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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113004550 A (herein “Liu”). The attached computer-generated English translation of Liu is referred to herein.
As to claims 1-2, 8, and 11: Liu describes a method (see Example of preparation of absorbent polymer in ¶ [n0086] of the translation) comprising polymerizing neutralized acrylic acid (see sodium hydroxide) in the presence of polyethylene glycol diacrylate, sodium persulfate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, and sodium metabisulfite, thereby producing a gel. The polymer is granulated and dried, and the dried particles are classified to give particles with a particle size of 150-710 μm.
The presently recited 4 mesh sieve according to ASTM E11 has a maximum individual opening of 5.12 mm. Because Liu’s particles have sizes of 150-710 μm, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Liu’s particles would pass through a 4 mesh sieve, corresponding to a 0 wt% “undrying rate”.
As to claim 7: Liu’s method includes about 920 ppmw of polyethylene glycol diacrylate with respect to the acrylic acid.
As to claim 10: Liu’s method further includes a step of heat treating to surface crosslink the particles (see ¶ [n0088] of the translation).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 4-6 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
The discussion set forth above regarding Liu with respect to base claim 1 is incorporated here by reference. As set forth above, Liu describes a method according to base claim 1.
As to claims 4 and 9: The method cited above includes the reducing agent sodium metabisulfite and the initiator sodium persulfate in amounts of 100 ppmw (0.01 wt%) and 400 ppmw (0.04 wt%), respectively, with respect to acrylic acid. Liu further discloses (see ¶ [n0040] of the translation) that the initiator is used in an amount of 0.01-1% by weight based on monomer and that the initiator generally includes one or more of oxidants, reducing agents, and photoinitiators (see ¶ n[0047] of the translation). This range of amounts overlaps the presently recited ranges of amounts.
In light of Liu’s broader disclosure regarding amounts of initiator, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any desired amount of initiator, including any desired amount of the oxidants such as sodium persulfate and the reducing agents such as sodium metabisulfite, within the disclosed range based upon the desired molecular weight of the resulting polymer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Liu using greater amounts of the oxidant sodium persulfate and the reducing agent sodium metabisulfite, including amounts that fall within the scope of the present ranges. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5: The method cited above includes sodium dodecyl sulfate in an amount of 166 ppm based on acrylic acid.
Liu further discloses (see ¶ [n0041] of the translation) that the foaming agent is used in an amount of 0.01-2% by weight based on monomer. This range of amounts overlaps the presently recited ranges of amounts.
In light of Liu’s broader disclosure regarding amounts of foaming agent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any desired amount of foaming agent within the disclosed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Liu using greater amounts of the foaming agent sodium dodecyl sulfate, including amounts that fall within the scope of the present ranges. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 6: The method cited above includes the crosslinking agent polyethylene glycol diacrylate. Liu further discloses (see ¶ [n0046] of the translation) that the crosslinking agent is selected from a list including N,N-methylenebisacrylamide, polyethylene glycol diacrylate, and others.
Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B).
In the present case, Liu describes a method that differs from the claimed method by the substitution of a crosslinking agent such as N,N-methylenebisacrylamide for the polyethylene glycol diacrylate that is used in the cited example method. As evidenced by Liu’s disclosure of crosslinking agent, the substituted component (a crosslinking agent such as N,N-methylenebisacrylamide or others) and their function as crosslinking agents were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted N,N-methylenebisacrylamide or the other crosslinking agents for polyethylene glycol diacrylate that is used in the cited example method by ordinary mixing during the preparation of the reaction mixture, and the results of the substitution (an alternative crosslinked polymer) would have been predictable.
In light of this discussion, it is apparent that the presently claimed invention is arrived at by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have substituted N,N-methylenebisacrylamide or the other crosslinking agents for polyethylene glycol diacrylate that is used in the cited example method of Liu, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be allowable if written in independent form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM EST.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights