Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9-11, and 13 are indefinite as it is unclear which of the listed elements are required versus optional. For example, claim 11 states ‘at least boron, boron carbide.’ As boron is already present in boron carbide, it is unclear which is the required element. Claim 6 states ‘comprises silica, vanadium oxide, a metal oxide, a metalloid oxide, a non-metal oxide.’ It is unclear if these are intended to be read as all elements are required or if they are in the alternative. For purposes of examination, any individual elements from claims 6, 7, 9-11, and 13 will be treated as presented in the alternative (e.g. silica or vanadium oxide or a metal oxide, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 2-4, 8, 9, 15, and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Augustyniak et al (US 2008/0229704).
Regarding claim 1, Augustyniak teaches a layered aerogel laminate comprising at least a first layer of a fibrous sheet or a plastic sheet, or a multilayer ply (Augustyniak para 28, 32, 34, 36) and a second layer of an aerogel (Augustyniak para 28, 47-53.)
Regarding claim 2-4, 8 and 9, Augustyniak teaches a layered aerogel laminate as above for claim 1. Augustyniak further teaches silica, vanadium oxide, resorcinol formaldehyde, and/or melamine formaldehyde (Augustyniak para 52, 53). As Augustyniak teaches multiple options for the aerogel material, and these are the same materials as claimed, they would be expected to possess such properties as a compressive modulus of greater than about 1 MPa, a compressive yield strength of greater than about 0.1 MPa. Because the aerogel materials may be used in combination, they would intrinsically possess different compressive moduli when different materials were combined.
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), see MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 15, Augustyniak teaches a layered aerogel laminate as above for claim 1. Augustyniak further teaches that the fibrous sheet may be comprise polyethylene (Augustyniak para 68).
Regarding claim 56, Augustyniak teach a method for fabricating a layered aerogel composite comprising providing a first fibrous layer, providing an aerogel layer, and providing a second fibrous layer, then adhering (bonding/joining/applying) the aerogel layer to the first layer, and adhering (bonding/joining/applying) the second fibrous layer to the aerogel layer (Augustyniak para 32, 34, 36, claims 49, 51).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 5, 6, 7, 10-14, and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Augustyniak as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Leventis et al. (US 2011/0250428).
Regarding claims 5-7, 10, 11, 14 and 55, Augustyniak teaches an aerogel laminate as above for claim 1. Augustyniak further teaches that the aerogel material may be a continuous silica or vanadium oxide aerogel (Augustyniak para 52).
Augustyniak is silent with respect to the aerogel having a crosslinker.
Augustyniak and Leventis are related in the field of aerogels. Leventis teaches coating a sol-gel precursor with a conformal cross-linking agent, which allows the sol-gel to be further process to yield a carbon-coating on the aerogel (Leventis para 72-76) or even further processed to yield a carbide aerogel, such as boron carbide aerogels or silicon carbide aerogels (Leventis para 84, 91-97), providing aerogels appropriate for use even at extremely high temperature applications (Leventis para 86).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerogel of Augustyniak to have a crosslinker so that there may be carbon coated aerogels or further processed aerogels to become carbide aerogels such as boron or silicon carbide as taught by Leventis because this provides for aerogels appropriate for use at very high temperatures. Further, this layering would constitute alternating layers of aerogel materials (materials making up an aerogel) joined by arrays of oriented nanostructures, as these are on the nano scale and may be considered ‘oriented’ as even ‘random’ is an orientation.
Regarding claims 12, Augustyniak teaches an aerogel laminate as above for claim 1.
Augustyniak is silent with respect to the aerogel being specifically a ‘network of assembled nanostructures.’
Augustyniak and Leventis are related in the field of aerogels. Leventis teaches that silica aerogels, like those of Augustyniak are 3d silica nanostructures, i.e. networks of assembled nano-structures (Leventis para 115).
Leventis therefore evidences that the silica aerogels of Augustyniak would be networks of assembled nanostructures.
Regarding claim 13, Augustyniak as evidenced by Leventis teaches an aerogel laminate as above for claim 12. Leventis further teaches that these are generally nanoparticulate silica (Leventis para 96).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 1/10/26