DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment of claim 1 is supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the language of the preamble is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the amounts and types of internal crosslinker, surface crosslinker, degree of neutralization, particle size etc., which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Walden et al (US 2008/0221277).
Walden teaches a water-absorbing polymer of a crosslinked polyacrylic acid, the polymer has a degree of neutralization of 70 mol%, a particle size of 150-850um, the polymer is surface crosslinked by ethylene carbonate, aluminum sulfate and zinc oxide (examples C-E).
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. The original specification indicates that the properties are the result of choosing the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would implicitly/inherently be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding 112(a) rejection, MPEP 2164.08(c) states “A feature which is taught as critical in a specification and is not recited in the claims should result in a rejection of such claim under the enablement provision section of 35 U.S.C. 112. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 1233, 188 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1976).” Applicants’ arguments filed on 1/22/2026 further demonstrate the amounts and types of internal crosslinker, surface crosslinker, degree of neutralization, particle size are critical.
In response to applicant's argument Walden uses different micronizing methods, and differences in micronization conditions would result in different surface area and deodorization, the argument is not persuasive because the differences between the inventive and comparative examples of the instant application are the degree of neutralization and the surface crosslinking agent. The differences in surface area and deodorization rate are results from the degree of neutralization and the surface crosslinking agent, those examples do not demonstrate using different micronizing methods would affect surface area and deodorization rate.
In response to applicant's argument regarding neutralizing the acid group before or after polymerization, it is noted that although Walden uses a different neutralizing process, the resulting particle size of Walden is the same as the instant application. Experimental data is required to demonstrate how the neutralizing process would affect surface area and deodorization rate.
In response to applicant's argument that the data in the present application illustrates the unpredictability, and the claimed surface area and deodorization rate are achieved by controlling neutralization conditions, micronization conditions, and surface crosslinking components and content, it is noted that Walden teaches a water-absorbing polymer of a crosslinked polyacrylic acid, the polymer has a degree of neutralization of 70 mol%, a particle size of 150-850um, the polymer is surface crosslinked by ethylene carbonate, aluminum sulfate and zinc oxide. The claimed surface area and deodorization rate are affected by those factors, and those factors of Walden’s polymer falls within the scope as disclosed in instant specification. Therefore, the claimed surface area and deodorization rate are inherent or expected for the polymer of Walden.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763