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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The applicant has elected the species of TEOS and MTES and mat without traverse.
This restriction is made FINAL. See previous action for the reasons of applying restriction.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: the “PI” in claims 8 and 18 is recommended to be amended as “polyimide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, and 10-20, (is)are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “hydrophobic siloxane molecules” in the molding step. Claims 10 and 20 recite the limitation of “the developed highly hydrophobic aerogel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2-3 fail to further limit claim 1, because claim 1 claims mixing a siloxane or a methylsiloxane (not including a combination of siloxane or a methylsiloxane) while claims 2-3 and 5-7 appear to require both siloxane and methylsiloxane in the mixture. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because they likely invoke § 112(f) because "by means of" is generic and "pressure suction" is a function, requiring the specification to define the pressure suction structure. The specification does not appear to disclose the related structure (or its equivalents) which would perform the claimed function.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 1-20 are provisionally allowable over the closest prior art: Zafiropoulos et al. (US 20250002410, eff. F/D:10/15/21) in view of Chen et al. (US 20200171455).
As to claim 1, Zafiropoulos (abs., examples, claims, figures) discloses a process of producing silica aerogel/fiber composite for electrical devices (90) having low thermal conductivity and suitable dielectric strength by casting an aerogel formed by sol-gel (83) process via tetraethoxysilane (TEOS) and/or methyltriethoxysilane (MTES) (21, 132) on a glass fiber mat (22-26). The sol-gel solution comprises ethanol and the pH is monitored via acid (HCL) and base (NH4OH) (83-87) to control the growth and aggregation of the gel frame work.
Zafiropoulos is silent on the claimed sol-gel process including the hydrolysis and condensation steps.
Chen (abs., Fig.1, 1,-2,claims) discloses a process of producing a silica aerogel via a sol-gel process using tetraethoxysilane (TEOS) and alkyltrimethoxysilane (7-12, 20, 31-33, 39), which comprises mixing a hydrophilic alkoxysilane compound, a hydrophobic alkyl-substituted alkoxysilane compound, and an organic solvent to form a mixture; adding an acidic catalyst to the mixture to perform hydrolysis; adding a basic catalyst to the hydrolyzed mixture to perform condensation, and during the condensation adding a dispersion solvent to the hydrolyzed mixture and stirring the hydrolyzed mixture to gelate so as to form the aerogel granule; wherein while the aerogel granule is an aerogel granule having a hydrophobic outer shell and a hydrophilic inner core, before the condensation nears completion, the hydrolyzed mixture becomes a viscous sol, a hydrophobic dispersion solvent is added to the hydrolyzed mixture, and the hydrolyzed mixture is stirred so that the hydrolyzed mixture gelates under dispersion force caused by the hydrophobic dispersion solvent to present a hydrophobic group on an outer surface of the aerogel granule and a hydrophilic group in an inner of the aerogel granule; wherein while the aerogel granule is an aerogel granule having a hydrophilic outer shell and a hydrophobic inner core, before the condensation nears completion, the hydrolyzed mixture becomes a viscous sol, a hydrophilic dispersion solvent is added to the hydrolyzed mixture, and the hydrolyzed mixture is stirred so that the hydrolyzed mixture gelates under dispersion force caused by the hydrophilic dispersion solvent to present a hydrophilic group on an outer surface of the aerogel granule and a hydrophobic group in an inner of the aerogel granule. The hydrophilic alkoxysilane compound and the hydrophobic alkyl-substituted alkoxysilane compound and the acidic catalyst are at a mole ratio of 1:0.5-1:0.00001, and the basic catalyst and the acidic catalyst are at a mole ratio of 1:1-5:1. The aerogel is dried via fluidized bed or oven (39).
Zafiropoulos and Chen fail to teach the claimed molding step using vacuum sucking. More importantly, Zafiropoulos and Chen fail to teach the claimed two stage azeotropic evaporation process at from 70 °C to 115 °C and 120 °C to 150 °C. In addition, it lacks of a nexus to synergistically combine Zafiropoulos and Chen, because Chen does not appear to be in the same area of endeavor and provide sufficient teaching, suggestion, and motivation.
Therefore, claim 1 is allowable together with dependent claims 2-20 in proviso the above 112 issues are resolved.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. 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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766