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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant Remarks and Claims, filed on 4/6/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurwitz et al (US 10,343,131 B1).
Hurwitz teaches method of making an aluminosilicate aerogel, the method comprising hydrolyzing a silica precursor (e.g., triethyl orthosilicate) to produce colloidal silica; introducing an aluminum compound (e.g., boehmite) to the colloidal silica to produce a colloidal aluminosilicate suspension, wherein the silica precursor is fully hydrolyzed prior to introducing the aluminum compound; converting the colloidal aluminosilicate suspension to an aluminosilicate gel composition; and aging the aluminosilicate gel composition; forming the aluminosilicate aerogel by extracting a fluid; wherein aging the aluminosilicate gel composition is done prior to forming the aluminosilicate aerogel; wherein aging the aluminosilicate gel composition is done for a time ranging about 24 hours; further comprising dispersing the colloidal aluminosilicate suspension on a reinforcement material prior to converting the colloidal aluminosilicate suspension to an aluminosilicate gel composition (col 6, lines 64-67; col 10, lines 24-33; fig 1, 20); wherein the reinforcement material is a fiber material(e.g., ceramic papers, felts or fabrics); wherein hydrolyzing the silica precursor comprises adding a sol initiator comprising nitric acid; wherein forming the aluminosilicate aerogel comprises extracting excess fluid using a supercritical extraction process (col 6, line 36 – col 7, line 49; col 10, lines 24-33; fig 1, 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz.
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that to adjust the temperature during the aging process of the gel to accelerate the gelling time; so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the temperature during the aging process to optimize the gelling time.
Regarding claim 7, Hurwitz teaches the colloidal silica is mixed with the aluminum compound prior to dispersing on the reinforcement material However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to disperse the colloidal silica on a reinforcement material and contemporaneously introducing the aluminum compound; since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; and selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 IVC).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Evans et al (US 2021/0309527 A1).
Hurwitz teaches the method of making an aluminosilicate aerogel of claim 1.
Hurwitz fails to suggest wherein converting the colloidal aluminosilicate suspension to an aluminosilicate gel composition comprises adding a gel initiator comprising a metal hydroxide base or an amine base.
Evans teaches methods of making aerogel using catalysts such as sodium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, strontium hydroxide, barium hydroxide, guanidine hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, tetrabutylammonium hydroxide, tetramethylammonium hydroxide, choline hydroxide, phosphonium hydroxide, DABCO, DBU, guanidine derivatives, amidines, and phosphazenes (abstract, para 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the catalyst of Evans in the process of Hurwitz to start or speed up the gelling process.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz in view of Evans.
Hurwitz as modified by Evans teaches the method of making the aerogel of the instant claims as demonstrated above as well as would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the method required to arrive at the embodiments of instant claims 16-20 (see instant specification examples and para 123-115).
Therefore, the aerogel of Hurwitz as modified by Evans is deemed to possess the properties of the aerogel of the instant claims. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends that do not teach or suggest wherein the silica precursor is fully hydrolyzed prior to introducing the aluminum compound. Hurwitz explicitly teaches the opposite sequence: creating an aluminum/Boehmite colloid first, and then adding a hydrolyzed silicon precursor to that aluminum colloid.
This is not persuasive. The Examiner notes that Hurwitz teaches that TEOS was hydrolyzed in ethanol, water, and nitric acid for 60 minutes (i.e., wherein the silica precursor is fully hydrolyzed prior to introducing the aluminum compound), then added to the boehmite (i.e., introducing the aluminum compound) (col 10, lines 24-33) which appears to match the process of fully hydrolyzing the silica precursor of the instant specification (para 49-51 of instant spec).
The Examiner notes that nothing in the instant claim language appears to limit the aluminum compound from being in the form of a colloid. The transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (MPEP § 2111.03).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights