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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 25-27 and 29-42 are presently pending; claims 34-42 are withdrawn; claims 1-24 and 28 are canceled; claim 25 is amended; claims 25-27 and 29-33 are under examination.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 25-27 and 29-33 over ISKANDER is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the rejection of claim 28 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “metal oxide” as recited in claims 25-27 and 29-33 is interpreted as meaning metal oxide or silica, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification at paragraph [0010].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darji, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0076809-A1 (hereinafter, “DARJI”).
Regarding claim 25, DARJI teaches closed-cell metal oxide particle comprising a plurality of closed-cells, each closed-cell encapsulating a media-inaccessible void volume, wherein an outer surface of the closed-cell metal oxide particle comprises an array of the closed-cells (see DARJI at Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0028] and [0119]),
wherein the void volumes have an average diameter from about 50 nm to about 500 nm (see DARJI at paragraph [0077], teaching an average diameter of, e.g., 50 nm, 300 nm, 500 nm, etc.),
and wherein the closed-cell metal oxide particle has an average porosity of about 0.1 to about 0.65 (see DARJI at paragraph [0076], teaching an average porosity from about 0.10 to about 0.64).
Regarding claim 26, DARJI teaches a closed-cell metal oxide particle according to claim 25, wherein the array of closed-cells is an ordered array (see DARJI at paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 27, DARJI teaches a closed-cell metal oxide particle according to claim 25, wherein the array of closed-cells is a disordered array (see DARJI at paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claims 29-30, DARJI teaches a closed-cell metal oxide particle according to claim 25, wherein the metal oxide matrix comprises silica (see DARJI at paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 31, DARJI teaches a closed-cell metal oxide particle according to claim 25. The limitation regarding the particle being derived at least partially from polymer particles having an average diameter from about 50 nm to about 500 nm is considered product-by-process language and is not given patentable weight. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see MPEP § 2113.
Further, although this limitation is not considered to limit the present product claim, DARJI teaches that the particles are at least partially derived from polymer particles having an average diameter of about 50 nm to about 650 nm (see DARJI at paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 32, DARJI teaches a closed-cell metal oxide particle according to claim 25. The limitation regarding the particle being derived at least partially from metal oxide particles having an average diameter from about 1 nm to about 120 nm is considered product-by-process language and is not given patentable weight. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see MPEP § 2113.
Further, although this limitation is not considered to limit the present product claim, DARJI teaches that the particles are at least partially derived from nano-scaled metal oxide particles (see DARJI at paragraphs [0031] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 33, DARJI teaches a closed-cell metal oxide particle according to claim 25. The limitation regarding the particle being derived from a metal oxide precursor selected from a precursor of silica, titania, alumina, zirconia, ceria, iron oxides, zinc oxide, indium oxide, tin oxide, chromium oxide, and combinations thereof is considered product-by-process language and is not given patentable weight. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see MPEP § 2113.
Further, although this limitation is not considered to limit the present product claim, DARJI teaches that the particles are derived from e.g. a silica precursor, etc. (see DARJI at paragraphs [0022] and [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 with respect to claims 25-27 and 29-33 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights