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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1-8 and added new claims 9-13.
Applicant states with the amendment to claim 1, the present invention is directed to a particulate composition comprising water-absorbing resin particles and activated carbon, where the activated carbon is disposed on surfaces of the water-absorbing resin particles. Applicant argues, in contrast Tanaka et al. US ‘949 is directed to a deodorizing absorbent sheet in which an absorbent polymer and a deodorizer are embedded and fixed in a fiber web. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. While Tanaka does teach a deodorizing absorbent sheet, Tanaka also teaches both the activated carbon and the water-absorbing resin are in particle form (col. 4, lines 19-33).
Applicant argues using the basis weight of the entire sheet of Tanaka et al. US ‘949 as the denominator for calculating the activated carbon content is not appropriate for determining the activated carbon content in the particulate water-absorbing resin composition, since the present invention is directed to a particulate composition. This argument is partially persuasive. Tanaka teaches the deodorizer 2 and the polymer 3 are present in a mutually mixed state in the inside of the fiber web (col. 3, lines 28-30). In this mutually mixed state, the deodorizer 2 and the polymer 3 form a particulate water-absorbing resin composition. Tanaka teaches the amount of deodorizer to polymer weight ratio is from 1/10 to 10/1. Tanaka further teaches the weight ratio is critical at 1/10 or higher to provide a sufficient deodorizing effect on the liquid absorbed by the polymer 3 and the liquid present thereabouts. Tanaka also teaches the weight ratio being 10/1 or lower, so the particles of the deodorizer 2 are sufficiently fixed with the polymer 3 and thereby prevented effectively from falling off the deodorizing absorbent sheet 1 (col. 3, lines 53-63). Applicant argues that Tanaka merely discloses that the generally preferred weight ration of deodorizer to polymer is from 1/10 to 10/1, particularly 1/3 to 3/1. Applicant argues that even if only absorbent polymer and activated carbon in Tanaka et al. US ‘949 were considered, the cited art does not specifically disclose or suggest the claimed activated carbon content to 0.03 to 5 mass % in a particulate composition mainly composed of water-absorbing resin particles. For example, assuming that the water-absorbing resin particles account for 70% mass and the weight ratio water-absorbing resin particles to activated carbon is 10:1, the activated carbon content in the particulate water-absorbing resin composition would be approximately 6.4 mass %, which is higher than the upper limit of the claimed range (5% mass) in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka teaches the deodorant is preferably scattered in an amount of 3 to 500 g/m2, particularly 20 to 100 gm2; and the polymer is preferably scattered in an amount of 5 to 500 gm2, particularly 20 to 100 gm2 (col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 3). Tanaka further teaches the deodorizer 2, scattered in an amount of 3 g/m2 or more, manifests an effective deodorizing ability on liquid absorption. On the other hand, the polymer 3, scattered in an amount of 5 g/m2 or more, the deodorizer 2 can be sufficiently fixed to the fiber web 4 (col. 4, lines 3-9). The amounts of the deodorizer and polymers are presented in broad ranges that can be manipulated to arrive at the claimed 0.03 mass % to 5 mass% range. For example: A deodorizer 2 scattered in an amount of 3 g/m2 and a polymer 3 scattered in an amount of 20 g/m2 at a deodorizer to polymer ratio of 1:10 provides a deodorizer content of 1.5 mass %.
Applicant argues the technical concept of the present invention is that blocking due to moisture absorption can be suppressed by using activated carbon having a specific median particle size in a specific content range. Applicant provides criticality for activated carbon content range and states the present invention is not a mere use of activated carbon, but is based on the selection of the particle size and content of activated carbon to achieve the advantageous properties, which are not disclosed or suggested by the cited references. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the prior art Tanaka teaches the activated carbon particle size of 1 to 800 µm, particularly 50 to 600 µm (col. 4, lines 21-24), which has values in the claimed range of 100 to 600 µm. Tanaka further discloses the deodorizer content as demonstrated above.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are 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.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation "the additive" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 11 depends on claim 9, claim 9 does not positively recite “an additive” as a component of the water-absorbing composition. Although claim 12 depends on claim 10, claim 10 does not positively recite “an additive” as a component of the water-absorbing composition.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. USPN 6663949.
As to claim 1, Tanaka teaches a particulate water-absorbing resin composition 1 comprising water-absorbing resin particles 3, and activated carbon 2 (Tanaka Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 51-58) – where Tanaka teaches the deodorizer 2 and the polymer 3 are present in a mutually mixed state inside of the fiber web 4 (col. 3, lines 27-29). Tanaka teaches water-absorbing resin particles 3 have a median particle size of 100 µn or more and 600 µm or less (Tanaka col. 4, lines 25-33). Tanaka further teaches the activated carbon as deodorizer 2 (Tanaka col. 4, lines 15-16) where the activated carbon has a particle size of 100 µm or more and 600 µm or less – where Tanaka teaches the deodorizer 2 is a particulate deodorize having a preferred particle size of 1 to 800 µm, particularly 50 to 600 µm, for prevention from falling off the fiber web 4 and for protection of the fiber web 4 against tearing (col. 4, lines 18-24).
Tanaka does not specifically teach a content of the activated carbon is 0.03 mass% or more and 5 mass% or less. Tanaka teaches the amount of deodorizer to polymer weight ratio is from 1/10 to 10/1. Tanaka further teaches the weight ratio is critical at 1/10 or higher to provide a sufficient deodorizing effect on the liquid absorbed by the polymer 3 and the liquid present thereabouts. Tanaka also teaches the weight ratio being 10/1 or lower, so the particles of the deodorizer 2 are sufficiently fixed with the polymer 3 and thereby prevented effectively from falling off the deodorizing absorbent sheet 1 (col. 3, lines 53-63). Tanaka further teaches the deodorant is preferably scattered in an amount of 3 to 500 g/m2, particularly 20 to 100 gm2; and the polymer is preferably scattered in an amount of 5 to 500 gm2, particularly 20 to 100 gm2 (col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 3). Tanaka further teaches the deodorizer 2, scattered in an amount of 3 g/m2 or more, manifests an effective deodorizing ability on liquid absorption. On the other hand, the polymer 3, scattered in an amount of 5 g/m2 or more, the deodorizer 2 can be sufficiently fixed to the fiber web 4 (col. 4, lines 3-9). The amounts of the deodorizer and polymers are presented in broad ranges that can be manipulated to arrive at the claimed 0.03 mass % to 5 mass% range. For example: A deodorizer 2 scattered in an amount of 3 g/m2 and a polymer 3 scattered in an amount of 20 g/m2 at a deodorizer to polymer ratio of 1:10 provides a deodorizer content of 1.5 mass %. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed activated carbon content of composition, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller et al. 105 USPQ 233.
As to the limitation of the activated carbon being disposed on surfaces of the water-absorbing resin particles, Tanaka teaches the deodorizer 2 and the polymer 3 are present in a mutually mixed state inside of the fiber web 4 as shown in Fig. 1 (col. 3, lines 27-29). In this mutually mixed state, the deodorizer particles 2 are not embedded into the polymers, but disposed on a surface of the polymer particles 3 (Fig.1) as broadly as claimed.
As to claim 4, Tanaka teaches an absorber 1, comprising the particulate water-absorbing resin composition according to claim 1 (Tanaka Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 25-29; col. 3 lines 19-27; Example 1).
As to claim 5, Tanaka teaches an absorbent article comprising the absorber according to claim 4 (Tanaka Fig. 3; col. 6, lines 33-36; col. 8, lines 29-40).
As to claims 9 and 10, Tanaka does not specifically teach a content of water-absorbing resin particles, excluding additives, are 70% mass% or more. However, Tanaka teaches it is most desirable for all the polymer 3 to be fixed to the fibers, especially 70% by weight or more of the polymer 3 is fixed to the fibers (col. 3, lines 48-52)– which indicates the particulate water-absorbing resin composition is present in the composition in an amount of 70% or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to determine the amount of water-absorbing resin particles in the particulate composition to provide a desired degree of absorbency.
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. USPN 6663949 in view of Forsgren Brusk et al. US Patent Application Publication 20150290052.
As to claim 2, Tanaka teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Tanaka does not teach the activated carbon has a crushed shape. Forsgren Brusk teaches an odor control material in an absorbent product (Abstract). Forsgren Brusk teaches the odor control material is an activated carbon (para. 0004, 0041). Forsgren Brusk teaches the activated carbon may be in the form of a film and the film may be crushed into flakes or used as such (Forsgren Brusk para. 0016). Forsgren Brusk teaches the odor control material is in the form of a film, fibers, or filaments, or a fiber web – all of these forms may be readily used in for example absorbent products, and thus minimal changes in the existing manufacturing processes are needed (Forsgren Brusk para. 0015). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide activated carbon in a crushed shape as Forsgren Brusk teaches the flakes may be comprised in the absorbent core of the absorbent product. In this way, the odor control material will come into contact with liquid and thus, the odor control agent is released from the carrier matrix and thus efficient odor control can be provided (Forsgren Brusk para. 0028).
As to claim 7, Tanaka/Forsgren Brusk teach an absorber comprising the water-absorbing resin composition according to claim 2 (Tanaka Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 25-29; col. 3 lines 19-27; Example 1; Forsgren Brusk Figures 3-6; para. 0067, 0070-0071, 0073).
As to claim 8, Tanaka/Forsgren Brusk teach an absorbent article comprising the absorber according to claim 7(Tanaka Fig. 3; col. 6, lines 33-36; col. 8, lines 29-40; Forsgren Brusk Figures 3-6; para. 0067, 0070-0071, 0073.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. USPN 6663949 in view of Berg et al. USPN 5180622.
As to claim 3, Tanaka teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Tanaka does not teach the particulate water-absorbing resin particles have a BET specific surface area of 0.01 m²/g or more and 0.20 m²/g or less. Berg et al. USPN 5180622, from the same field of endeavor, absorbent members incorporating particulate absorbent materials, teaches improved particulate, absorbent polymeric compositions comprising interparticle crosslinked aggregates formed from precursor particles having a relatively small particle size (i.e. fine precursor particles). Berg teaches the BET specific surface area of the absorbent particles ranges from 0.020 m2/g to 0.169 m2/g (Table 1), which has values in the claimed range of 0.01 m²/g or more and 0.20 m²/g or less. Berg further teaches that by using fine precursor particles, the surface area to mass ratio of the aggregates is increased over the surface area to mass ratio of precursor of particles having the same particle size as the aggregate such that the resultant polymeric compositions incorporating such interparticle crosslinked aggregates have particularly high rates of fluid uptake (Swelling Rate) while minimizing their gel blocking properties by removing free fines from the swollen or partially swollen polymeric composition and improves the handling and performance characteristics of such polymeric compositions (Berg col. 3, lines 32-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the water absorbent resin particles of Tanaka with the surface area taught in Berg for the benefits that Berg teaches.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. USPN 6663949 in view of Forsgren Brusk et al. US Patent Application Publication 20150290052 and further in view of Berg et al. USPN 5180622.
Tanaka/Forsgren Brusk teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Tanaka/Forsgren Brusk does not teach the particulate water-absorbing resin particles have a BET specific surface area of 0.01 m²/g or more and 0.20 m²/g or less. Berg et al. USPN 5180622, from the same field of endeavor, absorbent member incorporating particulate absorbent materials, teaches improved particulate, absorbent polymeric compositions comprising interparticle crosslinked aggregates formed from precursor particles having a relatively small particle size (i.e. fine precursor particles). Berg teaches the BET specific surface area of the absorbent particles ranges from 0.020 m2/g to 0.169 m2/g (Table 1), which has values in the claimed range of 0.01 m²/g or more and 0.20 m²/g or less. Berg further teaches that by using fine precursor particles, the surface area to mass ratio of the aggregates is increased over the surface area to mass ratio of precursor of particles having the same particle size as the aggregate such that the resultant polymeric compositions incorporating such interparticle crosslinked aggregates have particularly high rates of fluid uptake (Swelling Rate) while minimizing their gel blocking properties by removing free fines from the swollen or partially swollen polymeric composition and improves the handling and performance characteristics of such polymeric compositions (Berg col. 3, lines 32-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the water absorbent resin particles of Tanaka with the surface area taught in Berg for the benefits that Berg teaches.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. USPN 6663949 in view of Lee et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0228670.
As to claims 11 and 12, Tanaka teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Tanaka does not teach the additive comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of inorganic powders, surfactants, oxidizing agents, reducing agents, metal chelating agents, radical chain inhibitors, antioxidants, and antibacterial agents. Lee teaches a superabsorbent polymer composition useful in absorbent articles comprising deodorizing particles capable of effectively adsorbing and decreasing compound inducing odor in sanitary products such as a diaper, without deterioration of the properties of the superabsorbent polymer (Lee, Abstract). Lee teaches additives used in the preparation method of the monomer composition of the superabsorbent polymer including antioxidants as necessary (Lee para. 0046). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the particulate water-absorbing resin composition of Tanaka with an antioxidant additive since the superabsorbent composition of Lee is from the same field of endeavor and used for the same purpose of odor removal in an absorbent hygiene articles.
As to claim 13, Tanaka teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Tanaka teaches the polymer 3 is preferably of material capable of absorbing and holding 20 times or more as heavy liquid as its own weight and capable of gelling. Tanaka teaches the polymers include crosslinked carboxymethylated cellulose, homo- or copolymers of acrylic acid or an alkali metal salt of acrylic acid, poly acrylic acid or a salt thereof, and a polyacrylic acid salt graft polymer in particulate form (Tanaka col. 4, lines 25-33). Tanaka does not specifically teach the water-absorbing resin particles are composed of a crosslinked polymer having a structural unit derived from a water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer. Lee teaches a superabsorbent polymer composition useful in absorbent articles comprising deodorizing particles capable of effectively adsorbing and decreasing compound inducing odor in sanitary products such as a diaper, without deterioration of the properties of the superabsorbent polymer (Lee, Abstract). Lee teaches the superabsorbent particles are composed of a crosslinked polymer having a structural unit derived from a water-soluble ethylenically unsaturated monomer (Lee paras. 0037-0039) using acrylic acid or salts thereof and/or alkali metal salts. Lee teaches by using such monomers, superabsorbent polymers having more excellent properties can be prepared (Lee para. 0040). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to use the claimed
composition for the water-absorbing resin particles since the materials are known in the art for the preparation of superabsorbent particles and since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hasegawa et al. USPN 10,080,344 is cited to show absorbent articles with activated carbon odor control components.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be
calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights