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
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 51 and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al (2011).
Singh teaches a sol gel synthesis.
Singh, 2.2, teaches starch was dissolved in 17.5mL of double distilled deionized water. Separately, a known amount of TEOS was also dissolved in known amount of ethanol. An ammonium hydroxide solution (12 N, 0.85 mL) was prepared separately. Afterwards, the three solutions were rapidly poured together into a reaction glass flask and kept under gentle stirring for 14 h at room temperature to grow monodisperse SiO2 particles, within the biopolymer medium, which were subsequently washed several times with distilled water.
Singh, 4, teaches the commonly accepted mechanism for the formation of silica composite materials includes three main stages; hydrolysis of the precursor, condensation of the formed monomers to produce oligomers arranged as sol particles, and crosslinking of the sol particles leading to sol–gel transition.
TEOS as taught by the reference reads on tetraethoxysilane as claimed in claim 51.
Starch as taught by the reference reads on a starch based polymer as claimed in claim 51.
Ammonium hydroxide as taught by the reference reads on a base catalyst as claimed in claim 51.
Water and ethanol as taught by the reference reads on a solvent as claimed in claim 51.
Regarding claim 70, the reference teaches silicon alkoxide.
Regarding claim 71, the reference teaches ammonia as the base catalyst.
Claims 51 and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budnyak et al (2015).
Budnyak, page 2, teaches composite chitosan-silica was obtained by the sol-gel method through hydrolysis of tetraethoxysilane in the chitosan solution. Composite chitosan-silica was synthesized by following technique: 30 ml of ethanol, 1 ml of distilled water, and 0.5 ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid were added to 46.5 ml of tetraethoxysilane. The obtained mixture was stirred using the magnetic stirrer MM-5 for 10 min and slowly added dropwise to the previously prepared chitosan solution (0.5 g of chitosan was dissolved in 100 ml of 2% acetic acid) and stirred for a day. After 7 days, when the sol became mature, the obtained substance was dried at 60°C.
Water and ethanol as taught by Budnyak reads on a solvent as claimed in claim 51.
Hydrochloric acid as taught by the reference reads on an acidic catalyst as claimed in claim 51.
Regarding claim 70, the reference teaches silicon alkoxide.
Regarding claim 71, the reference teaches HCl.
Claims 51 and 70-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (Apr 2019).
96 g of a 0.8% by mass of CNC (cellulose nanocrystals), 43.8 μm absolute ethanol, and 46.2 μm TEOS were sequentially added to a 250 mL three-necked flask, and stirred until uniformly dispersed; after the temperature was raised to 65 ° C, stirring was continued for 2 h. Then, after adding a catalyst (ammonia water) to adjust the pH of the system to 9, the temperature was raised to 80 ° C; stirring was continued until a gel was formed, that is, a CNC/SiO2 composite colloid was obtained.
16 g of water-based PAA coating was weighed into a 100 mL beaker, and 30 g of the obtained CNC/SiO2 composite colloid was weighed and ultrasonically dispersed in an ultrasonic machine with an ultrasonic power of 600 W for 15 min. After the end of the ultrasonic wave, the CNC/SiO2 composite colloid was added to a beaker containing PAA paint, and stirred in a water bath at 25 ° C for 1 h to obtain a CNC/SiO2: composite colloid-modified PAA paint. In the PAA coating, the solid content of CNC/SiO2 is 1% to 7% of the solid mass of the PAA resin. The modified coating was applied to the surface of the glass to be naturally dried to form a film having a film thickness of 175 to 190 μm and a water content of 2.5%.
Cellulose nanocrystals as taught by the reference reads on a cellulose based polymer as claimed in claim 51.
TEOS as taught by the reference reads on tetraethoxysilane as claimed in claim 51.
Ammonia water as taught by the reference reads on a base catalyst as claimed in claim 51.
Regarding claim 70, the reference teaches a silicon alkoxide.
Regarding claim 71, the reference teaches ammonia.
Regarding claims 72-73, the reference teaches the CNC/SiO2 composite colloid was added to a beaker containing PAA paint. The modified coating was applied to the surface of the glass to be naturally dried to form a film having a film thickness of 175 to 190 μm and a water content of 2.5%.
Regarding claim 74, the method as taught by the reference is the same as the method as claimed in claim 1 and therefore it would be expected that the method as taught by the reference would result in a coating that is porous and water impermeable as claimed in claim 74.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 51 and 70-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH04132609 (English translation).
‘609, English translation, teaches production of porous silica gel.
‘609, page 2 of the English translation, teaches a method for producing porous silica gel, which comprises hydrolyzing silicon alkoxide in a solvent with a basic catalyst in the presence of hydroxyalkyl cellulose to obtain a silica sol, which is then heated and dried.
‘609, page 3 of the English translation, teaches the alkyl group of the silicon alkoxide in the present invention includes methyl group, ethyl group, propyl group, butyl group, etc. from the viewpoint of ease of hydrolysis and gelation time.
‘609, page 3 of the English translation, teaches solvents used in the present invention include alcohols.
The silicon alkoxide wherein the alkyl group of the silicon oxide is an ethyl group as taught by the references reads on tetraethoxysilane as claimed in claim 51.
The hydroxyalkyl cellulose as taught by the reference reads on a cellulose based polymer as claimed in claim 51.
Regarding claim 70, the reference teaches silicon alkoxide.
Regarding claim 71, the reference teaches the catalyst can be ammonia.
Regarding claim 72, the reference teaches a particulate porous silica gel can be obtained by spray-drying the silica sol or dropping the silica sol into a solvent that is not miscible with the silica sol to form particles, gelling the silica sol, and heating and drying the silica sol.
Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Singh et al (2011) as applied to claim 51 and further in view of Rubio et al (20070148318).
Although the references teach starch, the reference does not teach a specific source of the starch.
Rubio, paragraph 17 of the PGPUB, teaches a continuous industrial application using not only a low-moisture with a short-time precooking of dehulled-corn and ground corn but also with a minimum water and energy requirement yielding a masa and whole-corn flour.
Rubio, table 1, teaches the biochemical content of the whole corn flour is 7.9 wt% protein, 1.2wt% ash, 68.6wt% starch. The biochemical content of the masa flour is 8.5 wt% protein, 1.5 wt% ash and 66wt% starch.
It 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 to use the whole corn flour or masa flour as taught by Rubio as the starch as taught by the references above as this is a suitable source of starch for the method as taught by the references and further this corn flour utilizes a continuous low-moisture precooking which is not only water and energy consumption efficient but also less expensive than prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 67 and 75 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although Singh teaches starch, this reference does not teach cationic starches. There is no motivation in this reference to substitute in cationic starch for the starch as claimed in claim 67.
Although the references teach making a sol, the references do not teach storing powder and reconstituting the powder as claimed in claim 75.
There is no motivation in the reference to store and reconstitute as claimed in claim 75.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/15/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 51 and 67-75 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new references above.
Further, examiner would like to point out that claim 70 has a 112 issue. Silicon oxide, metal alkoxide and phosphorus alkoxide do not further limit the compounds of claim 51.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20070272383 teaches modified silica sols as microparticles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 2/2/26