DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Note
This a second non-final issued in response to the after final remarks submitted 08/28/2026.
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 Amendment
The amendments filed on 08/28/2026 have been entered. Claims 9-17 and 21-31 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Claim Objection previously set forth in the office action mailed 07/08/2026 and those are withdrawn herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 11-14, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 15, 21-23, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art Taurino teaching a water droplet contact angle rather than a sol-gel contact angle are convincing. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Fathallah et al. (WO2021140129A1 English).
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7 Zitnan does not remove the sol-gel particles from the print surface and that, at most, Zitnan teaches the partial adhesion failure of a sintered thin film on a rigid substrate.
However, as stated in the office action, Zitnan teaches the deposited sol-gel can be delaminated from the print surface (Pg. 139, left and right col.), which meets the limitation “removing the sol-gel particles from the print surface.” Examiner notes instant claim 1 does not require how the particles are removed.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8 that Gvishi does not cure the deficiencies of Zitnan regarding the limitation “collecting the sol-gel particles removed from the print surface.” Applicant argues in addition to Gvishi not teaching collecting the particles that the properties of the sol-gel material of Gvishi cited by the Examiner as advantageous are not attributed to removing the particles such that there would be no motivation to combine the teachings of Gvishi with Zitnan.
However, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As stated in the prior office action, Gvishi teaches a method of preparing a UV-curable glass material by preparing a sol-gel mixture, dispensing the sol-gel onto a substrate that is in various mold shapes, and lifting the sol-gel material from the substrate mold to provide sol-gel material (Pg. 12002-2, Experimental; Pg. 12002-2-3, Fig. 2A-5B). Lifting the deposited sol-gel material out of the mold is equivalent to “collecting” the sol-gel material. Advantageously, removing the sol-gel material from the substrate provides a final product that can display improved mechanical properties, excellent transparency, adhesive strength of about 10 MPa, and high thermal stability (Pg. 12002-3-4).
Further, it is unclear how Applicant expects the properties of the sol-gel particles to be drastically changed during the “collecting” process such that the advantageous effects of a recovered particle are not understandable to a skilled artisan. Furthermore, given that Gvishi teaches obtaining the solid material and advantageous effects of the material, the combination of Gvishi with Zitnan is considered properly motivated and renders obvious “collecting” the sol-gel.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-10 that Zitnan does not teach “removing the at least a portion of the at least one solvent from the substantially continuous line of the sol-gel precursor solution to form discrete droplets of the sol-gel precursor solution.” Applicant argues the instant specification describes that a single continuous line of sol-gel precursor dispensed onto a print surface becomes the single continuous line of droplets, which makes the single continuous line different than the resulting droplets. Applicant argues that Figures 3A-3C in the prior art Zitnan, cited and reproduced in the office action, does not provide “a substantially continuous line of the sol-gel precursor solution” and that they are depicting different ink formulations. Applicant argues Zitnan teaches developing and stabilizing a continuous track and that the Office identifies no teaching, suggestion, or motivations modify the continuous track in Figure 3C in a manner that would result in “removing the at least a portion of the at least one solvent from the substantially continuous line of the sol-gel precursor solution to form discrete droplets of the sol-gel precursor solution.” However, Examiner first notes the limitation “a substantially continuous line” is interpreted to include a line of droplets and that the limitation does not require an unbroken straight line of continuous sol-gel. As cited in the office action, Zitnan depicts a line of droplets “substantially continuous” sol-gel precursor on a print surface that have been dried to obtain a line of sol-gel droplets. From this prospective alone, the prior art Zitnan is still considered to read on the invention as claimed. Examiner further notes Zitnan teaches embodiments that include a continuous track of ink deposited on the print surface, in addition to lines of droplets and coalesced droplets (Figure 3A-3C). Zitnan teaches the deposited lines, when drying, form island structures that partially delaminate (Pg. 139, right col.). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123 [R-5]).
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Zitnan is not relied on as a secondary reference and the motivation to combine Zitnan with itself is not required.
Examiner further notes that the ink composition is not claimed and Zitnan teaching different formulations is not relevant to the instant claims that require “a substantially continuous line of the sol-gel precursor onto the print surface.”
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 that Gvishi does not cure the deficiencies of Zitnan regarding claim 14.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on Pg. 11 that Taurino does not teach dispensing the droplets onto a print surface that is hydrophobic at the time of dispensing. Applicant argues Taurino instead applies coating compositions to glass substrates to prepare superhydrophobic surfaces.
However, as stated in the prior office action, Taurino teaches the preparation of organic-inorganic hybrid coatings prepared with sol-gel particles (Abstract; Pg. 150, left and right col.). Taurino teaches the sol-gel is deposited onto a hydrophobic surface, where the hydrophobic surface is glass treated with a fluorinated perfluoropolyether oligomer that provides the hydrophobic surface (Pg. 150, left col.; Pg. 153, 3.3; Table 3). Advantageously, providing a hydrophobic layer to deposit the sol-gel on leads to improved wetting properties and allows for droplet formation on the surface without the droplets penetrating into the grooves of a rough surface (Pg. 149-150, 1. Introduction; Pg. 153, 3.3. Surface wettability-contact angle measurements).
Applicant argues on Pg. 14 that Zitnan does not teach removing the annealed sol-gel particles from the print surface but rather Zitnan teaches a failed sintered film caused by drying stress and fracture.
However, Zitnan teaches the deposited sol-gel can be delaminated from the substrate (i.e. removed from the substrate) (Pg. 139, left and right col.). The claims do not require or limit the extent of removal or the manner of removing the annealed particles and accordingly Zitnan is considered to meet the broad limitation required by the claim.
In the case where Zitnan delaminating the sol-gel from the substrate is not equivalent to “removing the sol-gel particles from the print surface,” Fathallah teaches such a limitation. Fathallah teaches forming microcarriers by depositing sol-gel solution droplets on a hydrophobic support (Abstract; Claims). Fathallah teaches the microcarriers can be removed from the hydrophobic support easily in order to collect the microcarriers for further manipulation, such as washing (Pg. 5, par. 7-13). Removing the sol-gel microcarriers is equivalent to “removing the sol-gel particles from the print surface.” Collecting the sol-gel particles for further manipulation and use is equivalent to “collecting the sol-gel particles removed from the print surface.” Advantageosuly, removing and collecting the microcarriers allows retaining the microcarriers while removing debris, such as residues from broken microcarriers (Pg. 5, par. 7-13).
Applicant argues on Pg. 15 that Zitnan teaching Al does not constitute a radionuclide because Zitnan does not teach the aluminum is in the aluminum-26 state. Applicant argues the portion of the specification cited ([0038]) does not include every form of aluminum or every aluminum-containing compound.
However, first, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,aluminum-26 as a radionuclide) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes section [0038] states “The dopant(s) may be a radioactive element and/or a stable element”. Aluminum-27 is a stable isotope of aluminum. Examiner further notes that all elements contain isotopic distributions and the claim further does not limit the concentration of radioisotope present in the metal source.
In the case where the aluminum taught by Zitnan is not a radionuclide, Nogueira is relied on. Fathallah is silent regarding radionuclides.
Nogueira teaches the preparation of radioactive bioglass seeds that are produced by a sol-gel method where radionuclides including Zr and Ba are incorporated into the sol-gel (Abstract; Pg. 252, 2.1).
Advantageously, incorporating Zr and Ba elements into the material improves the radiological response during in vivo monitoring while being radionuclides that have advantageous half-life values that do not contaminate other radionuclides (Pg. 252, 2.1; Pg. 257, right col. -Pg. 258, left col.).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include radionuclides, such as Zr and Ba, in the method of Zitnan in order to improve the radiological response during in vivo monitoring while providing radionuclides that have advantageous half-life values that do not contaminate other radionuclides, as taught by Nogueira.
Applicant argues on Pg. 16-17 that Zitnan describes partial delamination and does not describe this process as occurring in print-removal step. Applicant argues the prior art Perez, cited by Examiner to overcome the deficiency of Zitnan to teach “moving a removal tool along and across the print surface in engagement with the sol-gel particles to remove the sol-gel particles from the print surface” does not cure this deficiency. Applicant argues the proposed modification of Zitnan with Perez would run contrary to the stated objective of Zitnan and yield the method of Zitnan unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant argues the stated reason to combine Perez with Zitnan does not have a benefit, where lower part removal cost is not present in Zitnan. Applicant argues the hindsight reasoning relied on is improper.
However, in response to applicant's argument that the method of Perez could not be incorporated into the method of Zitnan, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Perez teaches an automated printer part removal method that comprises a moveable blade that is supported for motion across the printing surface to release the parts from the printing surface (Abstract; Fig. 5; Fig. 10; Fig. 14; Fig. 18; col. 4, lines 1-8). The disclosure of Perez is directed to printing 3D materials onto a print surface and removing them with an automated blade and accordingly is considered pertinent prior art in an analogous field of endeavor as that of the instant invention. Advantageously, the removal blade taught by Perez provides automated part removal from the printing surface at a much lower cost (col. 4, lines 40-49).
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Perez teaches an automated printer part removal method that comprises a moveable blade that is supported for motion across the printing surface to release the parts from the printing surface (Abstract; Fig. 5; Fig. 10; Fig. 14; Fig. 18; col. 4, lines 1-8). The disclosure of Perez is directed to printing 3D materials onto a print surface and removing them with an automated blade and accordingly is considered pertinent prior art in an analogous field of endeavor as that of the instant invention. Advantageously, the removal blade taught by Perez provides automated part removal from the printing surface at a much lower cost (col. 4, lines 40-49).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues on Pg. 18 against the reference Zhang for the rejection of claims 30-31.
However, Zhang is no longer relied on for the rejection of claims 30 and 31. These claims are now rejected as being unpatentable over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Fathallah et al. (WO2021140129A1 English) and further in view of Perez et al. (US9289946B2).
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 26, the claim lists “molybdenum” twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Fathallah et al. (WO2021140129A1 English).
Regarding claim 9, Zitnan teaches a process of preparing sol-gel nanoparticles that are deposited on surfaces (Abstract; Pg. 135, Introduction).
Zitnan teaches the sol-gel is prepared from tetraethyl orthosilicate, solvents of ethanol and water, nitric acid, and aluminum nitrate that are mixed (Pg. 136, 2.1 Sol-gel synthesis of aluminosilicate). Tetraethyl orthosilicate is a sol-gel precursor and outlined as such in the instant specification in [0033]). Water and ethanol are solvents and are outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0032]. Aluminum is a dopant and is outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0038]-[0039].
Zitnan teaches the prepared sol-gel is used as an ink to coat substrates (Pg. 136, 2.2 Printer Modification; Figure 3). A print surface is interpreted to include a surface from at least [0043] of the instant specification and accordingly depositing the sol-gel ink of Zitnan onto a substrate is equivalent to the instantly claimed “print surface.”
Zitnan teaches the ink formulation was adjusted to control evaporation of the solvents in the ink during and after deposition (Pg. 137, 3.1 Design of the ink). Zitnan teaches that the prepared sol-gel used for printing is a homogenous mixture with a high homogeneity of aluminum-silicon bonding and that after the ink was deposited on the surface the sol was allowed to dry (Pg. 136, left col.; Pg. 3.2 Printing performance; Pg. 138, 3.3 Sintering of printed structures). Zitnan teaching the ink evaporates during and after deposition would result in loss of “at least a portion of the solvent” and meet the limitation required by the claim.
Zitnan teaches the deposited sol-gel can be delaminated from the substrate (i.e. removed from the substrate) (Pg. 139, left and right col.).
The claim further requires “collecting the sol-gel particles removed from the print surface,” to which Zitnan does not explicitly collect the delaminated films. Further, in the case where Zitnan delaminating the sol-gel from the substrate is not equivalent to “removing the sol-gel particles from the print surface” Fathallah is relied on to teach removing the sol-gel particles from the surface and collecting the sol-gel particles removed.
Fathallah teaches forming microcarriers by depositing sol-gel solution droplets on a hydrophobic support (Abstract; Claims). Fathallah teaches the microcarriers can be removed from the hydrophobic support easily in order to collect the microcarriers for further manipulation, such as washing (Pg. 5, par. 7-13). Removing the sol-gel microcarriers is equivalent to “removing the sol-gel particles from the print surface.” Collecting the sol-gel particles for further manipulation and use is equivalent to “collecting the sol-gel particles removed from the print surface.”
Advantageosuly, removing and collecting the microcarriers allows retaining the microcarriers while removing debris, such as residues from broken microcarriers (Pg. 5, par. 7-13).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove and collect the sol-gel microcarriers after depositing them on a print surface in the method of Zitnan in order to obtain the microcarriers while removing unwanted debris, as taught by Fathallah.
Regarding claim 10, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and Zitnan teaches the sol-gel is prepared from tetraethyl orthosilicate, solvents of ethanol and water, nitric acid, and aluminum nitrate that are mixed (Pg. 136, 2.1 Sol-gel synthesis of aluminosilicate). Tetraethyl orthosilicate is a sol-gel precursor and outlined as such in the instant specification in [0033]). Water and ethanol are solvents and are outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0032]. Aluminum is a dopant and is outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0038]-[0039].
Regarding claim 11, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and Zitnan teaches the sol-gel is printed on the surface as droplets (Pg. 138, 3.2 Printing Performance).
Regarding claim 12, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and 11 and the claim further requires dispensing the sol-gel “onto a hydrophobic print surface” to which Zitnan is silent.
Fathallah teaches forming microcarriers by depositing sol-gel solution droplets on a hydrophobic support (Abstract; Claims).
Advantageously, providing a hydrophobic support avoids excessive spreading of the droplets dispensed (Pg. 4, par. 18-21).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a hydrophobic support in the method of Zitnan in order to avoid excessive spreading of the sol-gel droplets being dispensed, as taught by Fathallah.
Regarding claim 13, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and Zitnan teaches the droplets can be dropped on the substrate to form a stable line that is continuous (Pg. 138, 3.2 Printing Performance; Figure 3 (C); Figure 5 (B)).
Regarding claim 14, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and 13 and Zitnan teaches the droplets can be dispensed as droplets in a line that undergo evaporation to provide isolated drops (Pg. 138, 3.2 Printing Performance; Figure 3 (A)).
Regarding claim 15, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and the claim further requires removing at least a portion of the at least one solvent “comprises forming sol-gel particles exhibiting a contact angle with the print surface of from about 120 degrees to about 160 degrees” to which Zitnan is silent.
Fathallah teaches forming microcarriers by depositing sol-gel solution droplets on a hydrophobic support (Abstract; Claims). Fathallah teaches the sol-gel droplets are dropped onto a hydrophobic support and that the sol-gel drops display a contact angle from 70 to 150 ° (Pg. 4, par. 18-21). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Fathallah (contact angle from 70 to 150 °) overlaps with the claimed range (from about 120 to 160 degrees). Therefore, the range in Fathallah renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing a sol-gel contact angle with the support between 70 to 150 ° helps to avoid excessive spreading of the droplets on the support (Pg. 4, par. 18-21).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a contact angle between 70 to 150 ° in the method of Zitnan in order to avoid excessive spreading of the droplets on the support, as taught by Fathallah.
Regarding claim 16, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and Zitnan teaches the sol-gel ink solution is prepared by a batch process in that an ink sol-gel sample is prepared from the synthesis (Pg. 136, 2.1 Sol-gel Synthesis of aluminosilicate).
Regarding claim 17, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 9 and the claim further requires the sol-gel particles are prepared in by a “continuous process” where Zitnan teaches a batchwise process.
While Zitnan does not explicitly describe a continuous process, claimed continuous processes have been held as obvious in light of a batch process taught in the prior art. Accordingly, the batchwise process of preparing sol-gel particles of Zitnan would render the claimed continuous process obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.V.E.
Claims 21-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Fathallah et al. (WO2021140129A1 English).
Regarding claim 21, Zitnan teaches the sol-gel is prepared from tetraethyl orthosilicate, solvents of ethanol and water, nitric acid, and aluminum nitrate that are mixed (Pg. 136, 2.1 Sol-gel synthesis of aluminosilicate). Tetraethyl orthosilicate is a sol-gel precursor and outlined as such in the instant specification in [0033]). Water and ethanol are solvents and are outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0032]. Aluminum is a dopant and is outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0038]-[0039].
Zitnan teaches the prepared sol-gel is used as an ink to coat substrates (Pg. 136, 2.2 Printer Modification; Figure 3). A print surface is interpreted to include a surface from at least [0043] of the instant specification and accordingly depositing the sol-gel ink of Zitnan onto a substrate is equivalent to the instantly claimed “print surface.”
Zitnan teaches the ink formulation was adjusted to control evaporation of the solvents in the ink during and after deposition (Pg. 137, 3.1 Design of the ink). Zitnan teaches that the prepared sol-gel used for printing is a homogenous mixture with a high homogeneity of aluminum-silicon bonding and that after the ink was deposited on the surface the sol was allowed to dry (Pg. 136, left col.; Pg. 3.2 Printing performance; Pg. 138, 3.3 Sintering of printed structures). Zitnan teaching the ink evaporates during and after deposition would result in loss of “at least a portion of the solvent” and meet the limitation required by the claim.
The claim further requires “the sol-gel particles exhibiting a contact angle with the print surface of from about 120 degrees to about 160 degrees” to which Zitnan is silent.
Fathallah teaches forming microcarriers by depositing sol-gel solution droplets on a hydrophobic support (Abstract; Claims). Fathallah teaches the sol-gel droplets are dropped onto a hydrophobic support and that the sol-gel drops display a contact angle from 70 to 150 ° (Pg. 4, par. 18-21). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Fathallah (contact angle from 70 to 150 °) overlaps with the claimed range (from about 120 to 160 degrees). Therefore, the range in Fathallah renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing a sol-gel contact angle with the support between 70 to 150 ° helps to avoid excessive spreading of the droplets on the support (Pg. 4, par. 18-21).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a contact angle between 70 to 150 ° in the method of Zitnan in order to avoid excessive spreading of the droplets on the support, as taught by Fathallah.
Regarding claims 22-23, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 21 and Zitnan further teaches the deposited sol-gel material is sintered (Pg. 138, 3.3). Annealing is an equivalent term to sintering, with annealing in the instant case being interpreted as heating to a temperature from about 300 to 700 °C (see at least [0068]-[0069] in the instant specification). Zitnan teaches heating occurs from about 45 °C up to 1300 °C at a heating rate of 5 °C/min (Pg. 138, right col.). Accordingly, Zitnan would heat the material at temperatures spanning 300-700 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Zitnan (about 45 °C to 1300 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (from about 300 to about 700 °C). Therefore, the range in Zitnan renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 24, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 21 and 22 and Zitnan teaches the deposited sol-gel can be delaminated from the substrate (i.e. removed from the substrate) (Pg. 139, left and right col.).
In the case where Zitnan delaminating the annealed sol-gel material from the substrate is not equivalent to “removing the annealed sol-gel particles from the print surface” Fathallah is relied on to teach removing the sol-gel particles from the surface and collecting the sol-gel particles removed.
Fathallah teaches forming microcarriers by depositing sol-gel solution droplets on a hydrophobic support (Abstract; Claims). Fathallah teaches the microcarriers can be removed from the hydrophobic support easily in order to collect the microcarriers for further manipulation, such as washing (Pg. 5, par. 7-13). Removing the sol-gel microcarriers is equivalent to “removing the sol-gel particles from the print surface.” Collecting the sol-gel particles for further manipulation and use is equivalent to “collecting the sol-gel particles removed from the print surface.”
Advantageosuly, removing and collecting the microcarriers allows retaining the microcarriers while removing debris, such as residues from broken microcarriers (Pg. 5, par. 7-13).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove and collect the sol-gel microcarriers after depositing them on a print surface in the method of Zitnan in order to obtain the microcarriers while removing unwanted debris, as taught by Fathallah.
Regarding claims 27-28, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 21 and Zitnan further teaches the sol-gel precursor is tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) (Pg. 136, 2.1).
Claim 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Fathallah et al. (WO2021140129A1 English) and further in view of Nogueira et al. (J. Sol Gel Sci. Technol. 2011, 58).
Regarding claims 25-26, Zitnan in view of Fathallah teach the method of claim 21 and the claim further requires the dopant comprises at least one radionuclide.
Zitnan further teaches the sol-gel synthesis is of aluminosilicates and that the mixture includes aluminum (Pg. 136, 2.1). A radionuclide is interpreted to include elements identified in [0038]-[0039] of the instant specification, where radionuclides can include Fe, Al, Can, Na, or a combination thereof. Accordingly, Zitnan teaching aluminum (Al) is included in the sol-gel mixture meets the limitation of “radionuclide.”
In the case where the aluminum taught by Zitnan is not a radionuclide, Nogueira is relied on. Fathallah is silent regarding radionuclides.
Nogueira teaches the preparation of radioactive bioglass seeds that are produced by a sol-gel method where radionuclides including Zr and Ba were incorporated into the sol-gel (Abstract; Pg. 252, 2.1).
Advantageously, incorporating Zr and Ba elements into the material improves the radiological response during in vivo monitoring while being radionuclides that have advantageous half-life values that do not contaminate other radionuclides (Pg. 252, 2.1; Pg. 257, right col. -Pg. 258, left col.).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include radionuclides, such as Zr and Ba, in the method of Zitnan in order to improve the radiological response during in vivo monitoring while providing radionuclides that have advantageous half-life values that do not contaminate other radionuclides, as taught by Nogueira.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Perez et al. (US9289946B2).
Regarding claim 29, Zitnan teaches the sol-gel is prepared from tetraethyl orthosilicate, solvents of ethanol and water, nitric acid, and aluminum nitrate that are mixed (Pg. 136, 2.1 Sol-gel synthesis of aluminosilicate). Tetraethyl orthosilicate is a sol-gel precursor and outlined as such in the instant specification in [0033]). Water and ethanol are solvents and are outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0032]. Aluminum is a dopant and is outlined as such in the instant specification in at least [0038]-[0039].
Zitnan teaches the prepared sol-gel is used as an ink to coat substrates (Pg. 136, 2.2 Printer Modification; Figure 3). A print surface is interpreted to include a surface from at least [0043] of the instant specification and accordingly depositing the sol-gel ink of Zitnan onto a substrate is equivalent to the instantly claimed “print surface.”
Zitnan teaches the ink formulation was adjusted to control evaporation of the solvents in the ink during and after deposition (Pg. 137, 3.1 Design of the ink). Zitnan teaches that the prepared sol-gel used for printing is a homogenous mixture with a high homogeneity of aluminum-silicon bonding and that after the ink was deposited on the surface the sol was allowed to dry (Pg. 136, left col.; Pg. 3.2 Printing performance; Pg. 138, 3.3 Sintering of printed structures). Zitnan teaching the ink evaporates during and after deposition would result in loss of “at least a portion of the solvent” and meet the limitation required by the claim.
The claim further requires “moving a removal tool along and across the print surface in engagement with the sol-gel particles to remove the sol-gel particles from the print surface,” to which Zitnan is silent.
Perez teaches an automated printer part removal method that comprises a moveable blade that is supported for motion across the printing surface to release the parts from the printing surface (Abstract; Fig. 5; Fig. 10; Fig. 14; Fig. 18; col. 4, lines 1-8). The disclosure of Perez is directed to printing 3D materials onto a print surface and removing them with an automated blade and accordingly is considered pertinent prior art in an analogous field of endeavor as that of the instant invention.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Reproduced Fig. 14 from Perez showing the removal blade that runs along the print surface to remove the printed part. )]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Advantageously, the removal blade taught by Perez provides automated part removal from the printing surface at a much lower cost (col. 4, lines 40-49).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an automated removal blade to remove printed materials from the print surface in the method of Zitnan in order to automate the print removal step at a much lower cost as taught by Perez.
Claim 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Perez et al. (US9289946B2) and further in view of Fathallah et al. (WO2021140129A1 English).
Regarding claims 30-31, Examiner notes the term “effective diameter” is equivalent to the commonly used term of particle size in the art, as described in [0041] of the instant specification.
Zitnan in view of Perez teach the method of claim 29 and the claim further requires limitations to which Zitnan and Perez are silent.
Fathallah teaches the sol-gel droplets can form spherical microcarriers that display a diameter of between 100 nm and 5 mm when dispensed and display a diameter up to 600 µm (i.e. 0.6 mm) after drying and collecting (Pg. 3, par. 26-27; Pg. 4, par. 17-19). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Fathallah (up to 0.6 mm) overlaps with the claimed range (about 0.01 to about 3.0 mm). Therefore, the range in Fathallah renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, spherical microcarriers with diameters taught by Fathallah provide higher specific surface and better flotation (Pg. 3, par. 26-Pg. 4, par 1).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide spherical sol-gel microcarriers with a diameter up to 0.6 mm in the method of Zitnan in order to provide higher specific surface and better flotation as taught by Fathallah.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights