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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 8, 2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana et al. (US 2020/0246771) in view of Jungo et al. (US Pat. 4,431,164) and Chen et al. (Talanta 107, 2013, 111-117).
Considering Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 12: Khurana et al. teaches a process for producing a hydrogel microsphere (¶0006) comprising generating by means of a capillary a monodisperse/controlled sized droplet (¶0006), incubating the droplet to induce gelation (¶0006); contacting the droplet with a reservoir fluid where the droplet is immiscible in the reservoir fluid (¶0032); and crosslinking the droplet in the reservoir fluid to form a hydrogel microsphere (Example 2). Khurana et al. implicitly teaches embodiments where the first fluid as being denser than the reservoir fluid (¶0084, “some examples” implies that there are other examples where the first fluid has a higher density). Khurana et al. teaches using a mixture of oils, such as mineral oil, silicon oil, or a perfluorinated oil (¶0084). As the oils have different chemical compositions, they would necessarily have different densities.
Khurana et al. does not teach generating the first droplet in a gaseous phase. However, Jungo et al. teaches forming gelled microspheres in a gaseous atmosphere with microwave heating during the crossing of the gaseous phase (2:1-30). Khurana et al. and Jungo et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely hydrogel microsphere formation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the gaseous phase microwave heating step in the initial gelation step of Khurana et al., as in Jungo et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Jungo et al. suggests, to provide more control of the gelation of the microspheres (1:3-14).
Khurana et al. does not teach generating the droplets with a piezoelectric material connected to an alternative current generator. However, Chen et al. teaches a capillary system for forming droplets including a piezoelectric material connected to an actuator/an alternating current generator (Fig. 1). Chen et al. teaches the voltage forms droplets by separation (Section 2.6). Khurana et al. and Chen et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely forming droplets in a capillary system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the piezoelectric system of Chen et al. in the droplet formation of Khurana et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Chen et al. suggests, to precisely control the drop formation (Section 4).
Considering Claims 4 and 5: Khurana et al. teaches the first fluid as being an acrylamide and the second fluid as being a synthetic oil (¶0135).
Considering Claim 8: Khurana et al. teaches the reservoir fluid as comprising TEMED (¶0135).
Considering Claim 10: Khurana et al. teaches incubating the hydrogel precursor at a controlled temperature (¶0043).
Considering Claim 11: Khurana et al. teaches fist fluid as having a charge (¶0121).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana et al. (US 2020/0246771) in view of Jungo et al. (US Pat. 4,431,164) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (CN 1069162260). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 106916260.
Considering Claim 9: Khurana et al. and Jungo et al. collectively teach the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Khurana et al. teaches the first fluid as comprising potassium persulfate (¶0135). However, Ji et al. teaches ammonium persulphate as being a functional equivalent to potassium persulfate in forming hydrogel microspheres (pg. 3). Khurana et al. and Ji et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely hydrogel microspheres. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted ammonium persulphate for the potassium persulphate of Khurana et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Ji et al. suggests, they are functional equivalent gel initiators (pg. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the frequency of the droplet formation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
B) In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Khurana et al. does not teach the claimed drop formation system, this is remedied by the newly applied Chen et al.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights