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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I and the species of plant protein, claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12, in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22-36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15, 2026.
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 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwarz et al. (US 2013/0280523).
Considering Claim 1: Schwarz et al. teaches a sol comprising an alkoxide, water, and acid catalyst and collagen/an animal protein (¶0131).
Considering Claims 2 and 3: Schwarz et al. teaches the alkoxide as being titanium tert-butoxide or titanium isopropoxide (¶0013-20).
Considering Claim 4: Schwarz et al. teaches the acid as being hydrochloric acid (¶0131).
Considering Claim 6: Schwarz et al. teaches the solvent as being water (¶0131).
Considering Claim 12: Schwarz et al. teaches a sol consisting essentially of an alkoxide, water, and acid catalyst and collagen/an animal protein (¶0131).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 12- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 107118709).
Considering Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8: Chen et al. teaches a sol comprising water/a solvent, ethyl orthosilicate/a silicon alkoxide, an acid/a catalyst, and soybean protein/a bland based vegetable protein (pg. 3).
Considering Claim 12: Chen et al. teaches a sol comprising water/a solvent, ethyl orthosilicate/a silicon alkoxide, an acid/a catalyst, and soybean protein/a bland based vegetable protein (pg. 3).
Chen et al. additionally teaches the composition as comprising aluminum sulphate. The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis in original). See MPEP § 2111.03. As the composition still functions as a sol, there is no evidence of record to establish that the aluminum sulphate materially alters the basic and novel charecteristics of the sol composition.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107118709) as applied to claim 1 above.
Considering Claim 3: Chen et al. teaches the sol of claim 1 as shown above.
Chen et al. teaches the silicon alkoxide as being tetraethyl orthosilicate. This is sufficiently close in structure to tetrapropyl orthosilcate (differs in one carbon atom on the alkoxide group) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to function substantially similarly. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2144.09. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the tetraethyl orthosilicate with tetrapropyl orthosilicate, and the motivation to do so would have been, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to function similarly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jurgen-Lohmann et al. (J Sol-Gel Sci Technology, 2009, 52:370-381) and Dave et al. (Chem Mater 1995, 7, 1431-1434) teach silica sols comprising protein materials.
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