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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burke et al. (US 2023/0348727 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burke teaches a method of forming metal oxide particles to include use of a sol-gel technique, see abstract, [0082] – (construed as a method for forming beads by a sol-gel method). The method to include forming liquid droplets 308 from a sol-gel matrix and formed in an evaporation chamber 310 distanced from a collection chamber 316, see at least [0029], FIG. 3 – (construed as forming liquid droplets from a sol-gel solution, the drops being formed at a distance from a receptacle).
The liquid droplets within the evaporation chamber are surrounded by a pre-heated gas to produce dried particles while traveling to the collection chamber , see at least [0098], FIG. 3 – (construed as following the forming of the liquid droplets a), moving the liquid droplets through a gaseous medium, to the receptacle, the gaseous medium being conducive to gelation and drying of the droplets, thereby solidifying progressively when moving towards the receptacle, to form beads).
The dried particles 312 are carried by the drying gas through a cyclone 314 and deposited in a collection chamber 316. Where the dried particles comprise a self-assembled structure, see at least [0098], FIG. 3 – (construed as collecting the beads on the receptacle, a time taken by the droplets to travel through the gaseous medium being adjusted so that the beads are sufficiently solidified not to deform under their own weight when reaching the receptacle; and collecting the beads from the receptacle).
Regarding claim 2, the method further includes recovering the particles and drying by microwave irradiation, oven drying, drying under vacuum, drying in the presence of a desiccant, or a combination thereof to evaporate the liquid medium, see [0095] – (construed as a complementary drying for each bead on the receptacle).
Regarding claims 3-4, 15-17, the method further includes having the gaseous medium comprise air, see [0098] – [0099]; and the droplets are dried under vacuum, see [0022] – (construed as the gaseous medium is placed under partial vacuum).
Regarding claims 5, 18, the method further includes during the forming of the liquid droplets a), each droplet is expelled through a nozzle 304 of a dispenser; and a feed gas 306 is added to the sol-gel solution in the nozzle, see FIG. 3.
Regarding claims 6-7, 13-14, the method further includes having the formed particles have a diameter of 0.5 μm to about 100 μm, see [0043] – (corresponds to and overlaps a diameter of each droplet is less than 10 mm; and greater than 100 nm; and less than 2 mm; and less than 1 mm). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the diameter of the bead that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, the method further includes the forming of the liquid droplets a) is carried out by spray-drying, see [0075].
Regarding claim 9, the method further includes the forming of the liquid droplets a) is carried out at a temperature of about 100° C, see [0099]. It being considered the term “about” would reasonably include a temperature of 99° C which meets the claimed range of below 100° C. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the gelation and drying temperature that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Fabrication of hollow silica aerogel spheres by a droplet generation method and sol-gel processing – of record), in view of Burke et al. (US 2023/0348727 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, Kim discloses fabrication of hollow silica aerogel spheres by a droplet generation method and sol-gel processing – ( construed as a method for forming beads by a sol-gel method). The method to include forming liquid droplets at a hollow droplet generator which is spaced apart from a gelation chamber – (construed as a receptacle) and deposited through a gaseous medium present between the hollow droplet generator and the gelation chamber; whereby the beads – (construed as a sol-gel bead) are collected in the gelation chamber, see Fig. 3.
To the extent Kim does not explicitly disclose the gaseous medium is conducive to gelation and drying.
Burke discloses a method of forming metal oxide particles to include use of a sol-gel technique, see abstract, [0082] – (construed as a method for forming beads by a sol-gel method). The method to include forming liquid droplets 308 from a sol-gel matrix and formed in an evaporation chamber 310 distanced from a collection chamber 316, see at least [0029], FIG. 3 – (construed as forming liquid droplets from a sol-gel solution, the drops being formed at a distance from a receptacle).
The liquid droplets within the evaporation chamber are surrounded by a pre-heated gas to produce dried particles while traveling to the collection chamber , see at least [0098], FIG. 3 – (construed as following the forming of the liquid droplets a), moving the liquid droplets through a gaseous medium, to the receptacle, the gaseous medium being conducive to gelation and drying of the droplets, thereby solidifying progressively when moving towards the receptacle, to form beads).
The dried particles 312 are carried by the drying gas through a cyclone 314 and deposited in a collection chamber 316. Where the dried particles comprise a self-assembled structure, see at least [0098], FIG. 3 – (construed as collecting the beads on the receptacle, a time taken by the droplets to travel through the gaseous medium being adjusted so that the beads are sufficiently solidified not to deform under their own weight when reaching the receptacle; and collecting the beads from the receptacle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s method to include forming the liquid droplets from a sol-gel solution through a gaseous medium; the gaseous medium being conducive to gelation and drying and include mechanical structure for forming the beads as taught by Burke. Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (sol-gel technique) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the sol-gel techniques used in Burke would allow the fabrication of hollow silica aerogel spheres of Kim to be formed by spray-drying the material in a pre-heat gaseous environment to thereby create a rigid spheres prior to being collected in the collection chamber.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim’s method further includes recovering the particles and drying by microwave irradiation, oven drying, drying under vacuum, drying in the presence of a desiccant, or a combination thereof to evaporate the liquid medium, see Burke[0095] – (construed as a complementary drying for each bead on the receptacle).
Regarding claims 3-4, 15-17, modified Kim’s method further includes having the gaseous medium comprise air, see [0098] – [0099]; and the droplets are dried under vacuum, see Burke [0022] – (construed as the gaseous medium is placed under partial vacuum).
Regarding claims 5, 18, modified Kim’s method further includes during the forming of the liquid droplets a), each droplet is expelled through a nozzle 304 of a dispenser; and a feed gas 306 is added to the sol-gel solution in the nozzle, see Burke FIG. 3.
Regarding claims 6-7, 13-14, modified Kim’s method further includes having the formed particles have a diameter of 0.5 μm to about 100 μm, see Burke [0043] – (corresponds to and overlaps a diameter of each droplet is less than 10 mm; and greater than 100 nm; and less than 2 mm; and less than 1 mm). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the diameter of the bead that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim’s method further includes the forming of the liquid droplets a) is carried out by spray-drying, see Burke [0075].
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim’s method further includes the forming of the liquid droplets a) is carried out at a temperature of about 100° C, see Burke [0099]. It being considered the term “about” would reasonably include a temperature of 99° C which meets the claimed range of below 100° C. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the gelation and drying temperature that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 10-12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Fabrication of hollow silica aerogel spheres by a droplet generation method and sol-gel processing – of record), in view of Burke et al. (US 2023/0348727 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2010/0264097 A1).
Regarding claims 10-12, 20, modified Kim does not explicitly disclose the use of a surfactant.
Sun discloses the forming of hollow porous microspheres by spray-drying to include use of a solgel technique, see [0064], FIG. 12B. The method to further include the use of a surfactant being suitable for introducing a degree of continuity between different materials, see [0070], [0080]. The surfactant being provided between about 0.05 to 0.2 wt% based on the total weight of the suspension, see [0077] – (corresponds to and overlaps a mass fraction of the surfactant is less than 5%; and between 0.5% to 5%). And where during use of the technique the liquid droplets are moved through hot gas to evaporate the liquid in forming the hollow beads, see FIG. 12B, [0081] – [0082] – (construed as in the forming of the liquid droplets at the sol-gel solution contains a surfactant, with each droplet formed being hollow, forming a sol-gel solution bubble, and the moving of the liquid droplets through the gaseous medium b) results in formation of hollow beads; and a hollow sol-gel bead, obtained by applying the method according to claim 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Kim’s sol-gel method to include the use of a surfactant in the claimed amount as taught by Sun to provide a means for introducing a degree of continuity between different materials as taught by Sun. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the mass fraction of the surfactant that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights