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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim et al. (WO 2017126785, hereinafter Kim) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2017126784, hereinafter Kim 2) and further in view of Ikuno (JP 2011190136, hereinafter Ikuno).
*** Please Note:
The national stage publication US 2018/0072578 is used for the English translation citations for Kim.
The national stage application US 2018/0086587 is used for the English translation citations for Kim 2.
Ikuno citations are relied on the English translation provided with the IDS of December 20, 2019 in parent application 16/627,564.
Per claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus for producing a silica aerogel blanket (see title and abstract), the apparatus comprising:
an impregnation tank having a first side and an opposite second side in which a blanket is impregnated with silica sol (Fig. 2, impregnation vessel 120 with silica sol 20, [0042]-[0043]);
a blanket supply apparatus connected to the first side of the impregnation tank that supplies a blanket (Fig. 2, blanket 10 and supply roller 110, [0042]);
a gelation catalyst injector for injecting a gelation catalyst (Fig. 2, catalyst supply member 140 to gelate the silica sol 20, [0043]); and
a moving element connected to the ascending slope and on which the blanket impregnated with the silica sol and the gelation catalyst is gelled, the ascending slope transferring the blanket impregnated with the silica sol and the gelation catalyst from the impregnation tank to the moving element (Fig. 2, conveyor belt 130, [0049]).
Kim does not disclose a silica sol injector for injecting silica sol into the impregnation tank, the gelation catalyst injector injecting the catalyst into the impregnation tank, and an ascending slope connected to the second side of the impregnation tank. Instead, Kim discloses that the gelation catalyst injector applies the catalyst onto an sol gel impregnated sheet after it is moved to the moving element.
Kim 2 discloses an apparatus for producing a silica aerogel sheet (see title and abstract) comprising a sol gel injector 130 and a gelation catalyst injector 140 (Fig. 2, [0059]) which supplies them in a sequential manner. In an alternative embodiment, the silica sol can be mixed with the gelling catalyst to form a catalyzed sol and then applied onto a sheet ([0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have incorporated the sol gel injector of Kim 2 to inject the sol gel into the sol gel containing impregnation vessel of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so because this is applying a known device for supplying sol gel (Kim 2) to supply sol gel into a known sol gel impregnation vessel (Kim) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regards to injecting the gelation catalyst into the impregnation tank, this limitation is directed to an intended use of the claimed apparatus. Since Kim discloses a gelation catalyst injector and an impregnation vessel, the apparatus is capable of meeting the intended use of injecting the catalyst into the impregnation vessel. In addition, it would also have been further obvious to inject the gelation catalyst into the same impregnation vessel of Kim to form a catalyzed sol prior to impregnating the blanket in the manner suggested by Kim 2. One would have been motivated to do so because Kim 2 provides an alternative way of forming an aerogel sheet in which the sol gel and catalyst are mixed and supplied simultaneously instead of supplying them sequentially.
Kim/Kim 2 do not disclose an ascending slope connected to the second side of the impregnation tank. However, it’s noted that the impregnation tank of Kim teaches an ascending conveyor belt (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
212
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ikuno discloses an apparatus for forming an aerogel sheet (see title and abstract) comprising an impregnation tank (water storage section 4 holding sol) with an ascending slope (see Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the opposite second side of the impregnation vessel of Kim such that it is an ascending slope in the manner taught by Ikuno. One would have been motivated to do so because Ikuno discloses that a sol impregnation tank used for forming aerogel sheets can have an ascending sloped side. Therefore, modifying the opposite second side of Kim to have an ascending slope would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, although Fig. 2 of Kim does not representatively show an accompanying ascending opposite second side wall of the impregnation vessel, it would have been obvious that in order to accommodate the ascending slope of the conveyor belt in Kim, the vessel wall can also be sloped so they can be geometrically accompanied with one another.
Per claim 2, Kim/Kim 2/Ikuno (hereinafter modified Kim) disclose the moving element is located above the impregnation tank (see instant Fig. 2 compared to Fig. 2 of Kim; the ascending slope wall after combining with Ikuno would make it almost identical to instant Fig. 2).
Per claim 3, Modified Kim discloses all the limitations of claims 1 but does not specify that a separate control device is used for controlling the injection rate of each injector and a flow meter independently attached to each nozzle.
However, Kim 2 discloses that each of the silica sol and catalyst supply member injectors 130 and 140 may be supplied with control valves 131 and 141 to control the amount of silica sol or catalyst injected ([0061]). The amount is important as the appropriate amount indues gelation of the sol ([009]).
It would have been further obvious to have included control valves, as taught by Kim 2, to each of the silica sol and gelation catalyst injectors of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so in order to control the injection rate of each injector to yield an appropriate amount of the sol and catalyst to achieve successful mixing and gelation of the sol.
Per claim 4, the silica sol injector and the gelation catalyst injector are located above the impregnation tank (see Fig. 2 of Kim and Fig. 2 of Kim 2 which disclose the injectors to be above the tank and conveying blanket).
Per claim 5, modified Kim discloses one silica sol injector and one gelation catalyst injector (see rejection of claim 1).
Per claim 7, modified Kim discloses the ascending slope to be greater than 0o to less than 180o (see rejection of claim 1).
Per claim 8, Kim further discloses one or more scrapers (Fig. 2, scrapers 161 and 162, [0044]).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over modified Kim, as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-8, and further in view of Winch (US 4,158,297).
Per claim 6, Modified Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose a squeeze roller in the impregnation tank for inducing the impregnation of silica sol and gelation catalyst into the inside of the blanket.
Winch discloses impregnation webs/fiber batts with a liquid material (abstract, Fig. 2, column 4, lines 40-60) where the web/batts run through an impregnation tank containing squeeze rollers 28 which give improvements in impregnation efficiencies (column 7, lines 39 to column 8, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have incorporated the squeeze rollers of Winch into the impregnation tank of modified Kim in order to achieve the benefit of improving impregnation efficiencies of the sol gel and gelation catalyst of modified Kim.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over modified Kim, as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-8, and further in view of Rzonca et al. (US 2012/0259448).
Modified Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 5 but does not teach a flow meter independently attached to each nozzle.
Rzonca discloses an apparatus for applying adhesive (see title and abstract) in which an applicator nozzle is provided with a mass flow meter in order to monitor the flow rate of the nozzle and a monitoring/control unit which adjusts the output based on the monitored data ([0011], [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have added a mass flow meter to each injector of modified Kim in the manner suggested by Rzonca. One would have been motivated to do so in order to monitor the flow rate of the sol gel and gelation catalyst and achieve the added advantage of ensuring proper amount of sol gen and gelation catalyst in the impregnation tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim fails to disclose supplying silica sol to the impregnation container and the supply member supplying the catalyst. Furthermore, Kim is technically characterized by sequentially carrying out impregnating the blanket in the silica sol and gelling the blanket impregnated with silica sol. This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, Applicant is reminded that the instant claims are directed to an apparatus. The design of injecting silica sol and gelation catalyst into the impregnant tank itself is an intended use of the apparatus. Since the prior arts disclose all the structural limitations of the instantly claimed apparatus, it is fully capable of moving the nozzles to inject each of the silica sol and catalyst into the impregnation tank. Applicant has not persuasively presented why the apparatus of the prior arts are not capable of carrying out the claimed intended use. Further, as explained in the previous Non-Final rejection, Kim 2 discloses that it is known to mix the silica sol and gelation catalyst rather than applying them sequentially. This provides additional motivation as to apply both the silica sol and gelation catalyst together in a mixed form.
Applicant argues that Kim 2 does not use an impregnation container but rather impregnates the blanket into the silica on the conveyor belt. This argument is not persuasive. The purpose of relying on Kim 2 was to shown that it is known to have silica and the catalyst applied simultaneously. Kim discloses the impregnation tank.
Applicant renders that the claimed apparatus produces remarkably excellent effects which differentiates from that of the prior art. This argument is not persuasive. This argument appears to be a conclusory statement without any evidence as support. It appears Applicant is trying to argue that there is some criticality or unexpected results as it pertains to the claimed apparatus. However, Applicant has failed to provide any evidence demonstrating such criticality commensurate in scope with the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744