Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-21 are currently pending with claims 5, 6, and 8 being cancelled.
The 112 rejection has been maintained.
The rejections over Yamaguchi and further in view of Qin have been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Yamaguchi discloses that the water-absorbent sheet structure comprises an absorbent layer containing water-absorbent resin particles A and water-absorbent resin particles B, and said absorbent layer sandwiched between fibrous webs from an upper side and a lower side of the absorbent layer (abstract). The difference in the water-retention capacity between the particles A and B is at least 5 g/g (paragraph 51). In contrast, the claim requires that the difference in the water retention capacity between particles A and B must be 4 g/g or less. Hence, Yamaguchi fails to teach the claimed invention.
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 1-4, 7, and 9-21 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.
As to claim 1, Ex parte Slob, 157 USPQ 172, states, "claims merely setting forth physical characteristics desired in an article, and not setting forth specific composition which would meet such characteristics, are invalid as vague, indefinite, and functional since they cover any conceivable combination of ingredients either presently existing or which might be discovered in the future and which would impart said desired characteristics. It seems from the claim, if one meets the structure recited, the properties must be met or Applicant’s claim is incomplete.”
In this case, the claim setting forth the water-absorbent particles A having a 2-min value of water absorption rate of physical saline of 2.5 cm or less and a water retention capacity of physiological saline of 38 to 41 g/g and not setting forth crosslinked polymer resin particles having a water-insoluble coating layer that coats at least a part of a surface thereof, which would meet such characteristics are invalid as vague and indefinite.
Similarly, the claim setting forth the water-absorbent particles B having a 2-min value of water absorption rate of physical saline of 4.0 cm or more and a water retention capacity of physiological saline of 38 to 41 g/g and not and not setting forth uncoated, crosslinked polymer resin particles which would meet such characteristics are invalid as vague and indefinite.
Additionally, the claim setting forth a diffusion area change ratio of 0.8 to 1.0 and not setting forth the combination of the coated particles and uncoated particles with a mass ratio of the coated particles to the particles in the absorbent core in a range of 20:100 to 60:100 would meet such characteristics are invalid as vague and indefinite.
During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Parkard, 752 F .3d at 1310.”
“If the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” (MPEP 2173.02, I).
The claim looks ambiguous because the water absorbent resin particles could be interpreted as non-crosslinked polymer particles, and this does not seem to fall within the scope of the claimed invention (paragraphs 48 and 81 of published application).
The claim also looks confusing for several reasons. Claim 1 states that the absorber exhibits a diffusion area change ratio ranging from 0.8 to 1.0, which implies that it could contain water-absorbent resin particles A and B in any ratio. This broad interpretation suggests that the absorber could achieve the diffusion area change ratio ranging from 0.8 to 1.0 even with all uncoated water-absorbent resin particles, which falls outside the scope of the claimed invention.
According to the Applicant’s disclosure, the absorber comprising 10-60% by mass of the coated resin particles can achieve the diffusion area change ratio as presently claimed. In contrast, the absorber core containing either 0% or 70% by mass of coated resin particles does not meet the requirements for the claimed diffusion area change ratio (comparative examples 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8).
As to claim 3, it is unclear whether the contents of the fibrous material, the water-absorbent resin particles and combination thereof are in mass % or in weight %. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claims 4, 16-19 and 21, it is not clear whether the total amount of the water-absorbent resin particles and the fibrous material in the absorber refers to the total mass or the total weight. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788