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 § 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 1-2 and 4-15 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 1 recites “which should compose” in line 3 which is indicative of the limitation not being required. Applicant is advised to amend the claim language to recite the limitation clearly is required.
Claim 5 recites “the solvent is chemical that can dissolve 0-30% (w/w) of the polymer material”. If 0% is dissolved, then it is not a solvent. Applicant is advised to amend the claim language.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fricke et al. (PG Pub. 2016/0024278) in view of Peng (CN112981575).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Fricke et al. teach a preparation method of an aerogel composite fiber comprising weighing the materials to form the aerogel composite fiber (Frick et al. teach the percentage amounts which requires weighing) which compose of the claimed amount polymer micro-gel aerogel powder and the claimed amount of fiber material (polymer) [Example 1], mixing the polymer micro-aerogel powder and fiber material to form a composite mixture [0007 and 0020]. Fricke al. are silent regarding the composite mixture being homogenized. However, given the limited number of options and also in order to ensure the mixture has consistent properties across the fiber, it would have been more than obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the composite mixture being homogenous. Fricke et al. teach heating the composite mixture up to the melting point of the fiber material to disperse the polymer micro-aerogels throughout the molten fiber material and then extruding to form aerogel composite fibers [0069]. Fricke et al. is silent regarding the specifics of the dissolution. However, Peng teaches polymer micro aerogel polymer is prepared by dissolving the claimed amount of polymer (including polyimide polymer) in a suitable solvent (including with the ability to dissolve the claimed amount of polymer without precipitating and the non-solvent is not required) at the claimed temperature in order to prepare a spinning solution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the dissolution process of Peng including the dissolving the claimed amount of polymer in a suitable solvent at the claimed temperature in order to prepare a spinning solution and arrive at the claimed invention. It is noted the non-solvent is not required by the claim language and therefore the remainder of the claim including the process limitations of that are claimed as a result of inclusion of the non-solvent.
Regarding claim 2, the polymer micro-aerogel powder has an average particle size in the claimed range, a porous structure with an average pore size in the claimed range and thermal conductivity in the claimed range (“The aerogel is provided as particles of variable size, and the inventors have used an aerogel (silica based, and in powder form) supplied by Svenska Aerogel”) [0040-0041].
Regarding claim 10, Fricke et al. teach the polymer can be any polymer and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any polymer including commonly known polymers claimed polyethylene terephthalate, polylactic acid and nylon.
Regarding claim 11, Fricke et al. teach using a spinning step and lists various types of spinning as examples. Although melt spinning is not listed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use melt spinning as melt spinning is commonly known in the art and given the limited number of types of spinning.
Regarding claim 12, the fiber diameter is in the claimed range [0034].
Regarding claim 13, Fricke et al. are silent regarding the claimed properties. However, given Fricke et al. teach similar preparation method using such similar materials in such similar amounts, the claimed properties are necessarily inherent to the fiber prepared by the method and inherent to Fricke et al.
Regarding claim 14, Fricke et al. teach a textile product comprising the aerogel composite fibers manufactured by the preparation method of claim 1 [0039].
Art Not Cited but Relevant
PG Pub. 2018/0313001 teaches a fiber with aerogel particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant the present process uses freeze drying. As stated above, freeze drying is not required by the present claims. Newly cited art of Peng teaches the required limitations of claim 1. The Declaration arguments are not found to be convincing as the argued limitation of freeze drying are not required as set forth above.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights