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 USC § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent CN 113278165 to Chen et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches a method for growing a plant, the method comprising mixing a water-absorbent resin with soil to obtain improved soil, and growing a plant on the improved soil (Chen English abstract), wherein the water-absorbent resin comprises a crosslinked phosphorylated polyvinyl alcohol (Chen English Translation claims 1 and 9).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent JP 2015178099 to Sudo et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Sudo teaches a water-absorbent resin (Sudo English Title) comprising a crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol and a crosslinked phosphorylated starch (Sudo English Translation teaches water absorbent resins of a mix of a hydroxyl group which includes polysaccharide which includes phosphorylated starch (Sudo pg. 3) and in combination with water absorbent synthetic polymer polyvinyl alcohol (Sudo pg. 3) each in a crosslinked state (Sudo pg. 5))
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2015178099 to Sudo et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,210,147 to Johnson et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Sudo teaches the crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol (Sudo English Translation pg. 5), but is silent on it being a crosslinked carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol and/or a crosslinked phosphorylated polyvinyl alcohol. However, Johnson teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to select a phosphorylated polyvinyl alcohol when selecting a polymer (Johnson Col. 2 lines 18-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sudo with the teachings of Johnson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the flame-retardant properties as taught by Johnson. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known polyvinyl alcohol with another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2015178099 to Sudo et al in view of Patent No. 2,609,360 to Dual et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Sudo teaches a method for producing the water-absorbent resin, comprising mixing polyvinyl alcohol, a phosphorylated starch, a crosslinking agent, (Sudo English translation pg. 3 and 5, abstract), but is silent on explicitly teaching water to form a slurry, and heating the slurry to dryness at 100°C to 140°C. However, Dual teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art when polymerizing it is known to provide water and to heating the slurry to dryness at 100°C to 140°C (Dual Col. 3 lines 9-11; Col. 4 line 42-43; Example 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sudo with the teachings of Dual before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to polymerize as taught by Dual. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known polymerization technique with another to obtain predictable results and/or the modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Dual teaches within the claimed temperature range, but is silent on exact range; however, applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed range. The modification is merely and obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Sudo as modified teaches a method for producing a water-absorbent resin according, but is silent on explicitly teachings the polyvinyl alcohol is a carboxylated polyvinyl alcohol and/or a phosphorylated polyvinyl alcohol and wherein an aqueous solution obtained by mixing polyvinyl alcohol, phosphoric acid and/or a salt
thereof, urea, and water is heated to dryness at 100°C to 140°C and washed to afford a
phosphorylated polyvinyl alcohol. However, Dual teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to apply method steps to mix polyvinyl alcohol, a phosphorylated starch, a crosslinking agent, and water to form a slurry, and heating the slurry to dryness at 100°C to 140°C (Dual Col. 1 lines 10-15; claim 3; Col. 3 lines 8-10 teach a temperature within the claimed range of 110C and Col. 4 line 42-43) and produce phosphorylated polyvinyl alcohol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sudo with the teachings of Dual before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for its known physical properties such as enhanced polymer adhesion, anticorrosion, and/or thermal stability. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known polyvinyl alcohol with another to obtain predictable results and/or the modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Dual teaches within the claimed temperature range, but is silent on exact range; however, applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed range. The modification is merely and obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15, Sudo as modified teaches comprising impregnating a non-woven fabric (Sudo page 1 paper and diapers applicant doesn’t claim a specific fabric and the paper of Sudo satisfies the broad nature of the claim) with the slurry according to claim 11, and then heating the nonwoven fabric to dryness at 100°C to 140°C (Dual Col. 1 lines 10-15; claim 3; Col. 3 lines 8-10 teach a temperature within the claimed range of 110C and Col. 4 line 42-43; Example 4 glass tape i.e. fabric). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sudo with the teachings of Dual before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for effective polymerization and to remove excess water as taught by Dual. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Dual teaches within the claimed temperature range, but is silent on exact range; however, applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed range. The modification is merely and obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14, Sudo as modified teaches method for producing a water-absorbent resin according to claim 11, wherein the crosslinking agent is a compound selected from the group consisting of a polyfunctional isocyanate compound, a polyfunctional titanium compound, a polyfunctional epoxy compound, and a polyfunctional carboxylic acid (Sudo English translation page pg.4).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,615,539 to Obonai et al in view of Japanese Patent JP 2015178099 to Sudo et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Obonai teaches a method for growing a plant, the method comprising mixing a water-absorbent resin with soil into soil to obtain improved soil, and growing a plant on the improved soi (Obonai Col. 22 lines 36-55, Table 3), wherein the water-absorbent resin includes a crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol (Obonai Col.8 lines 35-65) and crosslinked starch derivative (Obonai Col. 19 lines 1-16; Col.8 lines 19-25, line 35). Obonai is silent on explicitly teaching the polymers are phosphorylated starch. However, Sudo teaches its known to select a phosphorylated starch when combining with polyvinyl alcohol in a water absorbent resin (Sudo English translation pg. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Obonai with the teachings of Sudo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for its known physical properties of improved stability. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known starch for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Obonai as modified teaches the water-absorbent resin has a granular shape and has a mass average particle diameter of 50 to 1000 µm (Obonai Col. 11 lines 1-8). Obonai teaches the size is merely an obvious engineering design choice based on the use of the material and that the size can change. Obonai teaches within the claimed range, but is silent on the exact range. However, the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4, Obonai as modified teaches a water-absorbent nonwoven fabric having a water-absorbent resin supported on a nonwoven fabric is mixed into soil (Obonai fabric is the pressed sheet of Obonai mixed in soil Col. 19 lines 35-67, Col. 20 lines 1-25; Col.1 lines 37-42; Col. 22 lines 36-60; Col. 27 lines 19-20, Table 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Obonai as modified teaches wherein a water-absorbent nonwoven fabric having a water-absorbent resin supported on a nonwoven fabric by a binder is used (Obonai Col. 18 line 35-45; Col. 19 lines 35-67 and Col. 20 lines 1-25).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,615,539 to Obonai et al in view of Japanese Patent JP 2015178099 to Sudo et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of China Patent CN 103314075 to Cristobal et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Obonai as modified is silent on explicitly teaching the plant is turf. However, Cristobal teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to apply a water absorbent resin to the soil for growing turf (Cristobal paragraph [0010], [0003], [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Obonai with the teachings of Cristobal before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to successfully grow grass. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known plant variety for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,615,539 to Obonai et al in view of Japanese Patent JP 2015178099 to Sudo et al as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent JP 2008199984 to Masui et al.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Obonai as modified is silent on growing a plant on a surface of the water-absorbent nonwoven fabric according to claim 4 in the absence of soil. wherein the water-absorbent nonwoven fabric is laid on a rooftop or a wall surface of a building. However, Masui teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a water-absorbent nonwoven fabric according in the absence of soil. wherein the water-absorbent nonwoven fabric is laid on a rooftop or a wall surface of a building (Masui Fig. 1 #4, English translation pg. 4 crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol and starch, abstract, claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Obonai with the teachings of Masui before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for green buildings as taught by Masui. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to water-absorbent polymer combinations:
U.S. Patent No. 3,949,145; U.S. Patent No. 5,106,890; U.S. Patent No. 10,201,462; U.S. Patent No. 10,786,972; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0009878; Japanese Patent JP H06248558.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
17 March 2026