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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 8, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed June 8, 2026 with the RCE submission has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 4, 13 and 18-20 are canceled, and claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-17 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on June 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
It is noted that non-elected claims 18-20 were canceled in the amendment of June 9, 2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109503116 (hereinafter ‘116) in view of WO 2017/038648 (hereinafter ‘648) and (1) EITHER Viaud-Massuard et al (US 2013/0181363) OR CN 104194028 (hereinafter ‘028), and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of Dave (US 2012/0040179).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10: ‘116 teaches a method for producing a fiber composite material (from impregnated fiber felt) (note page 2, translation). The method would include providing a first silica sol (silicon source), and providing a second silicon precursor (hexamethyldisilazane, HDMS, meeting the requirements of claims 7, 8 and 10) and combining this with the silica sol material (note page 3, translation). The fiber material is treated with the silica sol and second silicon precursor (in combination), which spreads the sol solution on the fiber material (as well as the HDMS) (note page 3, translation). Then there is an in situ condensation step on the fiber material and second silicon precursor (HDMS) after the treating step is finished, so as to obtain a wet composite material (note pages 3, 4, translation, after impregnation in the fiber felt, note the standing for example, to form the wet gel felt body, with gelling understood condensation occurs, and it is understood that a colloids would also be present from the sol (which would give colloidal size particles)). Also note the further treatment before the drying, which can further be said to allow for condensation (note page 3, 4, translation). Then, there is a drying step on the wet composite material, to give a fiber composite material (note pages 3, 4, translation). The treating and condensation steps can be done without organic solvents (note the mixture for impregnation has the silica sol, HDMS, pH adjusting agent and solvent, listed as required, where the solvent can be water, and other organic solvent not required) (note page 3, translation), and the standing (condensation) step would be with these same materials. Further treatment before drying can also be in water (note step (4), page 4, translation), giving another period that can allow for condensation without organic solvent present. The system can be used for making aerogel (aeroge in translation) (note page 2, translation).
(A) As to the forming of the hydrolyzed solution as claimed (for providing the silica sol source), ‘116 notes an acidic or alkaline silica sol can be used (note page 3, translation).
‘648 describes forming an aerogel (airgel) layer from a sol (note abstract, page 2, translation), where the aerogel layer is formed on an insulated body which can have a fiber shape (note page 3, translation). The aerogel layer is formed using a sol formed with hydrolysis product of a silicon compound having a hydrolysable functional group, where in forming the layer there can be further condensation of the sol and dried from a wet gel, where using such materials indicted as giving good heat insulation and flexibility (note page 3, translation). It is described that the silicon compound with the hydrolysable functional group can be a silane compound such as methyltrimethoxysilane or dimethyldimethyoxysilane (as desired by claim 2) (note page 7, translation). Furthermore, to provide the sol generation process, silicon compound is provided, mixed with a solvent, and a surfactant can also be present, and also acid catalyst, and a hydrolysis reaction is performed and then sol-gel reaction to give a semi-gelled sol coating liquid (note page 11, translation). The sol can also contain silica particles (note pages 9 and 11, translation), further giving a resulting silica sol solution. The solvent can be water alone or water and alcohol, where water is desirably used for high surface tension and low volatility (note page 11, translation). Furthermore, the surfactant can be a cationic surfactant such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) or cetyltrimethylammoium chloride (CTAC) (both indicated by applicant page 0034 of the specification as filed as an “emulsifying agent” as claimed) (note page 12, translation). Thereafter the sol is applied to the main body/substrate and then gelled and heated and aged (note pages 12-13, translation). Thus, ‘648 teaches forming a sol using a silane compound as claimed in claim 2, water and emulsifying agent, which does not require organic solvents.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 to provide a sol solution generation step by performing a hydrolysis step on a mixture including a first silicon precursor of methyltrimethoxysilane or dimethyldimethyoxysilane, and emulsifying agent of CTAB or CTAC, and water, silica particles, etc., and no organic solvent, giving a hydrolyzed sol solution to be used as the silica sol as suggested by ‘648 to provide a desirable sol solution that also gives heat insulation and flexibility to the aerogel, since ‘116 requires an initial silica sol to provide the material used for treating the fibers, for making an aerogel, and ‘648 describes that a desirable sol solution as s sol to use for applying a sol to form a layer on an aerogel that can also be in fiber shape can be that provided by provide a sol solution generation step by performing a hydrolysis step on a mixture including a first silicon precursor or methyltrimethoxysilane or dimethyldimethyoxysilane, and emulsifying agent of CTAB or CTAC, and water, silica particles, etc., and no organic solvent, which gives a desirable heat insulation and flexibility, and the use of water solvent is desirable for high surface tension and low flexibility. Furthermore, as to the treating step also excluding organic solvents, since the non-organic containing sol of ‘648 above is used, no organic solvent would be needed in (1) the hydrolysis step and also there would be none in the further (2) treating and (3) condensation steps, since as discussed for ‘116 no additional organic solvent would be added during these steps.
Optionally, further using Dave, if the hydrolyzed solution and second silicon precursor are to be applied to the fiber material separately before condensation, Dave further describes how a sol solution can be prepared from a first silicon precursor and applied to a substrate, and thereafter a second material can be applied (of a second silicon precursor, HDMS) before condensation reaction occurs, followed by further heating curing which can also be considered drying due to the heating (note 0165, 0161, 0048, 0066). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648 to provide that the silica solution is applied to the fiber material/substate and thereafter the additional material of the HMDS, water and pH adjustor, before the condensation and drying as suggested by Dave with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because ‘116 wants a combination of silica sol, HMDS, water and pH adjustor applied to the fiber material (note page 3, translation), and Dave indicates how sol and additional material such as HDMS can be applied by first applying the sol solution and then additional material of HDMS, before condensation. As well, note In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
(B) as to the weight ratio of the first silicon precursor to the second silicon precursor: ’116 controls the amount of silica sol used and the amount of HDMS (second precursor) used (note page 3, translation), and ‘648 further notes controlling the amounts of materials for the sol (which would include the first precursor) (note pages 7, 11-12, translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amounts of the first and second precursors used, giving amounts and ratio in the claimed range. "[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).
(C) As to the pH during the hydrolysis step, ‘116 notes that an acidic silica sol can be used (note page 3, translation). ‘648 notes that when making the sol, an acid catalyst can be present, including various acids, which can be added in a range of amounts (note page 11, translation).
Furthermore,
(C1) Using Viaud-Massuard, Viaud-Massuard describes performing hydrolysis on a solution with a first silicon precursor, that can be methyltriethoxysilane, for example, a cationic surfactant, and water (aqueous phase) to obtain a hydrolyzed solution, where the pH is between 2.5 and 4.5 (note 0055-0058, 0013-0014, 0033, 0043), indicating a conventional pH to use in the acidic range when hydrolyzing a silane precursor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648, EITHER alone OR further in view of Dave to provide the pH in the range of 2.5-4.5 during the hydrolysis step, as suggested by Viaud-Massuard with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘116 and ‘648 would indicate that an acidic solution can be used during the hydrolysis step, and Viaud-Massuard indicates that in a similar such solution to be hydrolyzed the specific acid pH would be in the range of 2.5-4.5. It further would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range, noting the closeness of the range to the clamed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
(C2) Using ‘028, ‘028 describes performing hydrolysis on a solution with a first silicon precursor, that can be methyltrimethoxysilane, for example, a tenso-active agnet (CTAB, for example), and water to obtain a hydrolyzed solution as a colloidal sol, where the pH is 2-6 (note page 2, translation), indicating a conventional pH to use in the acidic range when hydrolyzing a silane precursor, and further gives an example pH in the claimed range of 3.5 (note page 3, translation, Embodiment 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648, EITHER alone OR further in view of Dave to provide the pH of 3.5 or in the range of 2-6 during the hydrolysis step, as suggested by ‘028 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘116 and ‘648 would indicate that an acidic solution can be used during the hydrolysis step, and ‘028 indicates that in a similar such solution to be hydrolyzed the specific acid pH can be 3.5, or would be in the range of 2-6. It further would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range, noting the closeness of the range to the clamed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claim 3:as to the amounts of the first silicon precursor and emulsifying agent, ‘648 indicates 1-100 parts mas of surfactant/emulsifying agent to 100 parts silicon compound/first silicon precursor, which amounts overlap the claimed range, and it therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of emulsifying agent and first precursor, giving a pH in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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);
Claim 6: It would have been suggested that the HMDS be dissolved in water since the HDMS is mixed in with water as a solvent to make a composition for treating (note ‘116, page 3, translation).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109503116 (hereinafter ‘116) in view of WO 2017/038648 (hereinafter ‘648) and Dave (US 2012/0040179).
Claims 14, 17: ‘116 teaches a method for producing a fiber composite material (from impregnated fiber felt) (note page 2, translation). The method would include providing a first silica sol (silicon source), and providing a second silicon precursor (hexamethyldisilazane, HDMS) and combining this with the silica sol material (note page 3, translation). The fiber material is treated with the silica sol and second silicon precursor (in combination), which spreads the sol solution on the fiber material (as well as the HDMS) (note page 3, translation). Then there is an in situ condensation step on the hydrolyzed solution on the fiber material and second silicon precursor (HDMS) after the treating step is finished, so as to obtain a wet composite material (note pages 3, 4, translation, after impregnation in the fiber felt, note the standing for example, to form the wet gel felt body, with gelling understood condensation occurs, and it is understood that a colloids would also be present from the sol (which would give colloidal size particles)). Also note the further treatment before the drying, which can further be said to allow for condensation (note page 3, 4, translation). Then, there is a drying step on the wet composite material, to give a fiber composite material (note pages 3, 4, translation). The treating and condensation steps can be done without organic solvents (note the mixture for impregnation has the silica sol, HDMS, pH adjusting agent and solvent, listed as required, where the solvent can be water, and other organic solvent not required) (note page 3, translation), and the standing (condensation) step would be with these same materials. Further treatment before drying can also be in water (note step (4), page 4, translation), giving another period that can allow for condensation without organic solvent present. The system can be used for making aerogel (aeroge in translation) (note page 2, translation).
(A) As to the forming of the hydrolyzed solution as claimed (for providing the silica sol source), ‘116 notes an acidic or alkaline silica sol can be used (note page 3, translation).
‘648 describes forming an aerogel (airgel) layer from a sol (note abstract, page 2, translation), where the aerogel layer is formed on an insulated body which can have a fiber shape (note page 3, translation). The aerogel layer is formed using a sol formed with hydrolysis product of a silicon compound having a hydrolysable functional group, where in forming the layer there can be further condensation of the sol and dried from a wet gel, where using such materials indicted as giving good heat insulation and flexibility (note page 3, translation). It is described that the silicon compound with the hydrolysable functional group can be a silane compound such as methyltrimethoxysilane or dimethyldimethyoxysilane (as desired by claim 2) (note page 7, translation). Furthermore, to provide the sol generation process, silicon compound is provided, mixed with a solvent, and a surfactant can also be present, and also acid catalyst, and a hydrolysis reaction is performed and then sol-gel reaction to give a semi-gelled sol coating liquid (note page 11, translation). The sol can also contain silica particles (note pages 9 and 11, translation), further giving a resulting silica sol solution. The solvent can be water alone or water and alcohol, where water is desirably used for high surface tension and low volatility (note page 11, translation). Furthermore, the surfactant can be a cationic surfactant such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) or cetyltrimethylammoium chloride (CTAC) (both indicated by applicant page 0034 of the specification as filed as an “emulsifying agent” as claimed) (note page 12, translation). Thereafter the sol is applied to the main body/substrate and then gelled and heated and aged (note pages 12-13, translation). Thus, ‘648 teaches forming a sol using a silane compound as claimed in claim 2, water and emulsifying agent, which does not require organic solvents.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 to provide a sol solution generation step by performing a hydrolysis step on a mixture including a first silicon precursor of methyltrimethoxysilane or dimethyldimethyoxysilane, and emulsifying agent of CTAB or CTAC, and water, silica particles, etc., and no organic solvent, giving a hydrolyzed sol solution to be used as the silica sol as suggested by ‘648 to provide a desirable sol solution that also gives heat insulation and flexibility to the aerogel, since ‘116 requires an initial silica sol to provide the material used for treating the fibers, for making an aerogel, and ‘648 describes that a desirable sol solution as s sol to use for applying a sol to form a layer on an aerogel that can also be in fiber shape can be that provided by provide a sol solution generation step by performing a hydrolysis step on a mixture including a first silicon precursor or methyltrimethoxysilane or dimethyldimethyoxysilane, and emulsifying agent of CTAB or CTAC, and water, silica particles, etc., and no organic solvent, which gives a desirable heat insulation and flexibility, and the use of water solvent is desirable for high surface tension and low flexibility. Furthermore, as to the treating step also excluding organic solvents, since the non-organic containing sol of ‘648 above is used, no organic solvent would be needed in (1) the hydrolysis step and also there would be none in the further (2) treating and (3) condensation steps, since as discussed for ‘116 no additional organic solvent would be added during these steps.
(B) Furthermore, as to if the hydrolyzed solution and second silicon precursor are to be applied to the fiber material separately before condensation, the first hydrolyzed solution containing a first silanol compound, and the condensation providing that the first silanol compound undergoes an in situ reaction on the fiber material to obtain polysiloxane particles,
Dave further describes how a sol solution can be prepared from a first silicon precursor and applied to a substrate, and thereafter a second material can be applied (of a second silicon precursor, HDMS) before condensation reaction occurs, followed by further heating curing which can also be considered drying due to the heating (note 0165, 0161, 0048, 0066). Dave further describes how when providing hydrolysis to form the sol, the pH can be 2-4 or 2.5-3.5 (note 0086). Dave further describes hydrolyzing silanes to form the sol, where it is indicated that this will form silanols, that will further condense (so during the condensation reaction) to form siloxane linkages with particles formed (note 0066), and since particles formed with the sol, with siloxane linkages formed it is understood that siloxane particles would be formed.
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648 to provide that the silica solution is applied to the fiber material/substate and thereafter the additional material of the HMDS, water and pH adjustor, before the condensation and drying as suggested by Dave with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because ‘116 wants a combination of silica sol, HMDS, water and pH adjustor applied to the fiber material (note page 3, translation), and Dave indicates how sol and additional material such as HDMS can be applied by first applying the sol solution and then additional material of HDMS, before condensation. As well, note In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648 and Dave to specifically provide that the hydrolysis step forms a first silanol compound in the hydrolyzed solution, and then during the further condensation reaction, the first silanol compound will undergo in situ reaction to obtain polysiloxane particles as suggested by Dave with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘116 in view of ‘648 would indicate providing a hydrolysis step on the solution followed by condensation reaction, since Dave indicates that in a similar process with similar material, a silanol compound would be formed during the hydrolysis step, and then the condensation reaction would further siloxane linkages to form, and this would be understood to cause polysiloxane particles as the same material being claimed is being condensed. Note that Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
(C) as to the weight ratio of the first silicon precursor to the second silicon precursor (claims 14, 17): ’116 controls the amount of silica sol used and the amount of HDMS (second precursor) used (note page 3, translation), and ‘648 further notes controlling the amounts of materials for the sol (which would include the first precursor) (note pages 7, 11-12, translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amounts of the first and second precursors used, giving amounts and ratio in the claimed range. "[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).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘116 in view of ‘648 and Dave as applied to claims 14 and 17 above, and further in view of EITHER Viaud-Massuard et al (US 2013/0181363) OR CN 104194028 (hereinafter ‘028).
Claim 15: As to the pH of the hydrolysis step, ‘116 notes that an acidic silica sol can be used (note page 3, translation). ‘648 notes that when making the sol, an acid catalyst can be present, including various acids, which can be added in a range of amounts (note page 11, translation).
Furthermore,
Using Viaud-Massuard, Viaud-Massuard describes performing hydrolysis on a solution with a first silicon precursor, that can be methyltriethoxysilane, for example, a cationic surfactant, and water (aqueous phase) to obtain a hydrolyzed solution, where the pH is between 2.5 and 4.5 (note 0055-0058, 0013-0014, 0033, 0043), indicating a conventional pH to use in the acidic range when hydrolyzing a silane precursor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648 and Dave to provide the pH in the range of 2.5-4.5 during the hydrolysis step, as suggested by Viaud-Massuard with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘116 and ‘648 would indicate that an acidic solution can be used during the hydrolysis step, and Viaud-Massuard indicates that in a similar such solution to be hydrolyzed the specific acid pH would be in the range of 2.5-4.5. It further would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range, noting the closeness of the range to the clamed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Using ‘028, ‘028 describes performing hydrolysis on a solution with a first silicon precursor, that can be methyltrimethoxysilane, for example, a tenso-active agnet (CTAB, for example), and water to obtain a hydrolyzed solution as a colloidal sol, where the pH is 2-6 (note page 2, translation), indicating a conventional pH to use in the acidic range when hydrolyzing a silane precursor, and further gives an example pH in the claimed range of 3.5 (note page 3, translation, Embodiment 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648 and Dave to provide the pH of 3.5 or in the range of 2-6 during the hydrolysis step, as suggested by ‘028 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘116 and ‘648 would indicate that an acidic solution can be used during the hydrolysis step, and ‘028 indicates that in a similar such solution to be hydrolyzed the specific acid pH can be 3.5, or would be in the range of 2-6. It further would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range, noting the closeness of the range to the clamed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claims 5, 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (I) ‘116 in view of ‘648, and (1) EITHER Viaud-Maussard OR ‘028, and (2)EITHER alone OR further in view of Dave (for claims 5, 11 and 12) OR (II) ‘116 in view of ‘648 and Dave (for claim 16) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, OR 14 and 17 above, respectively, and further in view of CN 101318659 (hereinafter ‘659).
Claim 5: As to the loading capacity of the first silicon precursor, ‘648 notes controlling the amounts of materials for the sol (which would include the first precursor) (note pages 11-12, translation).
‘659 teaches a method for producing a fiber composite material (aerogel composite) (note ooo2, 0016, 0024-0026, note the fiber reinforcing body/material). The process includes providing a silica sol (which can be prepared or purchased from the market, note 0018, at least suggesting that known sol materials can be used), and where example sols can be formed with silicate materials, water and organic solvent and acid catalyst, or also water glass, water and HCl (with no organic solvent listed) (note 0016, 0018, 0054, 0062, 0063). After the sol is formed, a treating step with the sol is provided on a fiber material, so as to spread the sol on the fiber material (note 0016, 0021). Then an in situ gelling step/aging step is performed on the fiber material (note 0016, example at 0054 where the sol gelled and aged in situ in a mold after provided to the fiber, and similar at 0062, 0063, where this can be with heating, note 0016, 0019, 0020). Further as to the loading amount, ‘659 indicates that the mass ratio of silica sol to reinforcing material (fiber body) is 1:0.001 to 10.0, and where the solid contents of the sol is 0.01 to 60.0 % (note 0016-0018).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648, and (1) EITHER Viaud-Maussard OR ‘028, and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of Dave to optimize the amount of sol/first precursor used in regards to the amount of fiber material, giving a loading capacity in the claimed range, as suggested by ‘659 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘116 is loading a fiber material with sol, ‘648 notes controlling material content in sols, and ‘659 indicates to control the amount of sol provided in fibers as discussed above, and it would have been obvious to optimize the desired amount loaded to give a repeatable material of desired silica amounts, where such optimization would give loading capacity in the claimed range. "[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).
Claim 11: when providing the control as discussed above for claim 5, it would have been obvious to optimize the weight ratio of the first silicon precursor to the fiber material for the reasons as discussed above for claim 5 by optimizing the amount of first silicon precursor and fiber material, giving values in the claimed range. "[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).
Claims 12, 16: further as to the control of the amount of second silicon precursor and fiber material, ‘116 also indicates to control the amount of the second silicon precursor used (note page 3, translation). When providing the control as discussed above for claim 5, it would further have been obvious to optimize the weight ratio of the second silicon precursor to the fiber material similarly for the reasons as discussed above for claim 5 by optimizing the amount of second silicon precursor and fiber material (since both would be controlled) giving values in the claimed range. "[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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘116 in view of ‘116 in view of ‘648, and (1) EITHER Viaud-Maussard OR ‘028, and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of Dave as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Matheron et al (US 2008/0079894) and Hemery et al (US 2021/0277242).
Claim 9: As to the specific second silicon precursor, ‘116 describes using HMDS as discussed for claim 1 above. Matheron indicates that when that when providing a first sol treatment to a substrate with condensation (note 0045-0055), it is desirable to also attach a hydrophobic group to the treated article (note 0053, 0055), where materials for providing hydrophobicity can include HDMS, and also silazanes and disilazanes in general (note 0111, 0116). Additionally, Hemery indicates how when providing silazanes it is known to provide as R groups attaches to methyl or ethyl, and also methylene or propylene (that is, would give the R2 claimed) (note 0099, 0090),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘116 in view of ‘648, and (1) EITHER Viaud-Maussard OR ‘028, and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of Dave to expect that other disilazanes can be used instead of HDMS as suggested by Matheron and Hemery with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘116 describes using HDMS, which is known in the art for providing hydrophobicity, noting Matheron, and Matheron notes how other silazanes and disilazanes can be used for such treatment, and therefore it would be expected that other silazanes and disilazanes can be used in the process instead of HDMS, and Hemery would show the known use of alkylene groups in silazanes, which would also be understood acceptable for disilazanes due to the repeated structure, and thus using R2 so b1 and b2 are 1 and a1 and a2 (hydrogen) are 1 would be understood to be an acceptable variant due to the similar structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment to the rejections including the new references to Viaud-Massuard, ‘028 and Dave.
Applicant argues that as to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that for claim 1, the references do not teach the pH claimed. The Examiner has further provided Viaud-Massuard OR ‘028 as to the suggestion to use the pH claimed. As to any benefits, ‘028 teaches a pH value in the claimed range, and also a relatively close range around that claimed. Viaud-Massuard also teaches a range very close to that claimed, such that without a showing of criticality it would be expected that the benefits argued by applicant would also occur with the described range.
As to claim 14, it is argued that the new hydrolysis features with the first silanol compound and condensation reaction features would not be taught. Firstly, as to applying the material separately, it does not still appear that this necessarily required, as long as the hydrolyzed solution and second precursor are both present when the condensation occurs. Alternatively, the newly provided Dave reference would indicate how it is specifically known that a hydrolyzed sol can be applied to a substrate and then HDMS before condensation. Furthermore, Dave is also cited as to the silanol formation and siloxane formation.
Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights