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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims do not present a serious search burden because MPEP § 904 states that searching even one claim group should involve searching different classes, subclasses, and resources. This is not found persuasive. While MPEP § 904 does suggest such a search for one invention, carrying out a search over multiple classes for two inventions becomes a burden of search, as the examination of two inventions is the divergence of subject matter beyond the normal extent of examination. Furthermore, MPEP §808.02 supports that a serious search burden exists in view the separate classifications of the distinct inventions of Group I and II. In particular, because the article of Group II comprises a glass substrate and could be prepared by a method distinct from that of Group I, a search of one invention will not be coextensive with a search of the other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 07/02/2025, 09/03/2025, 12/11/2025, 4/13/2026, and 06/11/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-14 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 “solvent” in lines 2 and 6. It is unclear whether the solvent of line 2 is the same or different in identity from the solvent of line 6. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-14 depend upon, and do not rectify, the issue of indefiniteness and are therefore similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites “the methanol” in line 4. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims; claim 1 does not recite methanol.
Claim 5 recites “the methanol” in line 4. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims; claims 1 and 4 do not recite methanol.
Claim 8 recites “the methanol” in line 4. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims; claims 1 and 7 do not recite methanol.
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 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/637,769 (reference application) in view of Yokogawa (US 6740416 B1, provided on the IDS filed on 12/11/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, while ‘769 recites methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application) in view of Yokogawa.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/636,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because where the instant claim differs from the copending claim is that the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, instead of methyltrimethoxysilane, and the weight percent ranges of the instant claim overlap with the copending ranges. These differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to simply substitute one for the other (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
As all applications were filed on the same day, only a one-way test of distinction need be applied; see MPEP Section 804(II)(B)(4).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/637,818 (reference application) in view of Yokogawa and Tabata 2012 (Tabata et al. 2012, Hydrophobic silica aerogel production at KEK, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip., 668 (2012), provided on the IDS filed on 07/02/2025).
1 is obvious over 1, MS-51 and TMOS are equivalents, MTMS and MTES are equivalents, ranges overlap or would overlap once the molecular weights were taken into account
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim differs from the copending claim in that:
the instant claim recites methyl silicate 51, while ‘818 recites tetramethyl orthosilicate,
the instant claim recites methyltriethoxysilane, while ‘818 recites methyltrimethoxysilane, and
the weight percent ranges of the instant claim either immediately overlap with the copending ranges, or would overlap once the values are converted by taking the molecular masses of the compounds into account.
However, these differences are obvious over each other in the art, since Tabata 2012 teaches that MS 51 and tetramethoxysilane are known equivalents in the art (page 65 column 2 paragraph 1), and Yokogawa teaches that MTMS and MTES are known equivalents in the art (C12/L25-30), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to make such substitutions respectively (see MPEP 2144.06(II) regarding the substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose), and the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges has been held by the courts (see MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 contain allowable subject matter but are subject to the nonstatutory double patenting rejections and 112(b) rejections as set forth above.
Tabata et al. 2016, Large-area silica aerogel for use as Cherenkov radiators with high refractive index, developed by supercritical carbon dioxide drying., provided on the IDS filed on 07/02/2025, is considered the closest prior art. The present claims would be allowable over Tabata for the following reasons: Tabata teaches a method of making a hydrophobic silica aerogel (“hydrophobic silica aerogel tiles,” abstract) comprising the steps of:
preparing a first solution by mixing methyl silicate 51 (polymethoxy siloxane) and solvent (p. 2 col. 2 “Solution A”);
preparing a second solution by mixing ammonium hydroxide and water (“Solution B”);
mixing the first solution and the second solution together to form a mixed solution (p. 2 col. 2)
allowing components in the mixed solution to react to form silica wet gel (“formed wet gel,” p. 2 col. 2)
subjecting the silica wet gel to a solvent exchange solution to form a hydrophobic silica wet gel (hexamethyldisilazane in 2-propanol at 10 v/v%, p. 3 col. 1), and
drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel (supercritical carbon dioxide drying, p. 3; “final aerogel products,” p. 4 col. 1)
wherein the MS 51 has a total weight percent of 20.34 to 25.22% (Table 1) per 100 ml of the total wet gel solution.
Tabata does not teach the following limitations:
Preparing a third solution by mixing ammonium hydroxide and solvent;
Preparing a fourth solution by mixing methyltrimethoxysilane and diluent;
Preparing a solvent exchange solution by mixing the third solution, the fourth solution, and solvent;
Subjecting the silica wet gel to the solvent exchange solution to form a hydrophobic silica wet gel;
Wherein the methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.7% and less than or equal to 3.9% and the methyltriethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.2% and less than or equal to 1.5%, wherein total weight percent represents a total weight percent of a component in the first, second, third and fourth solutions.
Tabata does not provide motivation for modifying the taught amounts of methyl silicate 51 and hydrophobizing agent to within the claimed ranges. Kim et al. (US 2017/0369326) teaches that the molar ratio of silica wet gel to surface hydrophobic modifier is a result-effective variable on the surface modification effect and porosity of the aerogel (0047, 0048), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method taught by Tabata with different molar ratios of key ingredients including hydrophobizing agent. While it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the ratios of MS-51 to other key ingredients, it would not be obvious for one skilled in the art to modify the absolute weight percent of each ingredient, relative to the total solution, to be within the claimed ranges.
Yokogawa (US 6740416 B1) is also considered to be the closest prior art, in view of Kim et al. (US 20180264793 A1). Yokogawa teaches a method of making a hydrophobic silica aerogel (C11/L66) comprising the steps of:
preparing a first solution by mixing methyl silicate 51 and solvent (methanol, Example 1)
preparing a second solution by mixing solvent, ammonium hydroxide and water (Solution B, containing methanol as solvent)
mixing the first solution and the second solution together to form a mixed solution (mixed in a mass ratio of 16:17)
allowing components in the mixed solution to react to form silica wet gel (gelation of alkoxysilane solution)
preparing a fourth solution by mixing hydrophobizing agent (10% by mass of HMDS) and diluent (isopropanol)
preparing a solvent exchange solution and subjecting the silica wet gel to the solvent exchange solution to form a hydrophobic silica wet gel (dipped in isopropanol+HMDS to hydrophobize and dipped in isopropanol to wash; this is interpreted to perform a solvent exchange)
and drying the hydrophobic silica wet gel to form hydrophobic silica aerogel (supercritical drying)
Yokogawa does not teach:
Preparing a third solution by mixing ammonium hydroxide and solvent
Preparing a fourth solution by mixing MTEOS and diluent
Preparing a solvent exchange solution by mixing the third solution, the fourth solution, and solvent
wherein the methyl silicate 51 has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.7% and less than or equal to 3.9% and the methyltriethoxysilane has a total weight percent of greater than or equal to 1.2% and less than or equal to 1.5%, wherein total weight percent represents a total weight percent of a component in the first, second, third and fourth solutions.
Regarding limitation II, Yokogawa teaches preparing a fourth solution by mixing 10% by mass of HMDS and isopropanol as discussed above. Yokogawa does not teach an embodiment wherein MTEOS is taught; however, Yokogawa teaches that it is an equivalent hydrophobizing agent (C12/L29) to HMDS (C2/L25). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the substitution of MTEOS for HMDS would have predictably similar performance in the invention of Yokogawa.
Regarding limitations I and III, Kim teaches an analogous method of making a hydrophobic (0078) silica aerogel (0011) wherein a third solution of ammonium hydroxide and solvent is prepared (coating solution, solvent being ethanol, 0018) and mixed with the hydrophobizing agent HMDS (0019). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method taught by Yokogawa by preparing the ammonium hydroxide + solvent solution taught by Kim as a third solution to mix with the fourth solution taught by Yokogawa. One would be motivated to do so because Kim teaches that the coating solution modifies the surface of the gel, as does the HMDS (0077); therefore Kim teaches the equivalence of the constituents of this third solution with the HMDS taught by Yokogawa. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements known in the art to be equivalents; see MPEP Section 2144.06(I), where the courts have held that it “is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding limitation IV, neither Yokogawa nor Kim teach a total weight percent of the compounds, since the total weight percent is calculated (as claimed) by the combination of all four solutions. Yokogawa and Kim do not teach a motivation to modify these values. Kim et al. (US 2017/0369326) teaches that the molar ratio of silica wet gel to surface hydrophobic modifier is a result-effective variable on the surface modification effect and porosity of the aerogel (0047, 0048), and it would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method taught by Tabata with different molar ratios of key ingredients including hydrophobizing agent. While it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the ratios of MS-51 to other key ingredients, it would not be obvious for one skilled in the art to modify the absolute weight percent of each ingredient, relative to the total solution, to be within the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/
Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights