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 Claims 9-17 and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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 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.
The pore size distribution curve of the MVTES5 aerogel (VTES/MTMS ratio of 0.06:1) shows two pore diameter peaks at 15 nm and 250 nm, respectively (figure 6c). Hence, the hydrophobic silica aerogel has a peak pore diameter of 15 nm within the claimed range.
PNG
media_image2.png
225
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
Applicant alleges that Yang requires a 50% distribution of the pore size within the range of 30 to 600 nm. Therefore, the combined teachings of Hattori and Yang fail to suggest a void-containing layer having a peak pore diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 30 nm.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner directs Applicant’s attention to figure 6c of Yang wherein the pore size distribution curve of the MVTES5 aerogel (VTES/MTMS ratio of 0.06:1) shows two pore diameter peaks at 15 nm and 250 nm, respectively (figure 6c). Hence, the hydrophobic silica aerogel has a peak pore diameter of 15 nm within the claimed range.
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
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 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