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 II, claims 9-17 in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 9-17 and 21-31 are pending in the application, where claims 21-31 are new. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0003], [0022]-[0023], [0041], [0068], and [0084] of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7-11, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 9-11, 13, and 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner notes Zitnan does not explicitly state the particles are collected as the newly amended claims of 04/20/2026 now require. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection for claim 9 is made over Zitnan et al. (Int. J. of Appl. Glass. Sci. 2021, 13, 135-142) in view of Gvishi et al. (J. Europ. Opt. Soc. Rap. Public 2012).
Applicant's arguments on Pg. 8 filed 04/20/2026 regarding claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zitnan describes the opposite sequence of dispensing droplets in a line that undergo evaporation. Applicant argues Zitnan shows droplets in Fig. 3A-3C coalescing into bars and then into a continuous line.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, claim 14 states “wherein removing the at least a portion of the at least one solvent from the sol-gel precursor solution on the print surface comprises 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.” Zitnan clearly describes in Fig. 3A a line of isolated dots that are fused to a substrate and dried (Figure 3; Pg. 139, Figure 3 description). Zitnan teaches a continuous line of droplets from which solvent is removed, which reads on the instant claim. Figure 3 from Zitnan is shown below for clarity:
Figure 1. Reproduced Fig. 3A from Zitnan showing the continuous line of isolated, dried droplets.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 that the secondary reference Taurino fails to cure the deficiencies of Zitnan regarding claim 15. Applicant argues Zitnan teaches decreasing the contact angle allows the isolated drops to coalesce into a line and that modifying Zitnan to increase the contact angle would change the principle operation of Zitnan.
However, 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). Zitnan teaches that decreasing the contact angle correlates with evaporation rate, where faster evaporation provides lower contact angles. Zitnan directs a skilled artisan how to manipulate the contact angle to arrive at a line, not that droplets are to be avoided. Where Zitnan is silent regarding the contact angle of the droplets being from about 120 to 160 degrees, Taurino is relied on. 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). Taurino teaches it is advantageous to provide sol-gel particles displaying contact angles within the taught range because they display superhydrophobic behavior with low contact angle hysteresis and no pinning effects being detected (Pg. 155, 5. Conclusion). Achieving a low contact angle hysteresis provides for suspended drops on a surface to roll off without perturbation, making them useful in water-repellant and self-cleaning coatings and materials (Pg. 149, Introduction).
Applicant’s argues the teachings of Zitnan directing a skilled artisan to pin the droplets on the substrate runs contrary to the teachings of Taurino that teaches providing superhydrophobic coatings exhibit high contact angles that remove “pinning effects.”
However, this is not persuasive as the droplets are required to be dispensed on a print surface, which serves to provide a surface to which the droplets attach (or pin). Taurino teaching unwanted pinning effects are avoided is also not equivalent to teaching no pinning occurs, where Taurino still directs a skilled artisan to deposit the droplets on a print surface (i.e. pin them to a surface). See rejection for citations.
Claim Objections
Claims 30-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 30, lines 2-3, the phrase “…comprises forming the sol-gel particles exhibiting an effective…” is likely intended to read ““…comprises forming
Regarding claim 31, lines 2-3, the phrase “…comprises forming the sol-gel particles exhibiting a substantially…” is likely intended to read ““…comprises forming .
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 9-11, 13-14, and 16-17 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 Gvishi et al. (J. Europ. Opt. Soc. Rap. Public 2012).
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.
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).
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 collect the sol-gel materials after depositing them on a print surface in the method of Zitnan in order to obtain a final product that can display properties including improved mechanical properties, excellent transparency, adhesive strength of about 10 MPa, and high thermal stability, as taught by Gvishi.
Regarding claim 10, Zitnan in view of Gvishi 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 Gvishi 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 13, Zitnan in view of Gvishi 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 Gvishi 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 16, Zitnan in view of Gvishi 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 Gvishi 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 12 and 15 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 Gvishi et al. (J. Europ. Opt. Soc. Rap. Public 2012) and further in view of Taurino et al. (J. Col. and Int. Sci. 2008, 325, 149-156).
Regarding claim 12, Zitnan in view of Gvishi 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 and Gvishi are silent.
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).
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 surface to deposit the sol-gel onto in the method of Zitnan in order to improve wetting properties and allow for droplet formation to occur without droplets penetrating grooves in the surface, as taught by Taurino.
Regarding claim 15, Zitnan in view of Gvishi 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 and Gvishi are silent.
Taurino teaches depositing a sol-gel onto a hydrophobic surface and measuring the contact angle of the droplets formed, where the contact angle of the sol-gel deposited on the hydrophobic surface display contact angles in the ranges of 155-157° and 151-155° (Table 3; Pg. 153, 3.3. Surface wettability-contact angle measurements; Pg. 151, 2.3. Characterization). 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 Taurino (contact angles in the ranges of 155-157° and 151-155°) overlaps with the claimed range (contact angle of about 120 degrees to about 160 degrees). Therefore, the range in Taurino renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, sol-gel particles displaying contact angles within the taught range display superhydrophobic behavior with low contact angle hysteresis and no pinning effects being detected (Pg. 155, 5. Conclusion). Achieving a low contact angle hysteresis provides for suspended drops on a surface to roll off without perturbation, making them useful in water-repellant and self-cleaning coatings and materials (Pg. 149, Introduction).
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 151-157 ° in the method of Zitnan in order to provide a superhydrophobic coating displaying low contact angle hysteresis that is useful in water repellant and self-cleaning applications, as taught by Taurino.
Claims 21-28 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 Gvishi et al. (J. Europ. Opt. Soc. Rap. Public 2012) and further in view of Taurino et al. (J. Col. and Int. Sci. 2008, 325, 149-156).
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.
Taurino teaches depositing a sol-gel onto a hydrophobic surface and measuring the contact angle of the droplets formed, where the contact angle of the sol-gel deposited on the hydrophobic surface display contact angles in the ranges of 155-157° and 151-155° (Table 3; Pg. 153, 3.3. Surface wettability-contact angle measurements; Pg. 151, 2.3. Characterization). 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 Taurino (contact angles in the ranges of 155-157° and 151-155°) overlaps with the claimed range (contact angle of about 120 degrees to about 160 degrees). Therefore, the range in Taurino renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, sol-gel particles displaying contact angles within the taught range display superhydrophobic behavior with low contact angle hysteresis and no pinning effects being detected (Pg. 155, 5. Conclusion). Achieving a low contact angle hysteresis provides for suspended drops on a surface to roll off without perturbation, making them useful in water-repellant and self-cleaning coatings and materials (Pg. 149, Introduction).
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 151-157 ° in the method of Zitnan in order to provide a superhydrophobic coating displaying low contact angle hysteresis that is useful in water repellant and self-cleaning applications, as taught by Taurino.
Regarding claims 22-23, Zitnan in view of Taurino 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 Taurino 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.).
Regarding claims 25-26, Zitnan in view of Taurino teach the method of claim 21 and 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.”
Regarding claims 27-28, Zitnan in view of Taurino teach the method of claim 21 and Zitnan further teaches the sol-gel precursor is tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) (Pg. 136, 2.1).
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 2. Reproduced Fig. 14 from Perez showing the removal blade that runs along the print surface to remove the printed part. )]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
550
media_image2.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.
Claims 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 Zhang et al. (Chem. Mater 2004, 16, 4245-4256)
Regarding claim 30, 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.
Zhang teaches the preparation of porous inorganic beads that are prepared from a sol-gel comprising tetraethylorthosilicate, water, and HCl that is shaped and dried to provide millimeter sized beads with diameters from 1.0 to 1.5 mm (Abstract; Pg. 4247, left col.; Fig. 3; Pg. 4256, Conclusions). 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 Zhang (1.0 to 1.5 mm) overlaps with the claimed range (0.01 to about 3.0 millimeters). Therefore, the range in Zitnan renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the millimeter sized beads prepared by Zhang are large, and uniform which allows for very simple handling and separation (Pg. 4256, Conclusions).
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 millimeter sized beads of the sol-gel in the method of Zitnan in order to provide beads with large and uniform size that make for very simple handling and separation, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 31, Zitnan in view of Perez teach the method of claim 29 and the claim further requires limitations to which Zitnan and Perez are silent.
Zhang teaches the preparation of porous inorganic beads that are prepared from a sol-gel comprising tetraethylorthosilicate, water, and HCl that is shaped and dried to provide millimeter sized beads that are spherical (Abstract; Pg. 4247, left col.; Fig. 3; Pg. 4256, Conclusions).
Advantageously, the millimeter sized beads prepared by Zhang are large, and uniform which allows for very simple handling and separation (Pg. 4256, Conclusions).
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 beads of the sol-gel in the method of Zitnan in order to provide beads with large and uniform size that make for very simple handling and separation, as taught by Zhang.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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