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.
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; 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; fig 1, 20);
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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aerogel: The Sol-Gel Process (2021) gives basic overview of the sol-gel process of making aerogel.
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