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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 13, and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, line 4, the term “has” should be “have”.
Regarding claim 13, line 3, the term “The” shouldn’t be capitalized.
Regarding claim 15, line 3, the phrase “after the drying the neutralized…” was likely intended to read “after drying the neutralized…”
Regarding claim 16, line 3, the phrase “after the pulverizing the…” is likely intended to read ““after pulverizing the…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “in accordance with particle sizes of the pulverized super adsorbent polymer particles” is unclear. The term is unclear because claim 15, from which claim 16 depends, does not specify the particle sizes of the pulverized particles. Accordingly, it is unclear what size particles the classifying step is supposed to be producing such that the particles are “in accordance with” particles sizes of the pulverized super adsorbent polymer particles. From the claim, a skilled artisan would not be apprised of the scope of the invention because the claim does not set forth what the classifying step achieves (i.e. what particle sizes are being separated). In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, it appears the classifying step is performed to separate “normal particles” from “fine particles”, where normal particles have a size from 150 to 850 µm and fine particles have a size less than 150 µm. This interpretation was arrived at from Pg. 54, lines 4-8; Pg. 55, lines 9-14; Pg. 7, lines 18-19 in the instant specification.
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 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 1-7, 9-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katada et al. (JP2016124901A English; cited in IDS dated 12/28/2023) in view of Nakatsuru et al. (WO2011078298A1 English). Note, the citations to Katada et al. below are from the English translation provided by Examiner, as the copy provided by Applicant on 12/28/2023 only contains an English abstract.
Regarding claim 1, Katada teaches a method of polymerizing an aqueous monomer solution with a polymerization initiator and an internal crosslinking agent (Abstract; Claims; Pg.4, Internal Crosslinking Agent; Pg. 5, Polymerization Initiator). Katada teaches the monomer includes acrylic acid and/or a salt thereof (Pg. 3, (2-1) Preparation step of Monomer…; (Acrylic acid (salt)). Katada teaching acrylic acid as the aqueous monomer is equivalent to “a monomer composition containing a water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer having an acidic group,” because the instant specification lists acrylic acid as a water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer (Pg. 13, lines 14-21).
Katada teaches a neutralization step of the monomer is performed, where neutralization can be performed such that a hydrogel polymer is obtained (Pg. 4, Neutralization).
Katada teaches the hydrogel polymer is treated with an additive, including a surfactant, prior to drying (Abstract; Claims; Pg. 7, (2-3-2) Drying Step).
Katada teaches the polymerization step is conducted by combining the monomer aqueous solution and a cross-linking agent in an apparatus before a polymerization initiator is added to the solution by a separate pipe prior to mixing the solutions with a rotating blade, forming a mixed solution comprising monomer, internal cross-linking agent, and polymerization initiator for polymerization (i.e. a second monomer composition) (Pg. 4, Internal Crosslinking Agent; Pg. 5, Polymerization Initiator; Pg. 11, Example 1). Katada adding the initiator through a pipe is equivalent to a “transfer line,” as a “transfer line” is not given a special definition in the instant specification and the art accepted definition of piping, tubing, etc. was applied.
It is noted Katada does not explicitly teach a “monomer transfer line,” however Katada teaches supplying the monomer solution to the reactor and a skilled artisan could readily arrive at a process of adding the reagent, such as by a transfer line, in order to add the reagent into the reactor, as taught by Katada. Further Katada teaching a reactor and describing an initiator addition pipe (see above) would readily direct a skilled artisan towards a means to add the reagent to the reactor.
Further, Katada does not explicitly teach combining the monomer solution and the initiator solution before being charged into the polymerization reactor, however, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Given Katada teaches mixing the monomer solution and the initiator to prepare a superadsorbent polymer, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the addition sequence of reagents taught in Katada to arrive at the instantly claimed process. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
The claim further requires “micronizing the polymer in the presence of a surfactant” and drying the “micronized polymer.” Katada teaches treating the hydrogel polymer with an additive, including a surfactant, however Katada does not explicitly describe “micronizing”. Examiner notes the term “micronizing” is interpreted in view of the passages described in the instant specification, where micronizing is described as providing polymer aggregates on the order of several micrometers in size, where the micronizing is conducted in the presence of a surfactant (see at least Pg. 30, lines 3-13).
Nakatsuru teaches a process of preparing a water-absorbable polyacrylic acid resin powder, where after adding a surfactant to an acrylic acid monomer aqueous solution, microbubbles are introduced into the mixture that performs micronizing, where the size of the particles produced is preferably from 200 to 600 µm (Claims; Pg. 3, par. 14; Pg. 5, par. 7-13; Pg. 9, par. 7-9).
Advantageously, performing a micronizing step in the presence of a surfactant enables the production of a white water-adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other properties including liquid permeability, bulk specific gravity, surface tension, water adsorption ratio under pressure and impact resistance (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 9-12).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a micronizing step in the presence of a surfactant in the method of Katada in order to provide a water adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other key properties, as taught by Nakatsuru.
Regarding claim 2, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches the polymerization is performed in a batch reactor (Pg. 6, par. 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the neutralizing and the micronizing are performed sequentially, simultaneously, or alternately,” to which Katada is silent.
Nakatsuru teaches a process of preparing a water-absorbable polyacrylic acid resin powder, where after adding a surfactant to an acrylic acid monomer aqueous solution, microbubbles are introduced into the mixture that performs micronizing, where the size of the particles produced is preferably from 200 to 600 µm (Claims; Pg. 3, par. 14; Pg. 5, par. 7-13; Pg. 9, par. 7-9). Nakatsuru teaches the neutralization can be performed prior to introducing the bubbles and surfactant (Pg. 22, Example 2), equivalent to performing the operations alternately.
Advantageously, performing a micronizing step in the presence of a surfactant in the order taught by Nakatsuru enables the production of a white water-adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other properties including liquid permeability, bulk specific gravity, surface tension, water adsorption ratio under pressure and impact resistance (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 9-12).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a micronizing step in the presence of a surfactant, with neutralization occurring prior to micronizing, in the method of Katada in order to provide a water adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other key properties, as taught by Nakatsuru.
Regarding claim 4, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Katada and Nakatsuru do not explicitly teach.
However, Katada teaches a process of preparing a super adsorbent polymer by combining a monomer solution and an initiator, where the initiator is fed via a separate pipe and the concentration of the reagents is controlled to polymerize the reagents (Pg. 22, Example 1). Katada teaches the polymerization rate is controlled in order to produce desirable physical properties of the superadsorbent polymer while reducing the time required (Pg. 6, par. 5-8). Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the addition rate of the initiator feed taught by Katada in order to control the rate of polymerization such that desirable properties were produced while limiting reaction time, as taught by Katada. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 5, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and Katada further teaches a reducing agent is added to the hydrogel polymer, where the hydrogel polymer is a direct product of mixing a monomer, a crosslinking agent, and an initiator (Claims). Katada further teaches the reducing agent may be added in combination with an initiator (Pg. 5, Polymerization Initiator). Given that Katada teaches adding an initiator through a separate pipe, a skilled artisan could readily add a reducing agent in a similar fashion, given that Katada explicitly teaches the two can be added in combination, meeting the limitation of “reducing agent transfer line.”
The claim further requires “a ratio of a supply speed (m/s) of the reducing agent to the a supply speed (m/s) of the first monomer mixture supplied from the monomer transfer line is 3.5 or more” to which Katada and Nakatsuru do not explicitly teach.
However, Katada teaches a ratio of reducing agent to monomer is 0.0001 to 0.02 mol% while further stating that the water-adsorbing resin can be obtained by setting the use amount of polymerization initiator or reducing agent (Pg. 5, Polymerization Initiator). Katada teaches the polymerization rate is controlled in order to produce desirable physical properties of the superadsorbent polymer while reducing the time required (Pg. 6, par. 5-8). Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the addition rate of the reducing agent feed taught by Katada in order to control the rate of polymerization such that desirable properties were produced while limiting reaction time, as taught by Katada. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 6, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Katada and Nakatsuru do not explicitly teach.
However, Katada teaches a process of preparing a super adsorbent polymer by combining a monomer solution and an initiator, where the initiator is fed via a separate pipe and the concentration of the reagents is controlled to polymerize the reagents (Pg. 22, Example 1). Katada teaches the polymerization rate is controlled in order to produce desirable physical properties of the superadsorbent polymer while reducing the time required (Pg. 6, par. 5-8). While Katada does not explicitly state a supply flow rate of the reagents, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the addition rate of the initiator feed taught by Katada in order to control the rate of polymerization such that desirable properties were produced while limiting reaction time, as taught by Katada. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 7, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches the drying step for the neutralized polymer can be conducted with drying methods including fluidized bed drying and drum dryer drying (Pg. 7, 2-3-2 Drying Step). The claimed “moving” drying is interpreted from at least Pg. 53, lines 8-16 in the instant specification that states:
“At this time, the drying may be performed by a moving type. Such moving type drying is divided into a stationary drying and the presence/absence of flow of material during drying. The moving type drying refers to a method of drying the dried product while mechanically stirring it. At this time, the direction in which the hot air passes through the material may be the same as or different from the circulation direction of the material. Alternatively, the material can be circulated inside the dryer, and the heat-transfer fluid (heat-transfer oil) may be passed through a separate pipe outside the dryer to dry the material.”
Accordingly, a skilled artisan would identify both the fluidized bed drying and drum dryer drying taught by Katada as being equivalent to “moving” drying, meeting the limitation required by the claim.
The claim further requires the polymer being dried is “micronized” to which Katada is silent.
Nakatsuru teaches a process of preparing a water-absorbable polyacrylic acid resin powder, where after adding a surfactant to an acrylic acid monomer aqueous solution, microbubbles are introduced into the mixture that performs micronizing, where the size of the particles produced is preferably from 200 to 600 µm (Claims; Pg. 3, par. 14; Pg. 5, par. 7-13; Pg. 9, par. 7-9). Nakatsuru teaches the neutralization can be performed prior to introducing the bubbles and surfactant (Pg. 22, Example 2), equivalent to performing the operations alternately. Nakatsuru further teaches the neutralized polymer is heat dried by methods including stirring drying (Pg. 14, par. 4-6).
Advantageously, performing a micronizing step in the presence of a surfactant enables the production of a white water-adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other properties including liquid permeability, bulk specific gravity, surface tension, water adsorption ratio under pressure and impact resistance (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 9-12).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a micronizing step in the method of Katada in order to provide a water adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other key properties, as taught by Nakatsuru.
Regarding claim 9, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches the drying is performed at temperatures between 100 to 300 ° C (Pg. 7, 2-3-2 Drying Step). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Katada (drying from 100 to 300 ° C) overlaps with the claimed range (150 °C or less). Therefore, the range in Katada renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires the polymer being dried is “micronized” to which Katada is silent.
Nakatsuru teaches a process of preparing a water-absorbable polyacrylic acid resin powder, where after adding a surfactant to an acrylic acid monomer aqueous solution, microbubbles are introduced into the mixture that performs micronizing, where the size of the particles produced is preferably from 200 to 600 µm (Claims; Pg. 3, par. 14; Pg. 5, par. 7-13; Pg. 9, par. 7-9). Nakatsuru teaches the neutralization can be performed prior to introducing the bubbles and surfactant (Pg. 22, Example 2), equivalent to performing the operations alternately. Nakatsuru further teaches the neutralized polymer is heat dried by methods including stirring drying (Pg. 14, par. 4-6).
Advantageously, performing a micronizing step in the presence of a surfactant enables the production of a white water-adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other properties including liquid permeability, bulk specific gravity, surface tension, water adsorption ratio under pressure and impact resistance (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 9-12).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a micronizing step in the method of Katada in order to provide a water adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other key properties, as taught by Nakatsuru.
Regarding claim 10, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches the dried super adsorbent polymers have a solid content of 80% by weight or more after drying, where the weight change is based on water loss, equivalent to the moisture content in the dried solid polymer (Pg. 7, 2-3-2 Drying). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Katada (solid content of 80% or more (i.e. moisture of 20% or less)) overlaps with the claimed range (moisture content of 10 to 30 wt.%). Therefore, the range in Katada renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
The claim further requires “at least a part of the surfactant is present on a surface of the hydrogel polymer” to which Katada is silent.
Nakatsuru teaches the step of adding the surfactant coats the surface of the polymer with the surfactant (Pg. 15, par. 14-16).
Advantageously, providing a surfactant on the surface of the polymer provides the polymer higher water adsorption and higher liquid permeability (Pg. 15, par 14-16).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a surfactant on the surface of the polymer in the method of Katada in order to provide a polymer having higher water adsorption and higher liquid permeability, as taught by Nakatsuru.
Regarding claim 13, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches the water-adsorbent resin powder contains particles with a size of preferably 200 to 600 µm, where the number of particles with a particle size less than 150 µm is less than 10% by weight and the number of particles with a particle size more than 850 µm is 5% by weight or less (Pg. 8, Granularity). Katada effectively teaches that the polymer contains greater than 85% of particles between 150 and 850 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Katada (greater than 85% of particles between 150 and 850 µm) overlaps with the claimed range (89 wt% or more polymer particles having a size of 150 to 850 µm). Therefore, the range in Katada renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches the water-adsorbent resin powder contains particles with a size of preferably 200 to 600 µm, where the number of particles with a particle size less than 150 µm is less than 10% by weight (Pg. 8, Granularity). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Katada (less than 10% by weight particles less than 150 µm) overlaps with the claimed range (20 wt.% or less of particles less than 150 µm). Therefore, the range in Katada renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches after drying the polymer, the dried polymer is pulverized (Pg. 8, 2-3- Grinding step).
The claim further requires the polymer being pulverized is “micronized” to which Katada is silent.
Nakatsuru teaches a process of preparing a water-absorbable polyacrylic acid resin powder, where after adding a surfactant to an acrylic acid monomer aqueous solution, microbubbles are introduced into the mixture that performs micronizing, where the size of the particles produced is preferably from 200 to 600 µm (Claims; Pg. 3, par. 14; Pg. 5, par. 7-13; Pg. 9, par. 7-9). Nakatsuru teaches the neutralization can be performed prior to introducing the bubbles and surfactant (Pg. 22, Example 2), equivalent to performing the operations alternately. Nakatsuru further teaches the neutralized polymer is heat dried by methods including stirring drying (Pg. 14, par. 4-6).
Advantageously, performing a micronizing step in the presence of a surfactant enables the production of a white water-adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other properties including liquid permeability, bulk specific gravity, surface tension, water adsorption ratio under pressure and impact resistance (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 9-12).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a micronizing step in the method of Katada in order to provide a water adsorbable resin having improved water adsorption while retaining other key properties, as taught by Nakatsuru.
Regarding claim 16, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and 15.
Katada further teaches after the dried polymer is pulverized it is adjusted to a predetermined particle size with a classification step (Pg. 8, 2-3- Grinding step).
Regarding claim 17, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1.
Katada further teaches after the polymer is dried, a surface cross-linking is performed (Pg. 8, 2-3- Grinding step; Pg. 8, Granularity). Providing a surface-crosslinking step would provide a nonzero amount of surface crosslinked, meeting the range required by the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and 17.
Katada further teaches after performing the surface cross-linking, a cooling process can be performed, an additive can be added to the surface cross-linked surface, and/or the surface cross-linked polymer can be treated with water to evaluate its adsorption capacity (Pg. 7, par. 4-5; Pg. 9, Cooling Process; Pg. 10, 3-2)
Regarding claim 19, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1, 17 and 18.
Katada teaches performing cooling, additive addition, and water contact of the surface cross-linked polymer (Pg. 7, par. 4-5; Pg. 9, Cooling Process; Pg. 10, 3-2) however Katada does not explicitly state all of the processes are performed simultaneously.
However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Given Katada teaches performing cooling, additive addition, and water contact of the surface cross-linked polymer, while producing a polymer with high physical water adsorbing properties in a highly productive fashion (Pg. 2, par. 8-10, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the addition sequence of performing the processes taught by Katada. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Regarding claim 20, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and that the result of performing the method of claim 1 is to produce a water-adsorbing resin, also called a super adsorbent polymer (Abstract; Pg. 2, par. 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katada et al. (JP2016124901A English; cited in IDS dated 12/28/2023) in view of Nakatsuru et al. (WO2011078298A1 English), with evidentiary support provided by Palet (Rotary Dryer Working Principles 2020).
Regarding claim 8, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the process of claim 1 and claim 7.
Katada further teaches the drying step for the neutralized polymer can be conducted with drying methods including fluidized bed drying and drum dryer drying (Pg. 7, 2-3-2 Drying Step). A drum dryer is known by skilled artisans to be equivalent to a “rotary kiln” dryer, as evidenced by Palet who teaches rotary drum dryers are synonymous with drum dryers (Pg. 2, Rotary Dryer Introduction).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katada et al. (JP2016124901A English; cited in IDS dated 12/28/2023) in view of Nakatsuru et al. (WO2011078298A1 English) and further in view of Xiong et al. (CN102639229A English).
Regarding claim 12, Katada in view of Nakatsuru teach the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires limitations of the surfactant structure to which Katada and Nakatsuru are silent.
Xiong teaches the preparation of a water-adsorbing material where the material is treated with the surface modified monolauryl maleate (Claims). Monolauryl maleate has the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
39
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which satisfies Chemical Formula 2, where A is 12, B is COO, B2 is CH=CH, and C is a carboxyl group.
Advantageously, polymers treated with the surface modifier taught by Xiong displays rapid adsorption of liquids with effective water retention (Pg. 3, Contents of the Invention).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the surface modifier monolauryl maleate in the method of Katada in order to provide a polymer with rapid adsorption of liquids that displays effective water retention, as taught by Xiong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays 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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights