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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “61” in Fig. 2 has been used to designate several parts including “61a”, “61b”, “61c”, “61d” and “61e”. The notation “61a(61)” appears to designate a part “61a” but also includes “61” which is unclear. Similarly, “64” is used to designate parts “64a”, “64b” and “64c” and is likewise objected to.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0107313).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami et al. discloses a water-absorbent resin material which is internally crosslinked (Abstract) and includes:
An ethylenically unsaturated monomer such as (meth)acrylic acid in amounts of 70-100 mol% relative to the total monomer units (par. [0029]-[0030])
A water retention capacity of saline 40g/g or more (par. [0088])
A water retention capacity under a load of 4.14 kPa of 20 ml/g or more (i.e. 20 g/g or more since 1 ml of saline water is approximately 1 g). (par. [0089])
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since Murakami et al. teaches a water capacity under load of 4.14 kPa of 20 ml/g or more, the sum of the saline water retention capacity and the water retention capacity under load with be 60 g/g or more, overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Murakami et al. discloses that the upper limit of the saline water-retention capacity is preferably 60 g/g or less (par. [0088]), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Murakami et al. discloses that the water-absorbent material has a particle diameter in the range of 150-850 micrometers (par. [0110]), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Murakami et al. teaches forming an absorbent article (i.e. an absorber, as claimed) with the resin composition. (Abstract).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0107313) in view of Dairoku et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2006/0183828).
Murakami et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Murakami et al. does not disclose the residual monomer content of the water-absorbent resin.
Dairoku et al. teaches a water absorbent resin material having a low residual monomer concentration (Abstract). Dairoku et al. teaches a residual monomer concentration for acrylic acid monomers of preferably 300 ppm or less, as claimed, to reduce the likelihood of an abnormal odor when coming into contact with urea during use in the absorbent article and prevent sanitary issues when coming into contact with a user’s skin. (par. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the residual monomer concentration to 300 ppm or less as taught by Dairoku et al. for the water absorbent resin material taught in Murakami et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to minimize the amount of residual monomer to reduce the likelihood of odor generation and prevent irritation of the skin when the absorbent resin comes into contact with the user of the absorbent article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights