DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 44-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-101792299 to Zhang in view of WO-2017/010551 to Izumi.
Regarding Claims 1, 44-47 and 50
Zhang teaches a method for forming a ceramic aerogel-fiber composite comprising contacting one or more fibers, one or more ceramic precursors such as aluminum alkoxides and/or tetraalkoxysilanes, an acid catalyst such as protic acids and a pore-forming-gas forming additive such as urea, resulting in formation of an inert gas within the composite (gas gel) (Zhang, abstract, claim 1, paragraph [0017]-[0018]). Zhang teaches the contacting is carried out at room temperature and ambient pressure which is approximately 14.7 psi for at least 30 minutes and less than 96 hours and the contacting comprises mixing the components (Id.). The fibers are necessarily either hollow or solid. Zhang teaches the method comprises drying (Id., paragraph [0047]).
Zhang does not appear to teach the inclusion of the claimed surfactant; however, Izumi teaches an aerogel composite material comprising surfactants such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide which reduces the difference in chemical affinity between the solvent and the reaction material and suppressing phase separation with fiber material (Izumi, abstract, sol generation process). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form an aerogel composite with the corresponding method of Zhang and to incorporate the surfactant of Izumi, motivated by the desire to form a conventional aerogel composite with improved affinity between the component materials.
Regarding the composite having a pore gradient structure, although the prior art does not disclose a pore gradient structure, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure, process steps and chemical composition as the claimed invention (such as contacting cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, protic acid, urea, ceramic precursor and fiber). Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding Claims 48-49
The prior art combination teaches various proportions of the components but does not specifically teach the amounts in terms of the percentage by weight of each component relative to the total amount of precursor, gas-generating agent, surfactant and catalyst. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust, vary and optimize the relative proportions, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to form a conventional ceramic aerogel composite based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art combination.
Claim(s) 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of US Pub No. 2017/0210108 to Mihalcik.
Regarding Claims 51-52
The prior art combination does not appear to teach that the composite further comprises a layer of hydrophobic carbon-containing coating on the surface of the ceramic aerogel composite. However, Mihalcik teaches an aerogel composite comprising a coating layer such as a hydrophobic, carbon containing treatment layer which improves the hydrophobicity and stability of the composite (Mihalcik, abstract, [0054], [0065]-[0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of the prior art combination and to apply a hydrophobic carbon containing coating on the surface as taught by Mihalcik, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite having improved hydrophobicity and stability.
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of US Pub No. 2019/0002356 to Hebalkar.
Regarding Claim 53
The prior art combination does not appear to teach that the composite further comprises a plurality of nanoparticles formed by impregnating the ceramic phone with a nanoparticle precursor and reacting the nanoparticle precursor to form a nanocomposite material. However, Hebalkar teaches impregnating silica aerogel with titanium dioxide nanoparticle precursor, reacting and forming a nanoparticle containing composite (Hebalkar, abstract, paragraph [0046]). Hebalkar teaches that the addition of these particles provides improved suppression of radiative heat transport at high temperatures and increased thermal insulation property. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of the prior art combination and to include the nanoparticles of Hebalkar, motivated by the desire to form a conventional ceramic aerogel-fiber composite having improved thermal properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786