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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17-19 are directed to an invention that lacks unity of invention because even though the invention requires the technical feature of the product, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the Prior Art in view of US Publication 2020/0239737 to Guo.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1, 2 4-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2020/0239737 to Guo.
Regarding Claim 1, Guo teaches modified silica particles, comprising an alkoxy organosilane (Paragraphs 11, 20, 31, 32, 41, 42) on the surface, wherein the silica particles are water glass-based (colloidal).
Regarding Claim 2, Guo teaches (Paragraph 10) the silica particles are colloidal silica particles.
Regarding Claim 4, Guo teaches (Paragraphs 11, 20, 31, 32, 41, 42) the alkoxy organosilane is a hydrophilic alkoxy organosilane.
Regarding Claim 5, Guo teaches (Paragraphs 11, 20, 31, 32, 41, 42) the alkoxy organosilane silane is a poly(alkoxy) organosilane.
Regarding Claim 6, Guo teaches (Paragraphs 11, 20, 31, 32, 41, 42) the alkoxy organosilane is of the formula (I) wherein R¹ and R² are at each occurrence independently of each other selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl and propyl; a is an integer of at least 1 and at most 5; and b is an integer of at least 1 and at most 20; wherein preferably R+ and R² are all methyl, a is 3, and b is 11.
Regarding Claim 16, Guo teaches (Paragraphs 11, 20, 31, 32, 41, 42) the alkoxy organosilane is of the formula (I) wherein R¹ and R² are all methyl, a is 3, and b is 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights