RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of claim 11 made of record in the office action mailed on 03/03/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 05/01/2026.
Non-Final Rejection
The Examiner had previously indicated allowable subject matter in the office action mailed on 03/03/2026. Applicant amended claim 1 to incorporate the subject matter of claim 15 into claim 1. However, upon further review the Examiner found that the Daniel et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0030155) taught the limitations of claim 15, now cancelled. As such that indication of allowable subject for claim 15 was in error. The limitations of claim 14, now cancelled, remain allowable should the Applicant wish to incorporate them into claim 1. The present rejection is a non-final rejection due to new grounds of rejection that were not necessitated by amendment.
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, 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (U.S. App. No. 2009/0030155).
Regarding claim 1, Daniel et al. discloses an absorbent article comprising water-absorbing polymeric particles which are brought into contact with a composition including one post-crosslinker one water-insoluble metal phosphate and one further ingredient. (Abstract and par. [0022], [0103]). The water-soluble particles are further heat treated and thereafter subjected to optional additional processing including spraying with an aqueous solution containing water-soluble metal salts (par. [0221]) and a wax coating (par. [0225]) which may be applied as an aqueous dispersion, together with other coating steps (i.e. including the water-soluble metal salts). A coating composition containing water soluble metal salts and a wax would therefore form a “sea-island structure” wherein the wax may be described as the “sea” and the metal salt containing regions as the “islands” given that the metal salts will not dissolve in the hydrophobic wax material and the metal salts would be more water soluble than the wax material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the surface of the water-absorbing polymeric particles of Daniel et al. with a coating containing both water-soluble metal salts and a wax as taught by the reference, given that the additional treatments provided enhanced desirable properties to the water absorbing hydrogel particles.
With respect to the limitation “the compound B being at least one compound…. sodium hydrogen carbonate”, Daniel et al. discloses that the water-soluble metal salts may include sulfates, acetates, propionates, citrates, tartrates and lactates of the metals (par. [0221]), which would meet the limitations of an organic compound having a hydrophilic group (the metal cation or the anion in the organic compound)
Regarding claim 6, Daniel et al. discloses forming water soluble particle materials including more than one kind of monomer, crosslinker and water-soluble polymer to which the monomer and crosslinker are grafted to. (par. [0080]-0092]). Daniel et al. further discloses particles having range of particles sizes. (par. [0097]-[0100]). Therefore, any particle having a different monomer, crosslinker of water-soluble used as well as any particle having a different particle size would meet the limitation of “a resin particle having a water-absorption property other than the coated resin particle” as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Daniel et al. discloses that the polymer may be crosslinked. (par. [0081]). Daniel et al. further discloses that the monomers used in the water-absorbing hydrogel may be (meth)acrylic acid monomers which may be used alone or in optional combination with other comonomers (i.e. 100mol% or less if other comonomers are present) (par. [0080]) overlapping with the presently claimed range. 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).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (U.S. App. No. 2009/0030155) in view of Engelhardt et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,840,321).
Regarding claim 2, Daniel et al. discloses that the water-soluble metal salts have a water solubility of at least 1g /1000 mL at 25oC but does not disclose the water solubility of the waxes. However, Daniel et al. discloses that suitable waxes are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,840,321 to Engelhardt.
Engelhardt et al. discloses hydrophilic highly swellable hydrogel materials which are coated with nonreactive water-insoluble waxes. (Abstract). Engelhardt et al. teaches that the wax coating allows for a dust-free abrasion resistant water swellable particles with low caking tendency in damp air. (col. 3, lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use water-insoluble waxes as the coating material for the wax taught in Daniel et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use water-insoluble waxes in Daniel et al. in order to provide a dust-free abrasion resistant water swellable particles with low caking tendency in damp air One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosure of “water insoluble” in the context of Daniel in view of Engelhardt et al. would refer to a material whose solubility in water is significantly below that of the “water-soluble metal salts” (i.e. less than 1g/1000 mL at 25oC) such that the difference between then is at least 20% as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 12, the waxes disclosed in Engelhardt et al. are polyolefin (i.e. alkene) based waxes. (col. 4, lines 41-50).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (U.S. App. No. 2009/0030155) in view of Riegel et al. (WO 2005/080479).
Citations to Riegel et al. below refer to the machine translation document provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 3, Daniel et al. discloses the content of the wax used in an amount of 0.01-1.0 wt.% of the water-absorbing polymer particles. Daniel et al. does not disclose the amount of water-soluble metal salts. Daniel et al. refers to a coating process disclosed in WO 2005/080479 to Riegel et al. for suitable coating amounts.
Riegel et al. discloses a water-absorbent polymer composition which is surface treated with a secondary crosslinker in the form of an aqueous solution containing a polyvalent cation. (Abstract). The polyvalent cation is equivalent to the water-soluble metal salt referred to in Daniel et al. and is used in an amount of 0.001-0.5% by weight of polymer A which is the water-absorbent polymer material. (page 4, last 4 paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the water-soluble metal salt treatment in amounts disclosed by Riegel et al. in the disclosure of Daniel et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the amount of water-soluble metal salt treatment in amounts disclosed by Riegel et al. in the disclosure of Daniel et al. in view of the explicit teaching in Daniel et al. that suitable amounts of the water-soluble metal salt treatment may be learned in the Riegel et al. reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success that the amounts taught in Riegel et al. would be effective in achieving the desired improved properties.
Based on the combined teachings of Daniel and Riegel et al., the amount of water-soluble metal salt (equivalent to component B) to the combine total of water-soluble metal salt and water insoluble wax is in the range of about 0.001% (0.001/(1+0.001)) to about 98% (0.5/(0.01+0.5), overlapping with the presently claimed range. 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).
Regarding claim 10, the coating layer may contain additional constituents may be included in the coating material of Daniel et al. including a dedusting agent up to 0.5 wt% (par. [0220]), metal oxide sol in an amount of 0.01-1.0% wt, (par. [0224]) and surfactant up to 0.02% by weight. (par. [0218]). The coating amount therefore is 3.02% or more, based on the relative size of the water absorbent polymer particles, overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 05/01/2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Given that the water-soluble metal salt materials include organic compounds having hydrophilic groups, the coating composition taught in Daniel et al. reads on the claims and therefore they remain unpatentable over the teachings of the prior art.
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 05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights