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 .
This application is in response to an application filed on 09/16/2022.
Claims 1-11 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1,
In order to provide clarity in the claim, it is suggested to amend “N:M” to “N+2:M+3” in claim 1, line 7.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent No.: 10,941,043B2) in view of Chakraborty et al (WO2018117114 A1, machine translation).
As per claims 1-8, Kim discloses a method of preparing metal oxide-silica composite aerogel comprising providing silicate solution by dissolving water glass (i.e., sodium silicate, liquid phase silicon source, reads on claim 1 and 6) in a solvent (Col.4 lines 8-14, reads on claims 1 and 6) and then reacting the silicate solution with a metal salt solution (reads on metal precursor solution, col.4 lines 48-52 and 59-62) wherein metal salt solution is prepared by dissolving a metal salt that includes two kinds of metal salt which can include magnesium salt (reads on N+2 bivalent metal salt, reads on claim 1 and claim 2) and aluminum salt (reads on M+3 as trivalent metal salt, Col.5 lines 4-30, reads on claim 1 and claim 2) in a solvent (reads on second solvent, i.e., water or alcohol Col.6 lines 49-67 to Col.7 lines 1-3, reads on claims 1 and 5). Kim discloses pH of a mixture after mixing metal salt solution to the silicate solution in range of pH 3 to 9 (Col.7 lines 12-16). Further Kim discloses that two metal salt molar ratios can be in range of 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 (i.e., Mg and Ca, Col.5 lines 36-39) and molar ratio of silicon (i.e., water glass) to metal salt is 1:1 to 5:1 (Col.6 lines 25-28). Kim discloses further separating and washing to obtain a precipitates and heat treatment (reads on calcinating) of precipitate is performed at temperature range of 90-200° C (Col.8 lines 20-67 to Col.9 lines 1-4, reads on claims 1 and 8 for calcinating at a temperature of at least 100
°
C) to obtain metal oxide-silica composite. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kim does not disclose or suggest the liquid phase silicon phase added at an N+2:M+3:Si molar ratio of 3:1:x, in which 0<x≤10 and basic solution contains basic agent dissolved a first solvent and titrating basic solution with metal precursor solution forming titration reaction wherein basic solution at pH value greater than 7.
However, because Kim discloses molar ratio of two salts which can be in range from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 which can be interpreted to read as N:M (in round figure 3:1) and further discloses molar ratio of silicon source (i.e., water glass or silicate) can be 1:5 which encompasses 0<x≤10 therefore the skilled artisan would expect to result the silicon-containing basic solution at N:M:Si molar ratio of 3:1:x unless otherwise shown by applicant. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kim does not disclose or suggest titrating basic solution with metal precursor solution wherein the basic solution contains basic agent dissolved a first solvent and wherein basic solution at pH value greater than 7and allowing an aging reaction to take place.
However, Chakraborty discloses in step a of magnesium salt (i.e., bivalent N+2 metal salt such as magnesium nitrate) and aluminum salt (i.e., trivalent M+3 metal salt such as aluminum nitrate) and calcium salt (i.e., calcium nitrate) mixed in aqueous medium (water) termed as solution A (reads on M and N salt in second solvent of claims 1-3 and 5), wherein the molar ratio of Ca:Mg:Al represented by 2<Ca<6, 0.1<Mg<3 and 0.05<Al<2 (reads on claim 1 of N:M ratio of 3:1) and then step b is taking salt of carbonate (i.e., sodium bicarbonate) mixed with sodium hydroxide in aqueous medium (i.e., water, see example 1, reads on basic solution in first solvent of claims 1 and 4-5) and then slowly titration of solution A with solution B carried out under room temperature conditions at a constant rotation speed of 1000-1400 rpm (reads on aging step of claim 1) to attain pH in the range of 10-12 (reads on claim 1 for titration reaction step and pH greater than 7 and claim 7 of pH value greater than 10) for completion of precipitation (followed by separation of the precipitate and washing, drying (see example 1, pages 5-7). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the method of Kim to include titration reaction step of basic solution with metal precursor solution of Chakraborty which provides cost effective process and higher efficacy as taught Chakraborty (see page 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. 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. 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.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 03/25/2026