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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 11-12, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savich (US 2021/0039068 A1, Feb. 11, 2021) in view of Phan et al. (US 5,338,766).
Savich teaches a superabsorbent polymer (SAP) formed from a non-crosslinked polysaccharide having carboxylic groups ([0031]) and a molecular weight to 400,000 to 1,000,000 ([0033]). Savich teaches utilization of N’N-methylenebisacrylamide as a crosslinker in [0083].
The instant invention further recites non-reactive crosslinking agent (i.e., a latent crosslinker) such as glycerol (claim 15) and the SAP having plurality of micropores having an average cross-sectional dimension of about 1 µm to about 200 µm over Savich.
Savich further teaches a latent crosslinker such as glycerin (i.e., glycerol) ([0034]) and thus further utilization of the glycerin in example 1 of Savich would have been obvious. See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
Further regarding the recited the SAP having plurality of micropores having an average cross-sectional dimension of about 1 µm to about 200 µm, the instant specification teaches utilization of a blowing agent to obtain such property as evidenced by Figure.
Phan et al. teach utilization of a blowing agent to obtain the superabsorbent polymer foam having open cells and a relatively high surface area to mass ratio in claim 1 and abstract and a preferred glycerol external crosslinking agent in lines 35-38 of col. 24. The superabsorbent polymer foam having open cells and a relatively high surface area to mass ratio taught by Phan et al. would be expected to the recited average cross-sectional dimension of about 1 µm to about 200 µm as evidenced by Figures 1 and 2 with a scale of Phan et al.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize the glycerin in example 1 of Savich since Savich teaches the glycerin as a crosslinker in [0083] and further to utilize the art well known blowing agent taught by Phan et al. in the example 1 of Savich to obtain the SAP having open cells and having plurality of micropores having an average cross-sectional dimension of less than about 200 µm taught by Phan et al. which would be expected to yield a higher absorption of liquid absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 12, Savich teaches a molecular weight to 400,000 to 1,000,000 in [0033] and the SAP having a high absorption of liquid which would inherently possess a high porosity yielding a lower density. Thus, the recited density would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Savich teaches a latent crosslinker such as glycerin (i.e., glycerol) in [0034].
Regarding claim 16, Savich teaches AUL (g/g) in table 1 which would show a trend (i.e., higher amount of a crosslinker (0.7%, Embodiment 2) has yielded 14 AUL (g/g)). Savich teaches employing as high as 1 wt.% of the crosslinker in middle of [0042]. Thus, utilization of a higher amount of the crosslinker for Embodiment 2 of the Table 1 would be expected to increase the AUL.
Regarding claim 19, Phan et al. teach utilization of a blowing agent to obtain the superabsorbent polymer foam having open cells and a relatively high surface area to mass ratio in claim 1 and Figures 1 and 2 with a scale which would be expected to meet the recited porosity.
Regarding claim 20, Savich teaches flakes, particles, granules, fibers and films in [0026] and gel extrudates in [0046]. Further, cutting the extruded gel to obtain granules is well known in the art.
Claims 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savich (US 2021/0039068 A1, Feb. 11, 2021) in view of Phan et al. (US 5,338,766) as applied to claims 11-12, 15-16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (6,261,679).
Regarding claims 13-14, Chen et al. teach various water-soluble biodegradable polysaccharides such as carboxymethylcellulose, carboxymethyl starches and alginates for foams (i.e., absorbent material) in lines 31-51 of col. 12.
Regarding claim 17, Savich teaches a molecular weight to 400,000 to 1,000,000 in [0033] and Chen et al. teach carboxymethylcellulose.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known water-soluble biodegradable polysaccharides such as carboxymethylcellulose taught by Chen et al in Savich and Phan et al. thereof since Savich teaches utilization of polysaccharide-base polymer having a molecular weight of 1,000,000 g/mol absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savich (US 2021/0039068 A1, Feb. 11, 2021) in view of Phan et al. (US 5,338,766) as applied to claims 11-12, 15-16 and 19 above, and further in view of WO 99/34041 (July 8, 1999).
Regarding claim 18, WO teaches the SAP precursor polymer (i.e., before crosslinked) having a molecular weight of 500,000 to 4,000,000 in lines 1-5 of page 13.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known SAP precursor polymer (i.e., before crosslinked) having a molecular weight of 500,000 to 4,000,000 taught by WO in Savich and Phan et al. since a higher molecular weight would be expected to yield a higher pore volume absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savich (US 2021/0039068 A1, Feb. 11, 2021) in view of WO 99/34041 (July 8, 1999).
Savich teaches a superabsorbent polymer (SAP) in forms of flakes, particles, granules, fibers and films in [0026] and gel extrudates in [0046]. Further, cutting the extruded gel after drying to obtain granules is well known in the art since the dried SAP would be easier to cut. Savich teaches utilization of N’N-methylenebisacrylamide as a crosslinker in [0083]. Savich further teaches a latent crosslinker such as glycerin (i.e., glycerol) ([0034]) and thus further utilization of the glycerin in example 1 of Savich would have been obvious.
The instant invention further recites (i) an aqueous polymer solution having about 30 wt.% solids or greater, (ii) polymer having a molecular weight of about 500,000 g/mol, and (iii) temperatures for curing and before curing over Savich.
WO teaches the SAP precursor polymer (i.e., before crosslinked) having a molecular weight of 500,000 to 4,000,000 in lines 1-5 of page 13, which would make the above point (ii) obvious.
WO teaches a polymer solution having 10 to 75 wt.% in solids lines 23-31 of page 12 and utilization of a die (i.e., orifice) in lines 1-27 of page 27 which would make the above point (i) obvious.
Regarding the above point (iii), heating of an aqueous solution comprising a polymer and a latent crosslinker such as glycerin to activate crosslinking is a routine practice in the art which would have been obvious. Regarding the temperature before the crosslinking/heating, the aqueous solution would be at a temperature below an activation temperature of the latent crosslinker obviously.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known SAP precursor polymer (i.e., before crosslinked) having a molecular weight of 500,000 to 4,000,000 and an extruder having an orifice taught by WO in Savich for obtaining the SAP since a higher molecular weight would be expected to yield a higher pore volume and since Savich teaches flakes, particles, granules, fibers and films in [0026] and gel extrudates in [0046] and the extruder inherently comprises orifice(s) as evidenced by WO absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, WO teaches a polymer solution having 10 to 75 wt.% solids in lines 23-31 of page 12 which would make the above point (i) obvious.
Regarding claim 5, blending components (i.e., polymer and crosslinker in water) at room temperature before curing at a high temperature is well-known practice in the art which would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Savich teaches a superabsorbent polymer (SAP) having a molecular weight to 400,000 to 1,000,000 ([0033]) and WO teaches the SAP precursor polymer (i.e., before crosslinked) having a molecular weight of 500,000 to 4,000,000 in lines 1-5 of page 13, which would make claim 6 obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Savich teaches a latent crosslinker such as glycerin (i.e., glycerol) in [0034].
Regarding claim 10, Savich teaches the SAP having a high absorption of liquid which would inherently possess a high porosity yielding a lower density. Thus, the recited density would have been obvious.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savich (US 2021/0039068 A1, Feb. 11, 2021) in view of WO 99/34041 (July 8, 1999) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Machine translated JP 2004512165 A (April 22, 2004).
Regarding claim 2, utilization of dry polymer powders for obtaining SAP is well known as taught by [0023-0024] of Machine translated JP. It is also well-known in the art that a polymer manufacture would supply dried SAP powders in a bag.
Regarding claims 7-8, Machine translated JP teaches various natural polymers such as alginate, carboxymethyl cellulose and carboxymethyl starch in [0019]
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known dry polymer powder and natural polymers taught by JP in the method of making the SAP taught by Savich and WO thereof since utilization of dry polymer powders and the instant natural polymers for obtaining SAP is well known as taught by JP absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savich (US 2021/0039068 A1, Feb. 11, 2021) in view of WO 99/34041 (July 8, 1999) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Furman et al. (US 2008/0128101 A1).
Regarding an alternative ammonium zirconium carbonate crosslinker of claim 9, Furman et al. teach ammonium zirconium carbonate crosslinker for obtaining SAP in [0049] and [0072].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the known ammonium zirconium carbonate crosslinker taught by Furman et al. in Savich and WO thereof since Savich teaches utilization of a crosslinker in [0083] absent showing otherwise.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savich (US 2021/0039068 A1, Feb. 11, 2021) in view of Phan et al. (US 5,338,766).
Savich teaches a superabsorbent polymer (SAP) formed from a non-crosslinked polysaccharide having carboxylic groups ([0031]) and a molecular weight to 400,000 to 1,000,000 ([0033]). Savich teaches utilization of N’N-methylenebisacrylamide as a crosslinker in [0083].
The instant invention further recites a non-reactive crosslinking agent (i.e., a latent crosslinker) and plurality of micropores having an average cross-sectional dimension of about 1 µm to about 200 µm over Savich.
Savich further teaches a latent crosslinker such as glycerin (i.e., glycerol) ([0034]) and thus further utilization of the glycerin (i.e., a latent crosslinker) in example 1 of Savich would have been obvious.
Phan et al. teach the SAP having plurality of micropores having an average cross-sectional dimension encompassing the instant dimension in Figures 1 and 2 with a scale.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the glycerin (i.e., a latent crosslinker) in example 1 of Savich and further to obtain the SAP having plurality of micropores having an average cross-sectional dimension encompassing the instant dimension taught by Phan et al. since the SAP is known to have numerous micropores absent showing otherwise.
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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-20 of copending Application No. 18/692,01-2089 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application teaches a superabsorbent material formed from a linear water-soluble absorbent polymer having a molecular weight of about 500,000 g/mol and non-reactive crosslinking agent having an plurality of micropores having an average cross-sectional dimension of less than about 200 µm in claim 1 meeting the instant claim 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 5 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 7 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 9 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 4 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 2 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 1, see claim 15 of the copending application.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, see claim 15 of the copending application and 20 wt.% solids or greater would make claims 3 and 4 obvious.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 18 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 6, see claim 15 of the copending application and 500.00 g/mol or greater would make claim 6 obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 11, 16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/692,052 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application teaches the similar SAP and the instant SAP would permit an external surface to material volume recited in claim 1 of the copending Application
Regarding claim 15, see claim 5 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 7 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 9 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 2 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 1, see claim 11 of the copending application.
Regarding claims 3-4, see claim 11 of the copending application and and 20 wt.% solids or greater would make claims 3 and 4 obvious.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 18 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 6, see claim 11 of the copending application and a molecular weight of 500,000 g/mol or greater would make claim 6 obvious.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 6 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights