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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yoshinaga (Machine Translation of WO-2017150065-A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Yoshinaga teaches a water absorption treatment material that absorbs liquid (Abstract) comprising: a grain that has a water absorbing property (core parts (12)), wherein the grain contains a water-absorbent polymer that discolors when absorbing the liquid (coating parts (14)).
Regarding Claim 3
Yoshinaga teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 1, wherein the grain have a granular core portion (Abstract “The core parts 12 are moulded into granules”), and a coating portion that covers the core portion (coating parts (14)).
Regarding Claim 4
Yoshinaga teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 3, wherein the water-absorbent polymer is contained only in the coating portion, out of the core portion and the coating portion (Page 5 Para. 6 “Since the water-absorbing polymer has a property of swelling when it absorbs the liquid, the covering portion 14 containing the absorbent polymer is deformed so as to spread around the granular material 10 when absorbing the liquid”, Page 8 Para. 7 “The said adhesive material contained in the said coating | coated part is a manufacturing method of the water absorption processing material which is a water absorbing polymer”, Examiner notes that the disclosure of Yoshinaga only discloses the water-absorbing polymer as part of the covering portion).
Regarding Claim 9
Yoshinaga teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 1, wherein the grain contains an organic substance as a main material (Page 3 Para. 1 “The core 22 is preferably made of an organic material as a main material”).
Regarding Claim 11
Yoshinaga teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 1, wherein the water absorption treatment material is an excrement treatment material that absorbs animal excrement (Page 2 Para. 7 “The water-absorbing treatment material 1 is, for example, an excrement disposal material that absorbs human or animal excrement”).
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga (Machine Translation of WO-2017150065-A1).
Regarding Claim 2
Yoshinaga teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein a weight ratio of the water-absorbent polymer with respect to the grain is between 1 % and 10 % inclusive.
Yoshinaga discloses the claimed invention except for the weight ratio of the polymer to the grain. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the weight ratio of water-absorbent polymer with respect to the grain be between 1% and 10% as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 10
Yoshinaga teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 9, but does not teach:
wherein the grain is made only of an organic substance.
Yoshinaga teaches that the grain is mainly made of an organic material, but it is not explicitly disclosed that the grain is made only of an organic material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the grain made only of an organic substance with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner notes the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga (Machine Translation of WO-2017150065-A1), in view of Franklin et al. (US 5267532 A), hereinafter Franklin.
Regarding Claim 5
Yoshinaga teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the water-absorbent polymer contains a coloring material that reacts with moisture.
Franklin teaches:
wherein the water-absorbent polymer contains a coloring material that reacts with moisture (Col. 4 Lines 27-29 “visual detection of color transition taking place in the dyes contained in the polymeric coating”, Col. 4 Lines 25-50, Col. 5 Lines 16-40).
Yoshinaga teaches a coloring material that reacts with moisture as claimed (Page 2 Para. 11). However, the disclosure merely states that the covering portion contains a coloring material. It is not clear whether or not the polymer itself contains this material. As such, Franklin is being brought in as a secondary reference to explicitly teach that the coloring material is contained within the 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 had the water-absorbent polymer contain the coloring material with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of ensuring a homogenous material for the coating portion.
Regarding Claim 6
Yoshinaga, in view of Franklin, teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 5, wherein the coloring material includes a first coloring material that reacts with moisture to exhibit a first color (Franklin: Table 1, first coloring material can be methyl red, for example), and a second coloring material that reacts with moisture to exhibit a second color different from the first color (Franklin: Table 1, second coloring material can be bromothymol blue, for example).
Regarding Claim 7
Yoshinaga, in view of Franklin, teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 5, but is silent on:
wherein a weight ratio of the coloring material with respect to the water-absorbent polymer is between 1 % and 10 % inclusive.
Franklin discloses that the dye included in the aqueous solution with the polymer is in an amount of about 0.01% to about 5% by weight (Claim 5), but this ratio is not directly related to the weigh of the water-absorbent polymer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the weight ratio of the coloring material with respect to the water-absorbent polymer be between 1% and 10% as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 8
Yoshinaga, in view of Franklin, teaches the water absorption treatment material according to claim 5, wherein the coloring material is a dye (Yoshinaga: Page 2 Para. 11 “As the coloring material, for example, a dye or a pigment can be used”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US-20170359967-A1 – “Textile Barrier Including Aqueous Super Absorbent Polymer Composition” teaches a SAP particulate that includes colorants, such as dyes or pigments
GB-2326581-A – “Indicating Litter” teaches an animal litter with color changing granules to detect infection
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647