Claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the applicant’s election received by the office on January 13, 2026. Election of claims 1-5 is acknowledged. Claims 6-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Therefore, claims 1-5 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 indefinites because the claim recites the abbreviations “(“HD”)” and “(“VX”)”. It is unclear what word or phrase represented by these abbreviations?. The claimed specification does not provide any guidance. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein said silica”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “colloidal silica” and does not recite “silica”. Therefore, it is unclear if silica recited in claim 4 is different from colloidal silica recited in claim 1?. Clarification or correction is required.
Claims 2-3 and 5 dependent upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, these claims are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
4 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 and 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Kline (Langmuir 1996, 12, 2402-2407).
Kline (Langmuir 1996, 12, 2402-2407) teaches an aqueous colloidal silica mixed with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) as claimed in claim 1 (see abstract). Kline also teaches a silica volume fraction is 0.06 as claimed in claim 3 (see page 6, second paragraph) and wherein the concentration of alkyl sulfate surfactant is .0.23% as claimed in claim 5 (see page 10, Table 2). Kline teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Kline anticipates the claims.
5 Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Understanding the stability mechanism of silica nanoparticles).
Liu et al., teaches a colloidal silica suspension in water, wherein the suspension was mixed with AAS (alkyl alcohol sulfate) surfactant and the alkyl chain is C12 and C13. Liu et al. also teaches the average diameter of the silica particle is 20 nm as claimed in claims 1 and 2 (see page 2, section 2.1) and wherein the surfactant presents in the suspension in the amount of 0.99 g/mL and the silica presents in the amount of 0.61g/mL as claimed in claims 4 and 5 (see page 2, section 2.1). Liu et al., teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Liu et al., anticipates the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights