DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16-17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 12, 18 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-17 and 19 are pending. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 9/30/2025. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that none of the prior art references teaches a “continuous method for high volume production.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner disagrees as the combination of CORONADO, BONO, BEGAG and SMITH teach molds to be filled and sealed on a conveyor. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the Examiner interprets “for high production volume” clause as an intended result of the methods steps positively recited and has not been given patentable weight [see e.g., MPEP 2111.04]. In the alternative, should patentable weight be required, the combination of CORONADO, BONO, BEGAG and SMITH teach substantially the same process steps and would be expected to produce substantially the same result absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sealed tooling capsules” should read “each of the plurality of sealed tooling capsules”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11, 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coronado (U.S. 5,958,363), hereinafter CORONADO, in view of BONO et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0136664), hereinafter BONO, and Begag et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0152363), hereinafter BEGAG, or in the alternative, Smith (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0196305), hereinafter SMITH.
Regarding claim 1, CORONADO teaches: A method of producing a plurality of parts (CORONADO teaches producing a plurality of aerogels [Abstract]), the method comprising: placing a sol mixture into a cavity of a tool (CORONADO teaches the sol mixture is poured into a containment vessel [Col. 4, lines 30-32; Fig. 1]), the sol mixture comprising a solvent (CORONADO teaches a solvent is in the sol mixture [Col. 3, lines 25-28]); . . . ; securing the tool with the sol mixture, the metal foil, and the graphite gasket together to form a sealed tooling capsule (CORONADO teaches securing a cover and vessel together with the sol mixture to form a capsule [Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 47-49]); . . . ; heating the plurality of sealed tooling capsules without an external restraining force until the solvent of the sol mixture reaches at least supercritical conditions of the solvent (CORONADO teaches heating the sol mixture within the vessel to supercritical conditions [Claims 21, 23; Col. 3, lines 13-15; Col. 4, lines 56-58]. CORONADO teaches the sol mixture is heated in an autoclave [Col. 6, lines 66-67]); releasing a pressure within each of the plurality of sealed tooling capsules after the supercritical conditions are reached, thereby forming an aerogel (CORONADO teaches pressure is released from the vessel after the supercritical conditions and forms an aerogel [Col. 4, lines 56-64; Col. 6, lines 5-9]); cooling the plurality of sealed tooling capsules to approximately room temperature, thereby producing parts, wherein the parts are formed from the aerogel (CORONADO teaches cooling the vessel to ambient temperature to form the aerogel [Col. 7, lines 3-5; claims 22, 31]); and removing the parts from the plurality of sealed tooling capsules (CORONADO teaches the aerogel is removed from the vessels after the process is finished [Claim 25]), . . . .
CORONADO is silent as to: placing a metal foil over a top of the cavity; placing a graphite gasket over the metal foil; securing the tool with the sol mixture, the metal foil, and the graphite gasket together to form a sealed tooling capsule, wherein the metal foil and the graphite gasket provide a high temperature seal during a high temperature forming process; placing a plurality of sealed tooling capsules within a conveyor system and wherein the method is continuous to provide high production volume.
CORONADO is silent as to: placing a metal foil over a top of the cavity; placing a graphite gasket over the metal foil; securing the tool with the sol mixture, the metal foil, and the graphite gasket together to form a sealed tooling capsule, wherein the metal foil and the graphite gasket provide a high temperature seal during a high temperature process. In the same field of endeavor, producing aerogels/parts, BONO teaches: placing a metal foil over a top of the cavity (BONO teaches covering each well with a stainless steel foil [0061; 0025]); placing a graphite gasket over the metal foil (BONO teaches covering the stainless steel foil with a square piece sheet of graphite [0061; 0025], which Examiner is interpreting the sheet as a gasket.); securing the tool with the sol mixture, the metal foil, and the graphite gasket together to form a tooling capsule, wherein the metal foil and the graphite gasket provide a high temperature seal during a high temperature process (BONO teaches securing the well with the mixture, stainless steel foil and graphite gasket [0061]. BONO teaches the graphite and stainless steel foil ensure a complete seal [0025]. BONO teaches the seal would be used in high temperatures and the method is for supercritical extraction, indicating high temperature and therefore, a high temperature process [0010; 0025; 0032].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO by substituting the cover of CORONADO with the metal foil and graphite sheet of BONO, in order to ensure a complete seal and heated slowly to allow the precursor solution to gel [0025], and the metal foil is suitable to display no reactivity with components of the sol mixture under supercritical conditions and prevent the graphite to stick to the mold [0042].
CORONADO and BONO are silent as to: placing a plurality of sealed tooling capsules within a conveyor system and wherein the method is continuous to provide high production volume. In the same field of endeavor, producing aerogels/parts, BEGAG teaches continuously casting a gel material and the sol mixture may be transferred to a mold in a continuous manner [0029; 0059]. BEGAG teaches the conveyor has molds placed upon it, and the mold volumes can be continuously filled with freshly catalyzed sol [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO and BONO, by having the molds be filled and sealed on a conveyor, as suggested by BEGAG, in order to reduce the amount of instability while preparing or casting the gel material [0003].
In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, producing parts, SMITH teaches a plurality of enclosures are filled at chamber (316) [0062] and then sealed at station 320 [0063; Figs. 4a-4c]. SMITH teaches the enclosure goes through further processing down the conveyor [0080]. SMITH teaches the concept of having a plurality of sealed capsules on a conveyor and being continuous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO and BONO, by having several capsules on a conveyor and being continuous, as suggested by SMITH, in order to reduce labor and energy [0012] and has cost advantages [0055].
Furthermore, the Examiner interprets “for high production volume” clause as an intended result of the methods steps positively recited and has not been given patentable weight [see e.g., MPEP 2111.04]. In the alternative, should patentable weight be required, the combination of CORONADO, BONO, BEGAG and SMITH teach substantially the same process steps and would be expected to produce substantially the same result absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, CORONADO teaches: wherein the solvent comprises at least one of ethanol and methanol (CORONADO teaches the solvent can include ethanol and methanol [Col. 3, lines 62-64]).
Regarding claim 5, BEGAG further teaches: wherein a speed of the conveyer system is variable based on the solvent of the sol mixture (BEGAG teaches controlling the timing of the gel point is with respect to the conveyor speed [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO and BONO, by having the conveyor speed have a variable based on the solvent, as suggested by BEGAG, in order to age and strengthen the gelation point [0043].
Regarding claim 6, CORONADO teaches: wherein a heating profile of the heating step is variable based on the solvent of the sol mixture (CORONADO teaches the heating temperature is dependent on the solvent [claim 1; Col. 5, lines 44-48]).
Regarding claim 6, BONO further teaches: wherein a heating profile of the heating step is variable based on the solvent of the sol mixture (BONO teaches the heating rate is dependent on the desired temperature of the solvent [0024; 0043]).
Regarding claim 7, BONO further teaches: wherein a spacing between sealed tooling capsules is variable based on the solvent of the sol mixture (BONO teaches a spacing in the wells/mold that is variable of the solvent [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, BONO further teaches: wherein at least one of a temperature and the pressure within each of the plurality of sealed tooling capsules is monitored (BONO teaches the mold has a pressure/temperature sensor [0089]).
Regarding claim 11, BONO further teaches: wherein the plurality of sealed tooling capsules comprise a variety of different sol mixture compositions (BONO teaches having different sol mixture compositions [0037-0039]).
Regarding claim 11, BEGAG further teaches: wherein the plurality of tooling capsules comprise a variety of different sol mixture compositions (BEGAG teaches the mixture can produce different aerogels with different properties [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, CORONADO teaches: further comprising applying a mold release agent to the cavity before placing the sol mixture into the cavity (CORONADO teaches applying lubricants to the mold for easier release of the aerogel [Col. 4, lines 39-40]).
Regarding claim 14, CORONADO teaches: wherein the sol mixture comprises an aerogel material (CORONADO teaches the mixture comprises an aerogel [Col. 2, lines 28-38]).
Regarding claim 15, BONO further teaches: wherein the aerogel material comprises a precursor selected from the group consisting of silica, alumina, titania, hafnium carbide, polymers, and chalcogenide semiconductors (BONO teaches the aerogel material can comprise silica [0018; 0029]).
Regarding claim 15, BEGAG further teaches: wherein the aerogel material comprises a precursor selected from the group consisting of silica, alumina, titania, hafnium carbide, polymers, and chalcogenide semiconductors (BEGAG teaches the aerogel material can comprise silica [0009]).
Regarding claim 17, CORONADO teaches: A method of producing a plurality of parts (CORONADO teaches producing a plurality of aerogels [Abstract]), the method comprising: placing a sol mixture into a cavity of a tool (CORONADO teaches the sol mixture is poured into a containment vessel [Col. 4, lines 30-32; Fig. 1]), the sol mixture comprising a solvent (CORONADO teaches a solvent is in the sol mixture [Col. 3, lines 25-28]), wherein the tooling capsule is sealed (CORONADO teaches that the tool is sealed [Abstract]); . . . ; heating the plurality of sealed tooling capsules without an external restraining force until the solvent of the sol mixture reaches at least supercritical conditions of the solvent (CORONADO teaches heating the sol mixture within the vessel to supercritical conditions [Claims 21, 23; Col. 3, lines 13-15; Col. 4, lines 56-58]. CORONADO teaches the sol mixture is heated in an autoclave [Col. 6, lines 66-67]); releasing a pressure within each of the plurality of sealed tooling capsules after the supercritical conditions are reached, thereby forming an aerogel (CORONADO teaches pressure is released from the vessel after the supercritical conditions and forms an aerogel [Col. 4, lines 56-64; Col. 6, lines 5-9]); cooling the plurality of sealed tooling capsules to approximately room temperature, thereby producing parts, wherein the parts are formed from the aerogel (CORONADO teaches cooling the vessel to ambient temperature to form the aerogel [Col. 7, lines 3-5; claims 22, 31]); and removing the parts from the plurality of sealed tooling capsules (CORONADO teaches the aerogel is removed from the vessels after the process is finished [Claim 25]), . . . .
CORONADO is silent as to: placing a plurality of sealed tooling capsules within a conveyor system and wherein the method is continuous to provide high production volume.
In the same field of endeavor, producing aerogels/parts, BEGAG teaches continuously casting a gel material and the sol mixture may be transferred to a mold in a continuous manner [0029; 0059]. BEGAG teaches the conveyor has molds placed upon it, and the mold volumes can be continuously filled with freshly catalyzed sol [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO and BONO, by having the molds be filled and sealed on a conveyor, as suggested by BEGAG, in order to reduce the amount of instability while preparing or casting the gel material [0003].
In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, producing parts, SMITH teaches a plurality of enclosures are filled at chamber (316) [0062] and then sealed at station 320 [0063; Figs. 4a-4c]. SMITH teaches the enclosure goes through further processing down the conveyor [0080]. SMITH teaches the concept of having a plurality of sealed capsules on a conveyor and being continuous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO and BONO, by having several capsules on a conveyor and being continuous, as suggested by SMITH, in order to reduce labor and energy [0012] and has cost advantages [0055].
Furthermore, the Examiner interprets “for high production volume” clause as an intended result of the methods steps positively recited and has not been given patentable weight [see e.g., MPEP 2111.04]. In the alternative, should patentable weight be required, the combination of CORONADO, BONO, BEGAG and SMITH teach substantially the same process steps and would be expected to produce substantially the same result absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coronado (U.S. 5,958,363), hereinafter CORONADO, BONO et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0136664), hereinafter BONO, and Begag et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0152363), hereinafter BEGAG, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coronado et al. (U.S. 5,686,031), hereinafter CORONADO 2.
Regarding claim 3, CORONADO, BONO and BEGAG teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the heating is carried out by at least one of resistance heaters and induction heating. In the same field of endeavor, aerogels, CORONADO 2 teaches heating can be done by induction heating [ teaches the heating can be carried out by an autoclave [Col. 4, lines 65-66 – Col. 5, lines 1-3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO, BONO and BEGAG, by using induction heating, as suggested by CORONADO 2, as it’s a known heating option in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." )
Regarding claim 4, CORONADO 2 further teaches: wherein the cooling is carried out by at least one of a blower and a chiller (CORONADO 2 teaches cooling can be carried out by chilled fluid [Col. 8, lines 50-53]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO, BONO and BEGAG, by using a chiller to cool, as suggested by CORONADO 2, in order to dry the aerogel and remove after sufficient cooling [Col. 6, lines 2-3].
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coronado (U.S. 5,958,363), hereinafter CORONADO, BONO et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0136664), hereinafter BONO, and Begag et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0152363), hereinafter BEGAG, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0180220), hereinafter NELSON.
Regarding claims 9-10, CORONADO, BONO and BEGAG teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the pressure within each of the plurality of sealed tooling capsules is released at a predetermined value using a pressure release valve and wherein the pressure release valve is a needle valve. In the same field of endeavor, sol mixtures, GAUTHIER teaches a needle valve is used [0202]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO, BONO and BEGAG, by having a pressure release valve, as suggested by NELSON, in order to regulate the pressure inside the vessel [0202].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coronado (U.S. 5,958,363), hereinafter CORONADO, BONO et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0136664), hereinafter BONO, and Begag et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0152363), hereinafter BEGAG, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Getman (U.S. 3,632,245), hereinafter GETMAN.
Regarding claim 16, CORONADO, BONO and BEGAG teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including having the containers be different shapes or polished [CORONADO; Col. 4, lines 31-37], but are silent as to: wherein after the parts are removed from the sealed tooling capsules to form empty tooling capsules, the empty tooling capsules are automatically transported to a filling station where a sol mixture is placed into the cavity of each empty tooling capsule, followed by reforming he empty tooling capsule to form a plurality of reformed tooling capsules and automatically transporting the plurality of reformed tooling capsules to the conveyor system, thereby forming a closed-loop continuous method. In the same field of endeavor, conveyor systems, GETMAN teaches the concept of removing the material from the molds, the molds are mounted on a continuous endless conveyor means and the empty molds are retuned and are refilled at a filling station [Col. 2, lines 39-43]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CORONADO, BONO and BEGAG, by having the concept of removing the material from the molds, the molds are mounted on a continuous endless conveyor means and the empty molds are retuned and are refilled at a filling station, as suggested by GETMAN, in order to be able to use different mixtures in different molds [Col. 2, lines 47-51], and have an increase in production without increased the width of the mold conveyor system [Col. 1, lines 15-17].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748