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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I. in the reply filed on 1/2/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/2/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Unlike claim 7 that recites that the ink of claim 1 “further comprises” the additionally recited component, claims 8 and 9 recite that the ink of claim 1 “comprises” untreated silica and rheology modifying additive, respectively. Accordingly, they fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1 -3, 5-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 101010391 . CN 101010391 discloses an ink comprising a siloxane macromer {para [0113]}, including vinyl-terminated siloxane macromer [note: claim 2]{para [0114]}, glycerine/glycerol meeting the porogen requirements of the claims [note: claim 3]{para [0323]}, and surfactant {para [0169]}. Regarding claims 5 and 6, polymers from vinyl pyrrolidone monomers sufficient to meet the polyvinyl pyrrolidone requirements of the claims are disclosed in amounts meeting the requirements of the claims {paras [0100]-[0103] & [0169]}. Regarding claim 7, CN 101010391 discloses curing and initiators sufficient to meet the curing agent requirements as claimed {paras [0147], [0148], [0303], [0312] and [0345]}. Regarding claim 9, the glycerol of CN 101010391 is sufficient to meet the rheology modifying additive requirements of this claim {para [0323]}. Regarding claims 10 and 11, the sugar disclosed by CN 101010391 is sufficient to meet the porogen particle requirements of these claims as particle form is the most readily envisioned means of presentation of sugar. 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. Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101010391 as applied to claim s 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 above. CN 101010391 differs from claim 4 in that it does not specify employment of glycerol in amounts set forth by this claim. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the glycerol provided for by CN 101010391 in any amount for the purpose of providing effective dispersion of ink components in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. CN 101010391 differs from claim 12 in that it does not particularly recite employment of its siloxane macromers in amounts set forth by this claim. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the siloxane macromers provided for by CN 101010391 in any amount for the purpose of realizing acceptable and effective ink jet formulations i n order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101010391 as applied to claim s 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 above and further in view of Gould et al.(2015/0299483) . CN 101010391 differs from claim 8 in that it does not particularly recite employment untreated silica (i.e. fumed silica). However, Gould et al. discloses fumed silica {paras [0017]-[0019]} to be known in ink jet compositions for shear thinning benefits. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the fumed silica of Gould et al. in the inks of CN 101010391 for the purpose of imparting shear thinning effects i n order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,689,491 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they differ in overlap of material make-up and relative proportions in a manner which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 102639575 is cited for its disclosure relevant siloxane macromer including compositions as well as utilization of polyvinyl pyrrolidone as a stabilizer . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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. /JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765