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Given that Machida et al. teaches an absorbent polymer material having the structural and composition features as claimed, it would be capable of performing the same intended use presently claimed.
Alternatively, given the disclosure of Torii et al. regarding desirable water absorption speeds, 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 for a fluid having a viscosity of 5 mPa.s at 23oC, 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]).
The limitation “capable of absorbing a liquid having a viscosity of 5 mPa.S at 23oC in 140 seconds or shorter” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Given that Machida et al. teaches an absorbent polymer material having the structural and composition features as claimed, it would be capable of performing the same intended use presently claimed.
Alternatively, given the disclosure of Torii et al. regarding desirable water absorption speeds, 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 for a fluid having a viscosity of 5 mPa.s at 23oC, 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.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 08/13/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 05/15/2026 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that while Machida et al. teaches substantial elimination of closed cells by converting to open cells, as discussed in the prior art rejections above, the elimination of closed cells is for the purpose of measuring the true density of the particles but would not be suitable for making a water-absorbent resin having a particle size of 150-850 micrometers. (Applicant’s arguments filed 08/13/2026, pages 8-9).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123 I. The disclosure in Machida et al. of an additional processing step for modifying the resin material to remove the presence of closed cells, even if for only having a more accurate measurement of the density of the resin material, is sufficient to render the present claimed limitations obvious. The reference teaching the desirability to remove closed cells from the resin material would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to 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. The range would therefore overlap with the claimed “cavity ratio” and “void ratio” as presently claimed, rendering the claimed ranges obvious.
Applicant further argues that Yoon et al. teaches a pore structure and pore volume fraction that is not comparable with the claimed cavity ratio and void ratio as presently claimed or described in the present invention. In particular, Applicant argues that the preferred range of 0.75 to 0.9 for the pore volume fraction in Yoon et al. is different that the claimed range. (Applicant’s arguments filed 08/13/2026, page 9).
Nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art and teachings of preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from the broader disclosure. MPEP 2123. Even if Yoon’s preferred range is outside the range of the cavity ratio as presently claimed, the nonpreferred range of 0.74 or more broadly overlaps with the presently claimed range. Given that Yoon et al. teaches controlling the open pore content to account for 90-100% of all pores present, an open pore content accounting for 100% of the pores and being 74% or more of the volume of the particles would read on the limitation of a “cavity ratio” as presently claimed given that cavity is currently defined as “a space connecting to the outside”. Yoon et al. further teaches controlling the open pore content has a direct improvement with open absorption rate due to the diffusion of water inside the open pores. (par. [0096]). The expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references. MPEP 2144 II.
Applicant argues that the evaluation method of void ratio differs from the inner bubble ratio in the cited prior art references (Applicant’s arguments filed 08/13/2026, page 10) and is therefore not comparable.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (the measurement method for the claimed “void ratio) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “Void” is defined in the claim as a closed space not connecting to the outside and “void ratio” is defined as the content of “voids” relative to the total volume. None of the presently argued evaluation methods are claimed and nor is there any evidence that this would overcome the prima facie case of obviousness as set forth above.
Applicant mentions the submission of a 37 CFR 1.132 declaration in support of their arguments but there does not appear to be such a declaration in the response filed by Applicant on 08/13/2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 09/29/2026
Prosecution Insights