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 .
This application is in response to restriction filed on 03/18/2026.
Clams 1-32 are pending. Applicant has elected Group I, claims 1-20, without traverse and claims 21-32 are withdrawn as nonelected Group II.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected article, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/11/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the above reply is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that restriction is improper because a full and complete search of the claimed subject matter would include both groups of claims, such that a serious search burden does not exist between the groups. This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in MPEP 808.02, in order to demonstrate a serious search burden, the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following, including separate classification thereof, a separate status in the art when they are classifiable together, OR a different field of search. The groups have been shown to be at least classified separately, as shown in the requirement for restriction.
Therefore, without a more detailed showing as to how a serious search burden does not exist between the two groups, or evidence the claims are not distinct from one another, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 -5, 9-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8%, and the methyltrimethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8% while claim 4 recites the limitation that methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 30.8% or less than or equal to 55.6% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 1.0%, Claim 5 recites the limitation methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 30.8% and less than or equal to 53.8% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 1.0%, Claim 9 recites the limitation methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 36.8% and less than or equal to 55.6% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 1.0%, Claim 10 recites the limitation methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 36.8% and less than or equal to 53.8% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 1.0%, Claims 14 recite the limitation methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 36.8% and less than or equal to 49% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 0.8%, and Claim 15 recite the limitation methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 36.8% and less than or equal to 44.7% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 0.8%. The claims 4 -5, 9-10, and 14-15 range respecting methyl silicate and methyltrimethoxysilane do not fall within the claim 1 range. As such, claims 4 -5, 9-10, and 14-15 are directed to compositions that fall outside the scope of claim 1. Claims 4 -5, 9-10, and 14-15 therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5,7-8,10-14 of co-pending Application No. 18/637,769. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications refer to a method of making a hydrophobic silica aerogel, comprising the steps of: preparing a first solution by mixing methyl silicate 51 and methanol; preparing a second solution by mixing methanol, ammonium hydroxide and water; mixing the first solution and the second solution together to form a mixed solution; allowing components in the mixed solution to react to form silica wet gel; aging the silica wet gel for a period of time; preparing a third solution by mixing methyltrimethoxysilane and methanol; adding the third solution to the silica wet gel; allowing the third solution to react with the silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica wet gel; and drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel; wherein the methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8% and the methyltrimethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 0.8%, wherein total weight percent represents a total weight percent of a component in the first, second and third solutions (reads on presently claimed ranges of claims 1-3, see claims 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1 wherein the density of the hydrophobic silica aerogel is between 120 mg/cc and 200 mg/cc and the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 4.8%, and the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8% (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 6 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 4.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 92% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.93% and less than or equal to 2.67%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.026% (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 6 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 4%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 93.3% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.93% and less than or equal to 1.96%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.0031% (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1 wherein the density of the hydrophobic silica aerogel is between 120 mg/cc and 150 mg/cc and the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 3.8% and the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.7% (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 11 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 3.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.7%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 93.8% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.9% and less than or equal to 1.96%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.019% (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 11 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 3%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.7%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 94.4% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.9% and less than or equal to 1.96%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.0031% (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 1 further comprising a step of aging the hydrophobic silica wet gel for a time period of at least 7 days (168 hours, see claim 10).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 1 further comprising a step of subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to solvent extraction with methanol for an extraction time period of less than 24 hours (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 1 wherein the step of drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel comprises subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to drying to form the hydrophobic silica aerogel with a shrinkage value of 4% or less (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 1 wherein the step of drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel comprises subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to drying to form the hydrophobic silica aerogel with a visible transmission of at least 97.8% and a haze value of 3% or less (see claim 13).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 1 wherein the method is devoid of using a surfactant (see claim 14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/636,715. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications refer to a method of making a hydrophobic silica aerogel, comprising the steps of: preparing a first solution by mixing methyl silicate 51 and methanol; preparing a second solution by mixing methanol, ammonium hydroxide and water; mixing the first solution and the second solution together to form a mixed solution; allowing components in the mixed solution to react to form silica wet gel; aging the silica wet gel for a period of time; preparing a third solution by mixing methyltrimethoxysilane and methanol; adding the third solution to the silica wet gel; allowing the third solution to react with the silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica wet gel; and drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel; wherein the methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8% and the methyltrimethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 0.8%, wherein total weight percent represents a total weight percent of a component in the first, second and third solutions (reads on presently claimed ranges of claim 1, see claim1).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 92.0% and less than or equal to 95.9%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.9% and less than or equal to 1.96%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.026% (see claim 2, reads on claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1 wherein the first solution comprises methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 30.8% and less than or equal to 55.6% and methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 44.4% and less than or equal to 69.2%, the second solution comprises methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 58.6% and less than or equal to 67.6%, water at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 32.1% and less than or equal to 41.0%, and ammonium hydroxide at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.039% and less than or equal to 0.39%, and the third solution comprises methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 99.0% and less than or equal to 99.6% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 1% (reads on claim 4, see claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1 wherein the density of the hydrophobic silica aerogel is between 120 mg/cc and 200 mg/cc and the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 4.8%, and the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8% (see claim 6, reads on claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 6 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 4.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 92% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.93% and less than or equal to 2.67%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.026% (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 6 wherein the first solution comprises methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 36.8% and less than or equal to 55.6% and methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 44.4% and less than or equal to 63.2%, the second solution comprises methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 58.6% and less than or equal to 67%, water at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 32.7% and less than or equal to 41%, and ammonium hydroxide at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.039% and less than or equal to 0.4%, and the third solution comprises methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 99% and less than or equal to 99.6% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 1% (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1 wherein the density of the hydrophobic silica aerogel is between 120 mg/cc and 150 mg/cc and the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 3.8% and the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.7% (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 11 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 3.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.7%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 93.8% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.9% and less than or equal to 1.96%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.019% (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 11 wherein the first solution comprises methyl silicate 51 at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 36.8% and less than or equal to 49% and methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 51% and less than or equal to 63.2%, the second solution comprises methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 65.3% and less than or equal to 67%, water at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 32.7% and less than or equal to 34.7%, and ammonium hydroxide at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.039% and less than or equal to 0.31%, and the third solution comprises methanol at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 99.2% and less than or equal to 99.6% and methyltrimethoxysilane at a weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.4% and less than or equal to 0.8% (see claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 1 further comprising a step of aging the hydrophobic silica wet gel for a time period of at least 7 days (168 hours, see claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 1 further comprising a step of subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to solvent extraction with methanol for an extraction time period of less than 24 hours (see claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 1 wherein the step of drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel comprises subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to drying to form the hydrophobic silica aerogel with a shrinkage value of 4% or less (see claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 1 wherein the step of drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel comprises subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to drying to form the hydrophobic silica aerogel with a visible transmission of at least 97.8% and a haze value of 3% or less (see claim 19).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 1 wherein the method is devoid of using a surfactant (see claim 20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 10-14 of co-pending Application No. 18/637,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications refer to a method of making a hydrophobic silica aerogel, comprising the steps of: preparing a first solution by mixing methyl silicate 51 and methanol; preparing a second solution by mixing methanol, ammonium hydroxide and water; mixing the first solution and the second solution together to form a mixed solution; allowing components in the mixed solution to react to form silica wet gel; aging the silica wet gel for a period of time; preparing a third solution by mixing methyltrimethoxysilane and methanol; adding the third solution to the silica wet gel; allowing the third solution to react with the silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica wet gel; and drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel; wherein the methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8% and the methyltrimethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 0.8%, wherein total weight percent represents a total weight percent of a component in the first, second and third solutions (reads on presently claimed ranges of claim 1, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 92.0% and less than or equal to 95.9%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.9% and less than or equal to 1.96%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.026% (see claim 2, reads on claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1 wherein the density of the hydrophobic silica aerogel is between 120 mg/cc and 200 mg/cc and the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 4.8%, and the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8% (see claim 6, reads on claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 6 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 4.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.8%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 92% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.93% and less than or equal to 2.67%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.026% (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1 wherein the density of the hydrophobic silica aerogel is between 120 mg/cc and 150 mg/cc and the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 3.8% and the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.7% (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 11 wherein: the total weight percent of the methyl silicate 51 is greater than or equal to 2.3% and less than or equal to 3.8%; the total weight percent of the methyltrimethoxysilane is greater than or equal to 0.39% and less than or equal to 0.7%; the methanol has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 93.8% and less than or equal to 95.4%; the water has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.9% and less than or equal to 1.96%; and the ammonium hydroxide has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.0029% and less than or equal to 0.019% (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 1 further comprising a step of aging the hydrophobic silica wet gel for a time period of at least 7 days (168 hours, see claim 10).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 1 further comprising a step of subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to solvent extraction with methanol for an extraction time period of less than 24 hours (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 1 wherein the step of drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel comprises subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to drying to form the hydrophobic silica aerogel with a shrinkage value of 4% or less (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 1 wherein the step of drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel comprises subjecting the hydrophobic silica wet gel to drying to form the hydrophobic silica aerogel with a visible transmission of at least 97.8% and a haze value of 3% or less (see claim 13).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 1 wherein the method is devoid of using a surfactant (see claim 14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable once applicant overcomes nonstatutory double patenting rejections and also 112(b) rejections as set forth above.
The present claims 1-20 would be allowable over the closest prior art, Yokogawa (US6740416B1, IDS cited reference by applicant) and Chen et al (US2024/0199835 A1, IDS cited reference by applicant) for the following reasons:
Yokogawa discloses a method of making a hydrophobic silica aerogel (see abstract), comprising the steps of:
preparing a first solution by mixing methyl silicate 51 and methanol (see Example 1); preparing a second solution by mixing methanol, ammonium hydroxide and water (see Example 1);
mixing the first solution and the second solution together to form a mixed solution (see Example 1);
aging the silica wet gel for a period of time (see example 1)
allowing components in the mixed solution to react to form silica wet gel (see Example 1);
drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel (see column 7 lines 27-30).
However, Yokogawa does not disclose preparing a third solution by mixing methyltrimethoxysilane and methanol and adding the third solution to the silica wet gel; allowing the third solution to react with the silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica wet gel, wherein the methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8% and the methyltrimethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 0.8%, wherein total weight percent represents a total weight percent of a component in the first, second and third solutions.
Chen et al, discloses preparing a third solution by mixing methyltrimethoxysilane (methylsiloxane compound) and methanol (alcohol, paragraphs 0059,0031), since “the purpose of adding the methylsiloxane compound is to provide strong hydrophobic properties of the complex aerogel composites; the purpose of adding the siloxane compound is to control the internal microstructure of the aerogel system; and the purpose of adding aqueous solution containing alcohols is to provide the porosity content of the aerogel structure” (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of Yokogawa with Chen to incorporate solution of methyltrimethoxysilane and methanol as third solution to the silica wet gel in order to control the internal microstructure and porosity structure of the aerogel while providing strong hydrophobic properties as taught by Chen (see paragraph 0059).
However, Chen does not disclose allowing the third solution to react with the silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica wet gel, wherein the methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.8% and less than or equal to 4.8% and the methyltrimethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 0.8%, wherein total weight percent represents a total weight percent of a component in the first, second and third solutions.
Thus, it is clear that Yokogawa and Chen, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the present invention.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 05/15/2026
Prosecution Insights