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 § 102/103
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.
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) 9-12 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seo et al (US 2013/0055924)
Seo teaches a process of blending a geopolymer like aluminosilicates [0009] source (like metakaolin) and source of silica (like fumed silica: examples) in water and an organic phase like mineral oil [0006, examples], vegetable oil, etc., and adding solid particles ([0007], [0010],) then mixing with shear [0011], then removing the solvent mixture (examples.) The solid particles are listed in [0010]. Examples have NaA zeolite, gold nanoparticles and TiO2 nanoparticles as the compound. The process also adds surfactant as optional in [0007]. See Seo, abstract and claims.
Seo teaches the using mineral oil in examples 13 and 15. Aluminosilicates (metakaolin) and fumed silica are mixed in water and KOH and then mixed with mineral oil with vigorous stirring until the mixture became homogenous, which anticipates “mechanical stirring with shear” (or at the least makes it obvious,) and allowed to stand in containers to form solid polymer body with the requisite pore size and distribution. Oil is then removed using hexane. Adding NaA zeolite is in example 7, gold nanoparticles in example 9, and TiO2 nanoparticles in example 6. Also, the teaching of [0007] makes it clear that the nanoparticles can be added to any of the examples, making the claims obvious if not anticipated.
Claims 10, 21, 22: mineral oil meets the carbon counts.
Claims 11 and 12: the activation solution is disclosed as high pH saline. Seo teaches pH of 14, water and KOH or NaOH. Seo also teaches adding surfactant in [0046], [0056], etc. Stirring is rigorous and continuous. Thus while the steps may not be exactly in the sequence as recited, the recited steps are present in the teaching of Seo. MPEP 2144.04-IV: changes is sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Claim 23-26: particle size – nanoparticles meet this range. The recited particles are included in Seo, [0007], etc.
Claims 27-28: aqueous to oil phase appears to be about 50% in Seo. The solid compound in the emulsion appears to be higher than the range claimed, but this could be optimized for the intended purpose. Optimizing a result-effective variable – see MPEP 2144.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant’s working example shows submicronic LTA zeolite as the solid compound different from the geopolymer. Therefore, adding submicronic LTA zeolite as this compound would overcome Seo as a prior art. While Seo teaches zeolite as such a compound, there is no teaching on submicronic LTA as the zeolite. The NaA zeolite in the example is not submicronic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. They are addressed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights