DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
The preliminary amendment dated 1/12/2024 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 is/are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on:
11/7/2024
10/29/2024
01/12/2024
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 6 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huo, et al., Hierarchically porous alumina ceramic catalyst carrier prepared by powder bed fusion, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 2020; 40: 4253-4264 (hereinafter “Huo at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “[o]xide composite particles comprising silica and an oxide of aluminum (a single oxide or a composite oxide, or both).” Particles are taught. (Huo “Fig. 10,” passim). The particles comprise silica and oxides of aluminum, as discussed below.
Claim 1 further requires “the oxide composite particles contain 10 to 90% by mass of an α-cristobalite crystal phase, 50% by mass or less of an α-alumina crystal phase, and more than 10% by mass of a mullite crystal phase.” Huo teaches a cristobalite content of 37.70 ± 1.20 wt.%, Al2O3 of 33.76 ± 0.51 wt.%, and a mullite content of 28.54 ± 0.82 wt.%. Figure 13(c) of Huo is enlarged and reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
168
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Huo at 4261, Fig. 13(c)). Other teachings in Huo may be present.
Claim 1 further requires “an elemental ratio of aluminum to silicon (aluminum/silicon) as determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is 0.1 or more.” The mass ratios are taught. (Huo at 4254, col. 1).
As to Claim 2, the aluminum content is taught. (Huo at 4261, Fig. 13(c); passim).
As to Claim 5, the alumina content is taught. (Huo at 4261, Fig. 13(c); passim).
II. Claim(s) 3 - or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo, et al., Hierarchically porous alumina ceramic catalyst carrier prepared by powder bed fusion, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 2020; 40: 4253-4264 (hereinafter “Huo at __”) in view of:
(i) Hampsey, et al., Preparation of Micrometer- to Sub-micrometer-Sized Nanostructured Silica Particles Using High-Energy Ball Milling, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2004; 87(7): 1280-1286 (hereinafter “Hampsey at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 3, the average particle size is reasonably depicted. (Huo at 4259, Fig. 9-10). However, to the extent it somehow isn’t, and as Huo does not literally recite the particle diameter, controlling the diameter is an obvious expedient. Hampsey teaches controlling the diameter with a ball mill. (Hampsey at 1282, col. 2) (note diameter as a function of milling time). Application of known techniques (milling) to achieve predictable results (diameter) does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
III. Claim(s) 4 - or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo, et al., Hierarchically porous alumina ceramic catalyst carrier prepared by powder bed fusion, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 2020; 40: 4253-4264 (hereinafter “Huo at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2017/0267900 to Sato, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 4, to the extent Huo may not teach the circularity, Sato – in making a similar composition – employs flame spraying to achieve circularity of 0.88 or more. (Sato 6: [0051]). Application of known techniques (flame spraying) to achieve predictable results (diameter) does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
IV. Claim(s) 8-10 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0269361 to Soyama, et al. in view of:
(i) Huo, et al., Hierarchically porous alumina ceramic catalyst carrier prepared by powder bed fusion, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 2020; 40: 4253-4264 (hereinafter “Huo at __”).
With respect to Claim 8, this claim requires “[a] resin composition comprising the oxide composite particles according to claim 1 and a resin.” Soyama teaches composite metal oxides mixed with a resin. (Soyama 2: [0029]). Soyama does not teach the particular composite metal oxide of Claim 1. Note however Soyama teaches mechanical strength as desirable. (Soyama 2: [0037]). One of skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the composite metal oxide of Huo for that of Soyama, as Huo teaches improved crush strength. (Huo at 4261, col. 2 – 4261, col. 1).
As to Claim 9, Soyama teaches resin amounts that would give rise to the claimed composite particle content. (Soyama 3: [0040]).
As to Claim 10, this claim recites an intended use, which is not accorded patentable weight. Alternatively or additionally, Soyama teaches polycarbonate resins (Soyama 2: [0030] et seq.), which the Specification teaches are useful for the claimed invention. (S. 4-5: [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Dependent Upon a Rejected Base Claim.
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to Claim 6, this claim requires “mixing silica particles having an average particle diameter of 0.5 to 10 µm and alumina particles to obtain a mixture.” The claimed silica particles are taught. (Huo at 4254, col. 1).
Claim 6 further requires “heating the mixture at 1300 to 1700°C for 2 to 8 hours.” The temperatures and times are taught. (Huo at 4256, Fig. 3; passim).
Huo teaches aluminum trihydrate (“ATH” or Al(OH)3), versus alumina as claimed. (Huo at 4254 – 2.1 Raw materials). Search of the prior art did not teach or reasonably suggest substituting alumina for ATH to achieve the composite with the specificity claimed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saruhan, et al., Reaction and Sintering Mechanisms of Mullite in the Systems of Cristobalite/α-Al2O3 and Amorphous α-SiO2/Al2O3, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 1996; 16: 1075-1081 (hereinafter “Saruhan at __”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights