DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending and under consideration in this 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/9/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022265473 (“Nam”, machine translation used for citations) in view of WO 2022265459 (“Min”, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Nam teaches an acrylic acid salt based superabsorbent polymer (see e.g. paragraph [0072]). Although Nam does not provide the extractable content after free swelling for 1 hour in water having an electrical conductivity of 100-130 mS/cm, the superabsorbent polymer of Nam appears to be substantially identical to that described in the instant application.
Nam teaches using a (meth)acrylic acid or salt thereof as the monomer, which is the same monomers as described in the instant application (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0071] and instant specification at paragraph [0079]). Nam teaches that the concentration of the monomer during polymerization is 20-40%, which is the same range described in the instant application (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0080] and instant specification at paragraph [0082]). Nam teaches a substantially identical list of internal cross-linking agents as the instant application (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0085] and instant specification at paragraph [0086]). Nam teaches using the crosslinker in an amount of 0.01-5 parts crosslinker per 100 parts of monomer, which is the same range described in the instant specification (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0091] and instant specification at paragraph [0091]). Nam also teaches using an azo initiator and hydrogen peroxide, while also including ascorbic acid and iron sulfate, which is also used as the initiator in the instant application (see e.g. Nam at paragraphs [0337]-[0338] and instant specification at paragraph [0097]).
Nam describes the same solvents used during polymerization as the instant application (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0131] and instant application at paragraph [0108]). Similar to the instant application, Nam describes that the polymer is not neutralized until after polymerization (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0075] and instant specification at paragraph [0081]).
Both the instant application and Nam teach using the same of surface crosslinking agents (see e.g. paragraph [0115] of the instant application compared with paragraph [0313] of Nam). Both the instant application and Nam appear to teach the same amount of the crosslinking agent as well (compare paragraph [0117] of the instant application with paragraph [0315] of Nam). Nam even uses the same temperature during the surface crosslinking (compare paragraph [0244] of the instant application with paragraph [0320] of Nam).
Further, Nam appears to use the same type, amount, and timing for neutralization of the polymer. For example, both the instant application and Nam use NaOH to neutralize the polymer (compare paragraph [0205] of the instant application with paragraph [0233] of Nam). Both use the same amount of NaOH as well (compare paragraph [0206] of the instant application with paragraph [0148] of Nam, each of which describe that the polymer is neutralized to 50-90%, which, given the identical materials, would require identical amounts of base). Both Nam and the instant application describe that the neutralization occurs after polymerization and either before or during micronization (see e.g. paragraph [0131] of the instant application and paragraphs [0149]-[0150] of Nam).
Nam teaches that micronization is carried out in the presence of a surfactant, and teaches the same types of surfactants that are used in the instant application (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0051] and paragraphs [0156]-[0175] and instant application at paragraphs [0168]-[0170]. Nam appears to use an identical or substantially identical system for micronization as the instant application as well. Nam describes that the micronization is carried out by a rotating screw type atomizer that pushes the polymer through a porous plate having openings of between 1 and 20 mm (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0279]). Similarly, the instant application describes a high-speed screw type rotating chopper that pushes the polymer through a porous plate having openings of between 3 and 25 mm (see instant specification at paragraphs [0163]-[0164]).
While Nam does not provide a precise speed for the rotating chopper, both describe the same result, which is to micronize the polymer to a size of tens to hundreds of microns (see e.g. Nam at paragraph [0151]). Similarly, Min teaches micronization of a superabsorbent polymer using the same type of apparatus to result in particles having a size of tens to hundreds of microns (see e.g. Min at paragraph [0279]). To achieve this result, Min teaches rotating the system at 1500 rpm (Id.). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a rotation speed during micronization of 1500 rpm with the method of Nam because Min teaches that this rotational speed results in the desired particle size. Similarly to Min, the instant application uses a rotational speed during micronization of 500-4,000 rpm (see instant specification at paragraph [0160]).
Although there may be very slight differences between the process of Nam in view of Min and that described in the instant application, these differences, such as the precise type of equipment used, are unlikely to make any significant difference in the resulting structure of the superabsorbent polymer. As such, the superabsorbent polymer of Nam in view of Min is considered to be substantially identical to that of the instant application. As noted in MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Here, given the identical or nearly identical processes to make the superabsorbent polymer, the superabsorbent polymer of Nam in view of Min is considered to have the same properties and characteristics of the superabsorbent polymer of claim 1, and claim 1 is thus obvious over Nam in view of Min.
Regarding claims 2-12, as noted above the superabsorbent polymer of Nam in view of Min is substantially identical to that produced in the instant application. As such, the properties recited in claims 2-12 would also be possessed by the superabsorbent polymer of Nam in view of Min.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736