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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1 and 33 have been acknowledged. Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to traverse the rejection by amending claim 1 to recite “densifying” and “via sintering or calcining” and claim 3 to recite “wherein the continuous matrix encapsulates the array of metal oxide particles such that infiltration of medial into the hybrid metal oxide particles is prevented.” The applicant further argues Iskandar fails to teach or suggest the new limitations amended in the claims 1 and 3 (Remarks of 07/23/2026 at 7). However, since claim 1 requires no particular conditions for sintering or calcining. The heating at 200 °C inside the furnace would necessarily densify the particles a non-zero amount and meet the new limitation required (Iskandar, Fig 2).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 33 under 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Budd (US 6,245,700 B1).
See updated rejection below.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “method of preparing hybrid metal oxide particles.” Iskandar teaches a method for preparing hybrid particles (Iskandar 351: Experimental).
Claim 1 further requires “generating liquid droplets from a particle dispersion comprising first metal oxide particles and second metal oxide particles.” Iskandar teaches liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders).
Claim 1 further requires “drying the liquid droplets to provide dried particles comprising a discrete matrix of the first metal oxide particles embedded with the second metal oxide particles,” Iskandar teaches droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation).
Claim 1 further requires “densifying the dried particles via sintering or calcining to obtain the hybrid metal oxide particle.” The claim limitation requires no particular or specific temperature conditions for sintering or calcining. The heating at 200 °C inside the furnace would necessarily densify the particles a non-zero amount and meet the new limitation required (Iskandar, Fig 2). Iskandar teaches a drying process after evaporation to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle, which is also considered to be a hybrid metal oxide particle (Iskandar: Fig. 1).
Claim 1 further requires “the hybrid metal oxide particles comprising a continuous matrix formed from the first metal oxide particles embedded with an array of the second metal oxide particles,” Iskandar teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle) and that the surface of SiO2 particles are occupied primarily Al2O3 particles. Iskandar strongly suggest that these Al2O3 particles are embedded in the surface of SiO2 particles.
Regarding claim 32, this claim recites “Hybrid metal oxide particles prepared by the method of claim 1.” This is product-by-process language, making this a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the claim suggests hybrid oxide particles are prepared by the method of claim 1 as claimed in claim 32. Iskandar teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, the claimed hybrid metal oxide would be expected.
Claim(s) 33, 34-36, 38, 40, 44-46, 49, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budd (US 6,245,700 B1).
With respect to claim 33, the claim requires “hybrid metal oxide particles comprising: a continuous matrix of a first metal oxide having embedded therein an array of metal oxide particles, the metal oxide particles comprising a second metal oxide,” Budd teaches transparent, solid, fused glass-ceramic microspheres containing titania and at least one of alumina, zirconia, and silica (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 1-20; claims 1 and 18). The alumina/silica-containing glass composition forms a continuous matrix comprising a first metal oxide, and the uniformly dispersed zirconia/titania crystalline phases constitute an embedded array of particles comprising a second metal oxide.
claim 33 further requires “wherein the hybrid metal oxide particles are substantially non-porous, and wherein the continuous matrix encapsulates the array of metal oxide particles such that infiltration of media into the hybrid metal oxide particles is prevented.” Budd teaches “solid” beads as beads that are not hollow and that lack substantial cavities or voids (Budd, col. 3, lines. 20-29).
Regarding claim 34, Budd teaches silica, titania, alumina, zirconia, ceria, iron oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, chromium oxide, and combinations of these oxides as constituents or colorants of its beads (col. 3, l. 55 through col. 5, line. 35; Examples 1-16).
Regarding claim 35, Budd teaches Transparent solid microspheres made of silica and titania (Budd, abstract)
Regarding claim 36, the claim recites “derived from metal oxide particles” this is product-by-process language, making this a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the claim suggests hybrid oxide particles are prepared by the method of claim 1 as claimed in claim 32. Therefore, Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 38, Budd teaches particles can contain crystals less than 100 nm in diameter (Budd Col. 2, lines 57+).
Regarding claim 40, Budd teaches microspheres, which are inherently spherical (Budd, Title).
Regarding claim 44, Budd teaches that its beads are typically about 50 μm to about 500 μm and that fractions as small as 2-3 μm are produced (Budd, col. 3, ll. 40-52). The expressly disclosed 50-100 μm portion overlaps the claimed average diameter of about 0.5-100 μm. In the absence of evidence that the overlap is critical or produces unexpected results, the overlapping range anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 45, Budd teaches example 1 contains 23 wt.% silica and 36 wt.% titania (Budd, Table 1). Treating the silica-containing continuous phase as the first oxide and the titania crystalline phase as the second oxide gives a first-to-second weight ratio of 23:36, or about 0.64, which falls within the claimed 1:50 to 10:1 range.
Regarding claim 46, the 23:36 ratio in example 3 taught in Budd is about 0.64, which is approximately 2:3 (0.67) and is within the scope of “about 2/3.” Applicant has not identified criticality or unexpected results associated with the small numerical difference.
Regarding claim 49, Budd teaches incorporating its beads into coating compositions having a film-forming binder, using the beads in painted pavement markings, and forming pavement-marking sheeting having a backing substrate, binder, and the beads (Budd, col. 8, l. 48 through col. 9, l. 20).
Regarding claim 51, Budd teaches colorants can also be included in the beads of the present invention (Budd 6, line 60-67).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 39 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd (US 6,245,700 B1) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Manoharan (US 2014/0254017 A1).
With respect to claim 39, Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 39 further requires “wherein the metal oxide particles comprise a core-shell structure.” Budd does not explicitly teach a core-shell structure. However, Manoharan teaches photonic particles containing colloidal core-shell particles (Manoharan, 43-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Budd, a core-shell structure as Manoharan teaches that independent control of the core, shell, spacing, and disorder controls scattering strength, wavelength, opacity, and angle dependence (Manoharan, 58-67).
Regarding claim 48, Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 48 further requires “wherein the array of the metal oxide particles is a disordered array.” Budd does not explicitly teach wherein the array of the metal oxide particles is a disordered array. However, Manoharan teaches condensing droplets fast enough to jam the particles before crystallization, thereby producing a disordered array having short-range order without long-range periodicity (Manoharan 54-57).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Budd, the array of the metal oxide particles in a disordered array based on the reasons specified in claim 47.
Claim(s) 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd (US 6,245,700 B1) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Karpov (US 20110245392 A1).
With respect to claim 42, Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 42 further requires “the particles comprising surface functionalization on outer surfaces of the hybrid metal oxide particles.” Budd does not explicitly teach surface functionalization on outer surfaces of the hybrid metal oxide particles. However, Karpov teaches producing functionalized metal oxide particles (Karpov 2: [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Budd, as Karpov teaches particles obtained this way are suitable for improved UV protection (Karpov: Abstract).
Regarding claim 43, modified Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 42 as discussed above.
Claim 43 further requires “wherein the surface functionalization comprises a silane.” Iskander does not explicitly teach silane. However, Karpov teaches zinc oxide particles modified with silanes (Karpov: Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Iskander, surface functionalization comprising a silane as Karpov teaches that these functionalized metal oxide particles are suitable for UV protection of polymers (Karpov 4: [0058]).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd (US 6,245,700 B1) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Anselmann (US 2003/0116062 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 47 further requires “wherein the array of the metal oxide particles is an ordered array.” Budd does not explicitly teach wherein the array of the metal oxide particles is an ordered array. However, Anselmann teaches particulate opalescent pigments comprising monodisperse spheres 50 nm to 2 μm in a three-dimensional, regularly ordered structure that is closely packed in domains and mechanically stabilized (Anselmann, Abstract; pg. 9-13, 24-32; claims 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Budd, the array of the metal oxide particles in a ordered array as Anselmann teaches that the ordered arrangement produces Bragg scattering and opalescent color while mechanical stabilization fixes the arrangement. Applying that known arrangement to Budd’s dense matrix would predictably provide.
Claim(s) 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd (US 6,245,700 B1) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Darji (US 20190076809 A1).
Regarding claim 52, Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 52 further requires “a light absorber.” Budd does not explicitly teach a light absorber. However, Darji teaches presence of a light absorber (Darji 3: [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Budd, the hybrid metal oxide particles comprising a light absorber, as Darji the light absorber provides a more saturated observable color (Darji 3: [0041]).
Regarding claim 53, Budd teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 52 as discussed above.
Claim 53 further requires “ wherein the light absorber is present from 0.1 wt% to about 40.0 wt%, and wherein the light absorber comprises carbon black or one or more ionic species.” Budd does not explicitly teach a light absorber, what type of light absorber, or amount. However, Darji teaches selection of carbon black as a light absorber and that the light absorber consists of about 0.1 wt % to about 40.0 wt % of the microsphere (hybrid oxide particle) (Darji 6: [0083]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights