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 I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/24/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 6-7, and 9-11 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.
Claim 2 is directed towards the packing density of the plurality of nanoparticles is equal to or higher than 1% by volume and equal to or lower than 74% by volume.
Claim 3 is directed towards the packing density of the plurality of nanoparticles is equal to or higher than 34% by volume and equal to or lower than 74% by volume.
Claim 6 is directed towards a secondary particle diameter of some of the plurality of nanoparticles is equal to or smaller than 46 nm.
Claim 7 is directed towards the plurality of nanoparticles is covalent-bonded to each other to form a coupled body, the coupled body has gaps each among adjacent ones of the plurality of nanoparticles, and the gaps are packed with a thermoplastic resin.
Claim 9 claims each of the plurality of nanoparticles is a metal oxide.
Claim 10 claims each of the plurality of nanoparticles is an oxide of zirconium, titanium, tin, silicon, aluminum, or zinc.
Claim 11 claims each of the plurality of nanoparticles is an oxide of silicon or aluminum.
The closest prior art is Simone et al. (US20080083299, hereinafter referred to as Simone). Simone does not disclose or make obvious claims 2-3 because Simone does not disclose a packing density of the plurality of the nanoparticles. Simone does not disclose or make obvious claim 6 because Simone at [0060] discloses the secondary metal particle … is in a range of greater than 1 micrometer (or 1000 nanometers). Per instant claim 7, Simone does not disclose or make obvious a resin. Per instant claims 9-11, Simone does not disclose or make obvious the nanoparticle is a metal oxide because Simone discloses the metal particle is silver (see Simone at claim 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 claims a volume of the thermoplastic resin being packed is equal to or smaller than a volume of the gaps, however, this does not further limit claim 7 from which claim 8 depends because the resin being packs must necessarily be less than or equal to the volume of the gaps. Put another way, it is not possible for the resin to take up more space than the volume of the gaps because the resin can only exist within the gaps.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simone et al. (US20080083299, hereinafter referred to as Simone).
Regarding claim 1, Simone discloses a structural body comprising a plurality of nanoparticles (see Simone at [0075], disclosing a macromolecular structure. See also Simone at the Abstract, disclosing the product may include a metal nanoparticle.), the plurality of nanoparticles being directly covalent-bonded to each other without interposing an additive component other than the plurality of nanoparticles (see Simone Fig. 2, showing nanoparticles directly covalently-bonded to each other without interposing an additive component other than the plurality of nanoparticles. See also, Simone at [0056], disclosing two or more metal nanoparticles may bond to each other by ... covalent bonding.).
Regarding claim 4, Simone discloses a primary particle diameter of each of the plurality of nanoparticles is equal to or smaller than 11 nm (see Simone at [0047], disclosing the nanoparticle may be in a range of from 1 nanometer to about 10 nanometers, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Simone discloses a primary particle diameter of each of the plurality of nanoparticles is equal to or smaller than 7 nm (see Simone at [0047], disclosing an average particle size of the nanoparticle may be less than 1 nanometer, which is within the claimed range.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2011086572A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights