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 .
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.
Claims 1-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, III (US 2014/0287641) in view of Hyde et al. (US 2010/0018981).
Regarding claim 1, Steiner teaches composites having mechanically strong composites with multifunctional properties comprising aerogel materials and non-aerogel materials (Paragraph [0003]). The composites may be structured as multilayer thermal and acoustic insulation materials (“an insulation material for at least one of thermal or acoustic insulation”) (Abstract; Paragraph [0008]). The composites may be flexible (Paragraph [0089]). The aerogels may be polyimide aerogels (Paragraph [0080]). The composites, as shown in figure 7 include a plurality of aerogel sheets and a plurality of other, non-aerogel sheets are arranged in an alternating fashion (“plurality of layered sheets”) (Paragraph [0061]). The aerogel layers may have a coating applied to a surface of the aerogel layers by atomic layer deposition or chemical vapor deposition wherein the coatings are formed from metal materials which is a suitable material for the reflective coatings of the instant claim (Paragraphs [0097]-[0098]; Applicant’s specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0031]).
Steiner is silent with respect to one of the aerogel sheets with the coatings discussed above having an at least one region having an uneven surface providing for interspaces between the respective sheet and a respective sheet neighbored thereto.
Hyde teaches a multi-layer insulation (MLI) composite material which includes a first thermally-reflective layer and a second thermally-reflective layer spaced from the first thermally-reflective layer wherein the thermally reflective layers include a plurality of openings configured to at least partially obstruct transmission therethrough of infrared electromagnetic radiation and a region between the thermally-reflective layers impedes heat conduction between the thermally-reflective layers (Paragraph [0009]; [0025]; Fig. 1). The MLI may comprise multiple composites stacked upon each other with the openings still being present (Paragraph [0034]; Fig. 4). The thermally-reflective layers may be metallic layers formed by CVD or PVD and the region may be any suitable aerogel (Paragraphs [0032]; [0037]). This configuration allows for sufficient thermal insulation allowing for an object to be stored at a temperature either below or above the external environment (Paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form one of the plurality of sheets of Steiner such that at least one of the sheets includes a reflective metal coating having openings configured to at least partially obstruct transmission therethrough of infrared electromagnetic radiation allowing for sufficient thermal insulation allowing for an object to be stored at a temperature either below or above the external environment as taught by Hyde. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the formation of the openings provides the reflective coating with an uneven surface providing for interspaces between the respective sheet and a respective sheet neighbored thereto as required by the claim. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flat surfaces of the reflective metal coatings maintain the surface structure of the regions between reflective metal coatings such that the claim does not positively recite the polyimide aerogels having elevations, depressions, or both.
Regarding claim 2, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Steiner further teaches the aerogel layers as having thicknesses of less than 1 mm (Paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 3, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Steiner further teaches the aerogel layers as having thicknesses of less than 1 mm, which overlaps with the instant claims (Paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 4, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Steiner further teaches the aerogel layers as having thicknesses of less than 1 mm (Paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 5, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Steiner further teaches the aerogel layers as having thicknesses of less than 1 mm, which overlaps with the instant claims (Paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 6, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 7, the aerogel sheets have a uniform thickness (“has an essentially uniform thickness throughout a zone of the film”).
Regarding claim 7, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, in view of Hyde, at least one of the sheets includes an aerogel with a reflective coating including openings, which would teach having two zones with different thicknesses such that a thickness of the opening in the reflective layer is different from an area which doesn’t have an opening.
Regarding claim 8, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Steiner further teaches the aerogels as being mesoporous such that the voidspace is between 50% and 99.8% (Paragraph [0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a porosity of an aerogel sheet would be uniform at some point, or portion, in the sheet/layer.
Regarding claim 9, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Steiner further teaches the aerogels as being mesoporous such that the voidspace is between 50% and 99.8% (Paragraph [0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a portion of an aerogel sheet would have a portion with a voidspace and a portion without a voidspace resulting in at least two portions with different respective porosities.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Steiner further teaches macroscopic shaped voids in the aerogel layers as illustrated in figure 13 and are formed by the removal of the aerogel (Paragraphs [0079]-[0080]). The formation of these voids allows for a reduced density while maintaining suitable stiffness and shear strength (Paragraph [0083]).
Steiner is silent with respect to the total area of the voids being at most ½ of a total area extension of the sheet, as required by claim 14, and further, at most 1/3 as required by claim 15.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the area of these voids to be at most ½ and 1/3 of the total area of the aerogel sheets such that the voids are taught to reduce density while maintaining sufficient stiffness and shear strength as taught by Steiner. MPEP 2144.05: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the composites are structured to be multilayer thermal and acoustic insulation materials.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, III (US 2014/0287641) in view of Hyde et al. (US 2010/0018981) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sattayatam et al. (US 2015/0165736).
Regarding claim 10, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Steiner is silent with respect to two or more of the aerogel sheets of the composites having different mean thicknesses.
Sattayatam teaches panel assemblies insulated by polyimide aerogels (Paragraph [0002]). The panels include a core along with two layers of laminated skins which both contain a ply and a layer of polyimide aerogel (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0004]; [0035]). The panels may also be configured as being asymmetrical resulting in more layers of polyimide aerogels on one side than the other for impact resistance purposes (Paragraph [0037]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this inclusion of more polyimide aerogel sheets would result in a greater thickness of the polyimide aerogel for the purposes of increased impact resistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the composites of Steiner such that an aerogel layer on one side of the composites may have a greater thickness in order to provide increased impact resistance as taught by Sattayatam.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, III (US 2014/0287641) in view of Hyde et al. (US 2010/0018981) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skaradzinski (US 2008/0174147).
Regarding claim 11, Steiner teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Steiner is silent with respect to at least two of the aerogel sheets having different mean porosities.
Skaradzinski teaches a super-insulated composite structure which comprises a foam core material with an outer gas impermeable metallic film (Paragraphs [0001]; [0005]-[0007]). The foam core may be formed from an aerogel material and includes two separate foam core materials as illustrated in figure 1 (Paragraph [0020]-[0023]). The two foam core materials may be formed from different materials in order to achieve two different R-values, or insulation values, which allows the composite structures to degrade as minimally as possible during the product life of the composites (Paragraphs [0010]; [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the composites of Steiner such that the aerogel sheets are formed from different materials, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as resulting in different properties such as porosity, resulting in a composite with different R values providing the composites to degrade as minimally as possible as taught by Skaradzinski.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, applicant argues that the cores/regions of Hyde are not provided with unevenness as required by the claims and the core/regions would not be flexible.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments such that the spacers are not required to have an unevenness. Only the reflective coating has an unevenness. Furthermore, the limitation of “wherein the uneven surface maintains elevations, depressions, or both in a surface of the polyimide aerogel” is not a limitation which positively recites the elevations, depressions, or both in the spacer sheets formed from the polyimide aerogel. This is so such that the shapes of the reflective coatings with the openings maintain the shape of the cores/regions.
Lastly, the examiner notes that the cores/regions of Hyde may be formed from a flexible, polymeric substrate, indicating the combination teaches flexible insulation materials (Paragraph [0035]).
Ultimately, the examiner contends that the amendment to claim 1 does not overcome the combination of Steiner in view of Hyde as discussed above.
The current rejection is made FINAL.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights