DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 were subject to restriction requirement on 02/17/2026.
Applicant elected group I, claims 1-14, without traverse, cancelled claims 18-22, amended claim 2, withdrew claims 15-17, and added new claims 23-27 on 04/17/2026.
Claims 1-17 and 23-27 are pending, of which claims 15-17 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 23-27 are rejected.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 4 and 23-27 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.
Claim 4 recites, “the polymer coating is selected from the group consisting of a fluoroplastic, a thermoset polycondensate a thermoplastic, a thermoplastic polymer, a thermoplastic polycondensate, a thermoplastic elastomer, and combinations thereof” in lines 1-4. It is unclear what the difference between a polymer coating consisting of a thermoplastic and a polymer coating consisting of a thermoplastic polymer is. It is unclear if any thermoplastic polymer would meet the requirements of claim 4 or if the thermoplastic polymer must be a thermoplastic polycondensate or thermoplastic elastomer. The Examiner will interpret any thermoplastic polymer as meeting the claim requirements.
Claim 23 recites, “the second coating is configured to function as a thermal insulator” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what structural limitations are required for the coating to be considered configured to function as a thermal insulator. It is unclear how an electrically conductive or electrically resistive coating must be modified to function as a thermal insulator. The Examiner will interpret any electrically resistive coating as configured to function as a thermal insulator.
Claim 24 recites, “the second coating is configured to function as a heater” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what structural limitations are required for the coating to be considered configured to function as a heater. The Examiner will interpret any electrically conductive or electrically resistive coating as configured to function as a heater.
Claim 25 recites, “a combination of the aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating is configured to function as a cooler” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what structural limitations are required for the combination, including the aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating, to be considered configured to function as a cooler. The Examiner will interpret any combination of the aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating as functioning as a cooler.
Claim 26 recites, “a combination of the aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating is configured to function as a flow tube” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what structural limitations are required for aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating to function as a flow tube. The Examiner will interpret any combination of the aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating as functioning as a flow tube.
Claim 27 recites, “a combination of the aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating is configured to function as a container” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what structural limitations are required for aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating to function as a container. The Examiner will interpret any combination of the aerogel having the polymer coating with the second coating as functioning as a container.
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2023/0413390) (Lim).
Regarding claims 1 and 5
Lim teaches a functional composite comprising an aerogel blanket made of overlapped fiber materials impregnated with aerogel. The aerogel blanket is coated with a polyimide layer. The polyimide coated layer is coated with a resistive conductive layer. The resistive conductive layer generates heat when a current flows, therefore it is electrically conductive and electrically resistive. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0018], [0023-0027], [0047], [0050-0052], [0062-0073], and FIG. 8. Given the aerogel blanket is made of overlapped fiber materials impregnated with aerogel, and given the polyimide layer coats the blanket, it follows the polyimide coating is on at least a portion of a surface of the aerogel.
Regarding claim 2
Lim further teaches the resistive conductive layer coating is patterned. Paragraphs [0027] and [0072-0073].
Regarding claim 3
Lim further teaches the aerogel is a silica aerogel. Paragraph [0008].
Regarding claim 23
Lim further teaches the resistive conductive layer introduces the high heat insulating property of the insulator. Paragraphs [0027] and [0089]. Therefore, it follows the resistive conductive layer functions as a thermal insulator. Further, given the resistive conductive layer is electrically resistive and electrically conductive, it follows it is configured to function as a thermal insulator.
Regarding claim 24
Lim further teaches the conductive layer is electrically resistive and functions as a planar heating element. Paragraphs [0027] and [0071-0072]. Further, given the resistive conductive layer is electrically resistive and electrically conductive, it follows it is configured to function as a heater.
Claims 1, 6, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reis (US 2005/0270746), taken in view of evidence provided by He et al. (US 2024/0216734) (He).
Regarding claims 1 and 6
Reis teaches an insulating material comprising aerogel particles and a polytetrafluoroethylene binder. Given the polytetrafluoroethylene binder holds the aerogel particles together, it follows the polytetrafluoroethylene binder coats the surface of the aerogel particles. The insulating material further includes a heat spreading material coated on it surface. The heat spreading material is most preferably graphite. In view of evidence provided by He, Graphite is an electrical conductor (See He, paragraph [0089]). Since graphite is electrically conductive, it follows the heat spreading material corresponds to an electrically conductive coating. Given the graphite coating is applied to the insulating material comprising polytetrafluoroethylene binder and aerogel particles, it follows the graphite coating is applied on at a portion of the surface of the polytetrafluoroethylene binder. See, e.g., abstract, paragraphs [0019-0020], and FIG. 1.
Regarding claim 23
Given the graphite layer is electrically conductive, it follows the graphite layer is configured to function as a thermal insulator.
Regarding claim 24
Given the graphite layer is electrically conductive, it follows the graphite layer is configured to function as a heater.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2023/0413390) (Lim), as applied in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7
Lim teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Lim further teaches the composite material is used as clothing or bedding. Paragraph [0091]. Given that Lim discloses the composite material is used as clothing or bedding, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to form clothing or bedding using the composite material, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Since the composite material is used to form clothing or bedding, it follows the aerogel has at least one dimension exceeding 1 cm.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabri et al. (US 2013/0022769) (Sabri) in view of Zettell (US 9,556,615).
Regarding claims 1
Sabri teaches an insulating material comprising aerogel impregnated polymer such that the aerogel geometric bodies are inserted into or immobilized within the polymer material. Since the aerogel geometric bodies are inserted into or immobilized within the polymer material, it follows the aerogel geometric bodies are coated with the polymer material. The insulating material is useful for containers, tanks, and pipes. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0029-0030], [0054], [0059], [0063-0064], [0066], [0068], [0072], and [0099].
Sabri does not explicitly teach the presence of a secondary coating.
With respect to the difference, Zettell teaches an insulated panel useful for containers, tanks, and pipes comprising a polymer coating on its surface. The polymer coating has an electrical resistance and therefore the polymer coating reduces, prevents, or stops the flow of electrons, thus preventing corrosion of the containers. The coating protects the integrity of the container. See, e.g., abstract, col. 1, lines 5-30, and col. 4, lines 18-28, col. 7, lines 34-52, and col. 8, lines 12-14.
Zettell and Sabri are analogous art as they are both drawn to insulating materials for use in containers, tanks, and pipes.
In light of the motivation as provided by Zettell, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply an electrically resistant coating to the surface of the insulating material, and therefore to the surface of the polymer of the insulating material, of Sabri, in order to protect the integrity of the insulating material by preventing corrosion, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3
Sabri further teaches the aerogel is a silica aerogel, a carbon aerogel, or a ceramic aerogel. Paragraph [0072].
Regarding claim 4
Sabri further teaches the polymer is a thermoplastic elastomer. Paragraphs [0063-0064] and [0066].
Regarding claim 5
Sabri further teaches the polymer is a polyimide. Paragraph [0066].
Regarding claim 7
Sabri further teaches the aerogel geometric bodies have a thickness from about 1 micron to about 5 cm. Paragraph [0017]. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 23
Sabri in view of Zettell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, including an electrically resistive coating. The electrically resistive coating is configured to function as a thermal insulator.
Regarding claim 24
Sabri in view of Zettell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, including an electrically resistive coating. The electrically resistive coating is configured to function as a heater.
Regarding claim 25
Sabri in view of Zettell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Sabri further teaches the insulating material is useful for storage containers, tanks, pipes, or articles containing fluids or gases, including cold or hot fluid process systems. Paragraphs [0098-0101]. Since the insulating material has insulating properties and is useful for cold fluid process systems, it follows the insulating material is configured to function as a cooler.
Regarding claim 26
Sabri in view of Zettell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Sabri further teaches the insulating material is useful for storage containers, tanks, pipes, or articles containing fluids or gases. Paragraphs [0098-0101]. Since the insulating material is useful for articles containing fluids or gases, it follows the insulating material is configured to function as a flow tube.
Regarding claim 27
Sabri in view of Zettell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Sabri further teaches the insulating material is useful for storage containers. Paragraphs [0098-0101]. Since the insulating material is useful for storage containers, it follows the insulating material is configured to function as a container.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabri et al. (US 2013/0022769) (Sabri) in view of Zettell (US 9,556,615), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view Moeller et al. (US 2014/0014747) (Moeller).
Regarding claim 8
Sabri in view of Zettell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the insulating material is used in an ion mobility spectrometer.
With respect to the difference, Moeller teaches an ion mobility spectrometer includes a central capillary that receives and transports a liquid from one end to another reaching into an ionization region. A thermal insulation is located at an outer circumference of the capillary. The thermal insulation is a solid layer of material with high heat resistance. See, e.g., abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0006], [0016], [0026], [0028], [0041-0042], [0046-0048], [0063-0064], and FIG. 8.
Moeller and Sabri in view of Zettell are analogous art as they are both drawn to opaque aerogel materials.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Moeller, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the insulating material of Sabri in view of Zettell as thermal insulation in an ion mobility spectrometer comprising a sample inlet, an ionization region, and a drift tube, as the operator has high freedom of choice for the thermal insulation and the insulating material provides high thermal insulation while remaining chemically and electrically resistant, resilient, pliable and flexible against low temperatures and is suitable for articles holding gases, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights