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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 28 February 2024, 09 August 2024, 11 February 2025, 28 February 2025, 30 May 2025, and 01 December 2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
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 1 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.
The term “feeding” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “feeding” 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. In such composition, any interaction can be considered “feeding” to another since the specification is silent as to how “feeding” must be considered to another. For examination purposes, the term “feeding” has been construed to be “preparing”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US-20190329219-A1, located in the Information Disclosure Statement).
With regard to claim 1, Watabe teaches a method for preparing a water-absorbent resin (corresponding to super absorbent polymer/SAP) comprising (Abstract):
Watabe discloses a composition comprising a water-soluble ethylenic unsaturated monomer and a neutralized salt (paras. [0107-0112], and [0116]). The polymerization step includes an internal crosslinking agent (para [0124]), and a polymerization initiator (para 0114]) into a polymerization reaction (e.g. kneader polymerization, para [0144]) to yield a hydrous gel polymer (para [0141]), thereby reading on the claimed components. Subsequently, Watabe teaches drying the particulate hydrous gel using a drying device of heat rotary (hot air) or conduction (thermal conduction) from heating tubes (para [0175]), thereby reading on the claimed hot air dryer or thermal conduction dryer. Finally, the water-soluble polymers undergo a sizing step to adjust the particle size (para [0302]), thereby reading on pulverization. Specifically, Fig 12. Outlines the manufacture method—encompassing polymerization, fine granulation, stirring drying, and sizing—demonstrating a substantial overlap with the claimed method (Fig. 12).
Watabe does not explicitly teach the a primary drying in a hot air dryer or a secondary dryer in a thermal conduction dryer. However, Watae teaches utilizing a rotary heating devices—such as a band dryer (which is a hot air dryer) and a continuous stirring dryer (also can be an agitator or a thermal conduction dryer)—(para [0181]). For instance, Watabe implements a rotary dryer (which is also hot air dryer, para [0178]) and a paddle dryer (which is also a thermal conduction dryer; Experimental Example 14, para [0421]). Furthermore, Watabe teaches that the rotary heating devices with different specifications (e.g., a rotary hot air dryer and a paddle thermal conduction dryer) can be used in combination (para [0176]). Watabe teaches that when utilizing multiple heating devices, the timing of transition between devices can be determined based on the solid content rate or the residual solvent amount of the dried particles, aiming to obtain a granular dried material with a desired solid content (para [0182]). The use and alternation of these multiple heating devices reads on the claimed limitation. The “continuous stirring” comes from a mechanical agitator (e.g. a paddle, blade or the like) that continuously mixes the material and uniformly heats the distribution (thermal conduction) and prevents lumping, which reads on the claimed limitation.
With regard to the heat devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize a continuous stirring dryer (thermal conduction dryer) as a secondary heating device in Watabe to produce a secondary dried substance. Watabe would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ such a secondary heating device to achieve a desired solid content (para [0182]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 2, Watabe teaches “fine granulation” before “stirring drying” of the crosslinked hydrogel polymer by devices such as, meat chopper, cutter mill, and the like (Fig. 12; para [0150]), thereby reading on the hydrogel will be chopped before primary drying.
The chopping step is specifically classified by a chopper, a cutter mill, and the like [located in instant specification on page 12, lines 1-4], thereby reading on the chopping apparatus.
With regard to claim 3, Watabe teaches a “surface-crosslinking step” wherein the absorbent particles surface is initially linked following pulverization and classification (para [0265], Fig. 12), thereby reading on the claimed limitation.
With regard to claim 4, as stated above, Watabe teaches that the drying step may utilize one or more rotary heating devices, including a combination of devices with varying specifications (para [0176]). In addition, the timing for switching between devices can be determined based on desired solid content (para [0182]). Watabe also states the use of a continuous agitating dryer (thermal conduction dryer) and a band dryer (hot air dryer) (para [0181]). Consequently, utilizing these heating devices during the drying step maps to the configuration of the devices connected in series.
As stated above, Watabe teaches the heat devices in combination.
With regard to claim 5, Watabe teaches a solid content of approximately 70% by mass durn the initial drying stage (para [0182]). This corresponds to a moisture content of roughly 30% by mass, which reads the claim limitation due to overlapping ranges.
With regard to claim 6, Watabe teaches a solid content of approximately 85% by mass durn the initial drying stage (para [0182]). This corresponds to a moisture content of roughly 15% by mass, which falls within the scope of the claim.
With regard to claim 7, Watabe teaches a drying device that can incorporate a rotary dryer and a paddle drying machine in combination (para [0176]), thereby reading on the claimed limitations.
As stated above, Watabe teaches the heat devices in combination.
With regard to claim 9, Watabe teaches a continuous stirring drying machine that preferably rotates at speeds between 10 rpm to 300 rpm (para [0184]), thereby reading on the claimed limitation due to overlapping ranges.
With regard to claim 10, Watabe teaches that the water-soluble ethylenic unsaturated monomer is a (meth)acrylic acid or a salt thereof (para [0088]), thereby reading on the claimed limitation.
With regard to claim 11, Watabe teaches that the amount of the internal crosslinking agent is proportioned to the monomer, ranging from approximately 0.01 to 5% mole (para [0127]), thereby reading on the claimed limitation.
With regard to claim 12, Watabe explicitly teaches surface crosslinking agents, including ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether, polyethylene glycol diglycidyl ether, and sorbitol polyglycidyl ether (para [0275]), which reads on the surface crosslinking agent.
With regard to claim 13, Watabe teaches the use of the continuous stirring dryer featuring a single-shaft or twin-shaft paddle drying machine (para [0176]), thereby reading on the claimed requirement for one or more paddles.
With regard to claim 14, Watabe teaches the continuous stirring dryer with a single-shaft or twin-shaft paddle drying machine (para [0287]). Additionally, Watabe teaches a preferred heat medium temperature is not lower than 100 to 150° C (para [0193]), which overlaps the claimed temperature range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (KR-20190077541-A, located in the Information Disclosure Statement) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-14 above, and further in view of Irie (US-20070041796-A1).
With regard to claim 8, Watabe teaches a preferred rotary peripheral velocity of 0.05 m/s to 10 m/s (para [0187]). Watabe notes that the drying speed differs in the thickness direction of the hydrous gel, due to unevenness in the airflow depending on the place, the dried state of the hydrogel in dimensional aspects, and problems such as lowering of physical properties and occurrence of non-dried matter are apt to occur (para 0012]).
Watabe does not disclose a higher peripheral velocity or wind speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Irie teaches a water-absorbent resin comprising an ethylenically unsaturated monomer containing acrylic acid or acrylate, which is produced by cutting and drying the hydrous gel polymer (Abstract). Irie further teaches a rotary-type dryer that operates at an optimal hot air temperature ranging from 150° C. to 200° C and a wind speed of 0.5 m/s to 20 m/s. This process renders the claim due to overlapping ranges. Irie further teaches by using this rotary apparatus allows for a continuously increase the temperature, which effectively minimizes dust formation during the drying the hydrous gelatinous polymer (para [0176]).
With regard to the wind speed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the wind speed parameters in Irie to achieve the desired dried substance. Irie would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize these operational wind speeds to continuously raise temperatures and reduce dust generation during the drying of the hydrous gel polymer (para [0176]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 10, and 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 8, 10, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/687,582 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
US 18/687,582 claims a method for preparing a super absorbent polymer comprising a water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer having an acidic group of which at least a part is neutralized, an internal crosslinking agent, and a polymerization initiator to a polymerization reactor and subjecting the composition to a polymerization reaction to obtain a hydrous gel polymer, drying, and pulverizing the super absorbent polymer. ‘582 further claims the specific surface crosslinking agent and water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer. The instant application claims the same components and general overall method. The difference between the instant claim and ‘582 is the specific method distinctions of the drying step of the instant claim is much more specific and the ‘582 includes a hydrating step before pulverizing. The inventions collectively seem to overlap in the product made. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention described in the instant claims would also have been an obvious variation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights