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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: As written, claim 1 recites “for example, expanded glass…” in line 6. While the examiner understands the metes and bounds of the claim, typically any features which follows “for example” is not permitted and thus, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrigan, et al. (US 2010/0291213 A1) in view of Evans (US 2013/0196137 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Berrigan, et al. teach a method of applying at least one aerogel-containing insulation layer to an article, wherein the at least one insulation layer comprises aerogel particles and at least binder, the method comprising the steps of: providing the article to be coated (item 50 – figure 3; paragraph 0169); mixing the aerogel particles with particles of a pulverulent binder and/or a pulverulent solid, to give a particle mixture (paragraph 0075 and 0178; particulate matter may be selected which may be sorbent, can include beads, flakes, granules, etc. and also aerogels especially if the article is meant for thermal or acoustic insulation); applying the particle mixture to the article to be coated by scattering the particle mixture through an air gap onto the article to be coated (figure 2 and/or 3, paragraph 0169; particulates are in hopper 74 and fall through chute 88, wherein air or other fluid passes to direct the particulates in a stream onto the material); and activating the at least one binder of the at least one insulation layer, in order to provide a bond of the particle mixture to the article (because aerogel and the same type binder is used as that which applicant identifies, the binder would obviously activate to form an article; see also paragraph 0161).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Berrigan, et al. however do not teach that the aerogel in the particle mixture is in a proportion of 5 – 95% by weight of the particle mixture.
Evans teaches an aerogel thermal insulation material wherein the material comprises 10 – 95% by weight of aerogel particles and at least one binder (paragraph 0011).
Therefore, the examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the weight of the aerogel particles to be between 5 – 95% by weight since this is a typical range for a thermal insulation board per the teachings of Evans.
With respect to claim 2, Berrigan, et al. teach that the particle mixture may be blown or sucked onto the article to be coated (paragraph 0169; examiner notes that the reference teaches that air or other fluid may direct the particles through channel 94 in a stream) wherein the article comprises a textile surface (item 50 – figure 3; paragraph 0169).
With respect to claim 3, the binder need not be premixed. Per Berrigan, et al. the particulate(s) may be placed in hopper 74. Because the particles need not be bonded thereto (paragraph 0161), they are thus not premixed. The particulate matter may be formed into a three-dimensional network via heat/pressure/solvent; however, this is not necessary or required (paragraph 0161). Examiner further notes with respect to premixing, applicant has not defined what constitutes premixing – only that the particulates or particles are placed in the hopper and scattered onto the substrate as it leaves the hopper.
With respect to claim 4, Berrigan, et al. do teach thermal heating of the particle mixture (paragraph 0161).
With respect to claim 5, Berrigan, et al. teach that additional layers may be used (paragraph 0106).
With respect to claim 6, reference teaches the articles comprises a textile surface (item 50 – figure 3; paragraph 0107).
With respect to claim 7, Berrigan, et al. teaches the method further comprises applying the additional layer to a region that has been provided with the particle mixture and wherein the layer is nonwoven (paragraph 0107).
With respect to claims 8 – 9, Berrigan, et al. as modified by Evans renders obvious the SiO2 aerogel or an aerogel with OH groups (see Evans paragraph 0019, 0024).
With respect to claim 10, Berrigan, et al. teach a method of improving ease of handling of aerogel particles to be applied to an article for application of at least one-aerogel-containing insulation layer to the article, the method comprising the steps of: providing the article to be coated (item 50 – figure 3); mixing the aerogel particles with particles of a pulverulent binder and/or a pulverulent solid, to give a particle mixture, in order to improve ease of handling of the aerogel particles (paragraph 0075 and 0178; particulate matter may be selected which may be sorbent, can include beads, flakes, granules, etc. and also aerogels especially if the article is meant for thermal or acoustic insulation); applying the particle mixture to the article to be coated by scattering the particle mixture through an air gap onto the article to be coated (figure 2 and/or 3, paragraph 0169; particulates are in hopper 74 and fall through chute 88, wherein air or other fluid passes to direct the particulates in a stream onto the material); and activating the at least one binder of the at least one insulation layer, in order to provide a bond of the particle mixture to the article (because aerogel and the same type binder is used as that which applicant identifies, the binder would obviously activate to form an article; see also paragraph 0161).
Berrigan, et al. however do not teach that the aerogel in the particle mixture is in a proportion of 5 – 95% by weight of the particle mixture.
Evans teaches an aerogel thermal insulation material wherein the material comprises 10 – 95% by weight of aerogel particles and at least one binder (paragraph 0011).
Therefore, the examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the weight of the aerogel particles to be between 5 – 95% by weight since this is a typical range for a thermal insulation board per the teachings of Evans.
With respect to claim 11, Berrigan, et al. teach that the insulation layer comprises aerogel and at least one binder (see paragraph 0082 – 0083 and 0178).
With respect to claim 12, the insulation layer in Berrigan, et al. is applied to the outer face of the article (figure 1D; paragraph 0062).
With respect to claim 13, while Berrigan, et al. and Evans may not specifically teach the article is a heat shield, both references teach the product may be in thermal or acoustic insulation products and thus, the examiner contends that the product of Berrigan, et al. as modified by Evans may be a heat shield as claimed.
With respect to claim 14, the article of Berrigan, et al. as modified by Evans may be used to absorb or filter gases, vapours or liquids (see Berrigan, et al. paragraph 0003).
With respect to claim 15, Berrigan, et al. teach a method of applying at least one aerogel-containing insulation layer to an article, wherein the at least one insulation layer comprises aerogel particles and at least binder, the method comprising the steps of: providing the article to be coated (item 50 – figure 3; paragraph 0169); mixing the aerogel particles with particles of a pulverulent binder and/or a pulverulent solid, to give a particle mixture (paragraph 0075 and 0178; particulate matter may be selected which may be sorbent, can include beads, flakes, granules, etc. and also aerogels especially if the article is meant for thermal or acoustic insulation); applying the particle mixture to the article to be coated by scattering the particle mixture through an air gap onto the article to be coated (figure 2 and/or 3, paragraph 0169; particulates are in hopper 74 and fall through chute 88, wherein air or other fluid passes to direct the particulates in a stream onto the material); and activating the at least one binder of the at least one insulation layer, in order to provide a bond of the particle mixture to the article (because aerogel and the same type binder is used as that which applicant identifies, the binder would obviously activate to form an article; see also paragraph 0161), wherein the article comprises a textile surface (item 50 – figure 3) to which the at least insulation layer is applied (figure 1D and 3).
Berrigan, et al. however do not teach that the aerogel in the particle mixture is in a proportion of 5 – 95% by weight of the particle mixture.
Evans teaches an aerogel thermal insulation material wherein the material comprises 10 – 95% by weight of aerogel particles and at least one binder (paragraph 0011).
Therefore, the examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the weight of the aerogel particles to be between 5 – 95% by weight since this is a typical range for a thermal insulation board per the teachings of Evans.
With respect to claim 16, the binder need not be premixed. Per Berrigan, et al. the particulate(s) may be placed in hopper 74. Because the particles need not be bonded thereto (paragraph 0161), they are thus not premixed. The particulate matter may be formed into a three-dimensional network via heat/pressure/solvent; however, this is not necessary or required (paragraph 0161). Examiner further notes with respect to premixing, applicant has not defined what constitutes premixing – only that the particulates or particles are placed in the hopper and scattered onto the substrate as it leaves the hopper.
With respect to claim 17, Berrigan, et al. do teach thermal heating of the particle mixture (paragraph 0161).
With respect to claim 18, Berrigan, et al. further teaches method further comprises applying the additional layer to a region that has been provided with the particle mixture and wherein the layer is nonwoven (paragraph 0107).
With respect to claim 19, Berrigan, et al. as modified by Evans renders obvious the SiO2 aerogel (see Evans paragraph 0019, 0024).
With respect to claim 20, Berrigan, et al. teaches the method further comprises applying the additional layer to a region that has been provided with the particle mixture and wherein the layer is nonwoven (paragraph 0107).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 – 8, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to the rejection over the combination of Koslow and Evans have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn; however, based upon the amendment to the independent claims which specify the scattering of the particulate matter through an air gap, the examiner has updated the search and applied the primary reference of Berrigan, et al.
With respect to the amendment to the claims, applicant has argued that Koslow and Evans did not teach the scattering of the particulate matter onto the article via or through an air gap, as claimed. Examiner concurs that the primary reference of Koslow used a knurled roll 13 to deposit and coat the moving substrate. The newly-cited primary reference of Berrigan, et al. however teach a hopper 74 into which particulate matter is added and deposited onto a belt or optionally a belt supporting a substrate 50 via a chute, wherein air may be used to direct the particulate matter through the gap between the chute and the moving support (figure 3). Therefore, the examiner contends that the newly-amended claim has been rejected accordingly. Evans is once again used as the secondary reference which teaches the aerogel weight percent range in the mixture.
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 MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srillakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights