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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 are currently pending with claims 6 and 8 being cancelled. Claims 9-17 and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-5, 7, 18 and 19 are rejected.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejection over Hattori in view of Yang has been maintained.
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.
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, 7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0215124 to Hattori et al. (hereinafter “Hattori”) in view of Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”), “Hyperelastic and Hydrophobic Silica Aerogels with Enhanced Compressive Strength by using VTES/MTMS as Precursors”, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 525 (2019) 119677.
As to claims 1-5, Hattori discloses a void-containing layer comprising: silica porous particles chemically bonding to each other by a crosslinking assisting agent (paragraph 142). The void-containing layer has void fraction of at least 40% and a refractive index of 1.25 or less (paragraph 46, and abstract). The particle is an inorganic-organic composite particle obtained from a silicon compound precursor represented by the chemical formula as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
149
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The silicon compound precursor comprises a methyltrimethoxysilane (MTMS) when R1 and R2 are both methyl groups (paragraph 111). Further, the inorganic compound in the particle contains at least one skeletal atom selected from the group consisting of Si, Mg, Al, Ti, Zn and Zr (paragraph 44).
Hattori does not explicitly disclose that R1 is a methyl group while R2 is a vinyl group with a molar ratio of the R2 group relative to a sum of the R1 group and the R2 group in a range from 1 to 30 mol%.
Yang, however, discloses a hyperelastic and hydrophobic silica aerogel obtained from a composite precursor comprising vinyltriethoxysilane (VTES) and methyltrimethoxysilane (MTMS). The presence of the methyl and vinyl groups is beneficial to enhancing the elasticities and compressive stress of the aerogel (abstract). The molar ratio of the vinyl to the methyl is 0.012, 0.06 or 0.084 (table 1). Hence, the molar ratio of the vinyl to the sum of the vinyl and the methyl is 1.2 mol%, 5.7 mol% or 7.7 mol% (table 1). Each of which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composite precursor comprising VTES and MTMS from Yang to prepare the inorganic-organic composite particle disclosed in Hattori, motivated by the desire to enhance elasticity and compressive stress of the inorganic-organic composite particle.
As to claim 7, Hattori discloses that the void-containing layer is a silicone-porous material (paragraph 142).
As to claims 18 and 19, Hattori discloses that an optical element and an image display device, each comprises the void-containing layer (paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
The examiner confirms that the Applicant is absolutely right that incorporation of the vinyl from Yang in the aerogel material of Hattori enhances the mechanical properties, but does not maintain the density and thermal conductivity. The motivational statement has been updated accordingly. The examiner wishes to thank the Applicant for pointing out the error made in the motivational statement presented in the Final Rejection mailed on 10/15/2025.
Applicant alleges that the pore size in the range from 5 to 50 nm as disclosed in the claimed invention is designed to avoid light scattering and optimize optical transparency. As Yang requires a 50% distribution of the pore size within the range of 30 to 600 nm, which can scatter light more efficiently, the methyl-vinyl aerogel disclosed in Yang cannot be used as a low-refractive index layer with a refractive index of 1.25 or less. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Hattori and Yang to arrive at the claimed invention.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nothing specific about the pore size has been included in the claim to show that it is designed to avoid light scattering and optimize optical transparency as alleged by Applicant. Further, Hattori’s aerogel with a pore size ranging from 2 to 500 nm, is optically transparent, and has a refractive index of 1.25 or less (abstract). Therefore, it is illogical to assert that the methyl-vinyl aerogel disclosed in Yang is not suitable for use as a low-refractive index layer with a refractive index of 1.25 or less, given the addition of the large pores in the range of 30 to 600 nm.
Applicant further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the addition of the vinyl from Yang to the aerogel disclosed in Hattori because pulverization of the aerogel would undermine the mechanical properties that Yang seeks to enhance.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The void-containing layer of Hattori comprises pulverized products that are chemically bonded to each other and derived from the aerogel. If the aerogel is modified to retain improved mechanical properties, the modified pulverized products will also exhibit the improved mechanical properties. That is a motivation or incentive to modify the references.
Applicant further avers that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to introduce the vinyl disclosed in Yang in the aerogel of Hattori due to potential suppression of the optical properties of the aerogel.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yang discloses that the incorporation of the vinyl groups in the aerogel material enhances compressive stress, elasticity and hydrophobicity properties (page 4). Yang also teaches that addition of the vinyl does not affect the mesoporous structure of the aerogel, but making the pore size distribution uniform. The uniform pore size distribution means identical distribution in the pore size in both ranges of 2-30 nm, and 30-600 nm. For the methyl aerogel, the distribution of the pore size in the range of 2-30 nm is greater than that in the range of 30-600 nm (74.4% vs. 25.6%). However, introduction of the vinyl to the methyl aerogel results in the identical distribution for the small and large pores with a 50% to 50% ratio.
Turning to Hattori, the void-containing layer is made from a methyl aerogel material having a density of 1 g/cm3 or more (paragraph 73), a porosity of 50%-98% (paragraph 73), an average void size of 2 to 500 nm (paragraph 77), and a refractive index of 1.25 or less. As nowhere does Hattori disclose or suggest an initial pore size distribution in the ranges of 2-30 nm and 30-600 nm, it is improper to assert that addition of vinyl from Yang to the aerogel of Hattori would result in the identical distribution of the large and small pores. Further, no factual evidence has been provided to support that the identical distribution would compromise the refractive index of the void-containing layer.
Even if assuming that Hattori does disclose the methyl aerogel having a bimodal pore size distribution of 74.4% and 25.6% in the range of 2 to 30 nm and 30-600 nm, respectively, which the Examiner does not believe to be the case, the combination of Hattori and Yang does result in a refractive index significantly higher than 1.25, which would suppress the transparency of the void-containing layer for the following reasons.
Firstly, the initial refractive index of 1.25 or less in the methyl aerogel is primarily influenced by small pores.
Secondly, the refractive index of the methyl-vinyl aerogel will remain unchanged or increase only slightly because the small pores dominate the optical properties.
Therefore, it is suggested that the declaration including experimental data would be appropriate to demonstrate the accurate behavior of the refractive index upon the introduction of vinyl to the aerogel.
As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Hattori and Yang, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist. Accordingly, the rejection over Hattori in view of Yang has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights