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 with traverse of Group II (claims 9-20) in the reply filed on 11/25/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement the method of preparing a radioactive glass microspheres differs from just a composition drawn to a radioactive glass and the preparation can be done by another materially different method .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/25/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed August 24, 2023. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Day et al. (US 5011677) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112499976) and Peng et al. (US 2011/0206603) and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 110227170).
Day teaches with regards to instant claim 9 and 15 a method of preparing radioactive glass microsphere (see col.3, lines 22+), with a foam-like foam like structure bodies (see col. 5, lines 30+) by mixing and the glass and melting to form glass (see col. 7, lines 39+) and cooled (see col. 8, lines15+) wherein the glass microspheres comprise AL2O3 (see col. 5, lines 10+, as required by instant claim 10 and 16) and the nuclide oxide Y2O3 (as required by instant claim 11 and 17, see col. 5, lines 10+) heating at 1,500-1,600 as required by instant claim 13 and 19 )with a particle size of 20-30 micrometers (see col. 7, lines 10+, as required by instant claims 14 and 20 and a density of 2.0 g/cm3 (see Table 3, col 12).
However, Day fails to teach that the preparation method is for embolization, and also fails to teach the preparation also comprises a polyethylene glycol and /or polyvinyl alcohol (as required by instant claim 18 and fails to teach that the foaming comprises Na2SO4 etc as recited in claim12. Although Day fails to teach that the glass particles are formed into glass microspheres by introducing the -400 mesh particles into a gas/oxygen flame microspheres generates gases to form cavity, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the said outcome because intrinsically the microspheres will generate gases. In the microspheres
Zhang teaches a method of preparing radioactive glass microsphere (see abstract, as required by instant claim 9) comprising melting by heating (see under Embodiment 1), cooled and remelted, wherein the glass microsphere comprises a nuclide oxide Y2O3 (as required by instant claim 11) and comprise strontium carbonate (SrCo3), as required by instant claim 12), wherein the heating step is performed at a temperature 1350 degrees centigrade -1600 degrees centigrade (as required by instant claim 13).
Peng) teaches the use of radioactive glass microspheres (see 0006) for embolization (see 0009).
Liu et al. (CN 110227170) teaches radioactive microsphere (see tittle) for embolization (see 2nd para under background) comprising Y2O3-Al2O3-SiO2 glass, polyethylene glycol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited art to result in the instant claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success because the preparation as recited above can be used for embolization because both Peng and Liu teach that the art recognizes the use of radioactive microspheres for embolization. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated the teachings of both Peng and Liu into Day to result in the method of preparing a radioactive glass microsphere comprising Al2O3, a nuclide oxide wherein the combination would result in the density, particle size recited by the instant claims.
US 10940219 is an art of interest but not used in the rejection.
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 12/18/25