DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoseini et al. (Effects of humidity on thermal performance of aerogel insulation blankets, Journal of Building Engineering, 2017), hereinafter ‘Hoseini’.
Regarding Claim 1, Hoseini discloses an aerogel blanket having a standard deviation of thermal conductivity in the aerogel blanket of 1.0 mW/mK or less (2.1. Materials: Cryogel®Z (CZ) supplied by Aspen Aerogel Inc. (Northborough, USA), and ThermalWrap™ (TW) supplied by Cabot Corporation, (Boston, USA) were studied as the representatives of aerogel blankets; 2.3. Thermal conductivity measurements: Low standard deviation of the measured data about 2*10−4 W/m/K shows the reliability of the collected data – this corresponds to 0.2 mW/mK).
Regarding Claim 2, Hoseini discloses the aerogel is a silica aerogel (Table 2 shows that the studied aerogels comprise silica).
Regarding Claim 3, Hoseini discloses the standard deviation of thermal conductivity in the aerogel blanket is 0.9 mW/mK or less, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, Hoseini discloses an aerogel blanket having a standard deviation of thermal conductivity in the aerogel blanket is 0.9 mW/mK or less, and the aerogel blanket is a silica aerogel blanket, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 6 and 11, Hoseini discloses that the aerogel blanket is a complex in which porous aerogel is formed inside a blanket base material (Table 2: the aerogels are porous blankets formed within a fiber, thereby meeting the instant claim; further, the limitation “is formed inside a blanket base material by penetrating a catalyzed sol into the blanket base material in an impregnation tank, followed by gelation on a moving element, is considered product-by-process language that does not apparently imply structure to the claimed product upon review of the instant specification. In the event any slight differences can be shown as resulting from these process steps, the burden is on Applicant to provide concrete evidence that the difference exhibits unexpected properties compared to the prior art. See Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922.
Regarding Claim 7, Hoseini discloses the aerogel blanket comprises a glass fiber mat having a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm (Table 2: the cryogel z composition has a thickness of 5 mm, which is considered the thickness of the fiber mat, said fiber mat disclosed as comprising fiber glass).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoseini et al. (Effects of humidity on thermal performance of aerogel insulation blankets, Journal of Building Engineering, 2017), hereinafter ‘Hoseini’, as evidenced by Aspen Aerogels (Cryogel Z SDS, 2015), hereinafter ‘Aspen’.
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, Hoseini discloses the use of Cryogel Z, which has a content of amorphous silica, or in other words a content of aerogel, between 25 and 40% (see Aspen, 3. Composition/Information on Ingredients). This overlaps with and makes obvious the instant claimed range – as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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) – as such, the instant claimed range is obvious over the prior art range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art as identified above does not disclose or suggest the limitations of Claims 5 and 10, requiring the aerogel blanket to have a dust generation rate amount Pv as claimed. Hoseini is silent regarding the dust generation of the disclosed aerogel blanket and further does not discuss such a property such that it would be obvious.
Further, the closest prior art as identified above does not disclose or suggest the limitations of Claim 9, requiring the aerogel blanket to have a moisture impregnation rate as claimed. Hoseini is silent regarding the moisture impregnation rate of the disclosed aerogel blanket and further does not discuss such a property such that it would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/12/2025, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under section 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hoseini.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736