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 without traverse of claims 1-13, 16-20 in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The “Contacting” term in line 3 should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, III et al. (US 2021/0317283 A1), in view of Zhao et al. (WO 2021/089815 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Steiner discloses a method of producing an aerogel – (construed as a method for producing a porous or non-porous three-dimensional structure). The method to include having as a gel backbone a silica material hydrolyzed with water, see at least [0034] – (construed as contacting a silicate and water to form a silicate-water solution); in the presence of a catalyst of an alcohol, see at least [0034] – (construed as contacting the silicate-water solution with a first alcohol to form a gel). The gel is a feedstock for an additive manufacturing apparatus and/or an extrusion-based process, see at least [0049].
To the extent Steiner III does not explicitly disclose the “ejecting the gel layer by layer using the additive manufacturing apparatus and/or the extrusion-based process to form a three-dimensional build part with or without pores, and heating and/or drying the build part”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steiner III as claimed since: Zhao discloses a method of preparing and product of an ink composition for additive manufacture of silica aerogel objects. This to include having the object formed by a gellable ink composition containing silica aerogel particles. Wherein, the gellable ink composition is deposited onto a substrate and subsequently dried to form the silica aerogel object; the object having pores, see at least page 4 lines 8-24, page 7 lines 1-5 – (construed as ejecting the gel layer by layer using the additive manufacturing apparatus and/or the extrusion-based process to form a three-dimensional build part with or without pores, and heating and/or drying the build part). Moreover, one of ordinary skill would entertain such a silica aerogel process as Zhao discloses it produces a simple, reliable and convenient methodology for making silica aerogel based objects.
Regarding claims 2, 12, modified Steiner discloses the pore fluid in the gel is exchanged for an alcohol to include ethanol or methanol, see [0124] – (construed as a second alcohol is introduced into the pores of the build part; and the second alcohol is selected from a group consisting of: ethanol, methanol and a combination thereof).
Regarding claims 5, 17-18, while modified Steiner discloses the gel is reinforced with materials such as fiber comprising glass, carbon, ceramic and metals, see at least [0099] – (construed as fillers are added, wherein the fillers are selected from a group consisting of: ceramics, glasses, metals, and carbon; wherein the fillers are of a shape selected from a group consisting of: granulates, fibers, cubes, and combinations thereof); it does not explicitly disclose the amount added. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Steiner discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed filler amount. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the filler in the claimed volume amount, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select an amount of 1 vol% to 60 vol% for the purpose of reinforcing the aerogel in a desirable manner.
Regarding claim 6, modified Steiner discloses water glass (contains silicate) is diluted with water at room temperature, see Zhao page 17 line 24. And where room temperature is taken as 0-50° C, see Steiner [0026] – (construed as the water and the silicate are brought into contact with each other during a temperature range between 5°C - 70°C). It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, modified Steiner discloses not explicitly disclose the first alcohol is provided in a range between 20% to 50% with respect to the mass of a mixture comprising the silicate-water-solution and the first alcohol. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the filler in the claimed volume amount, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select an amount of 20% to 50 with respect to the mass of a mixture for the forming a contiguous mesoporous network that spans the volume of the liquid.
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Steiner discloses a polyurea gel – (contains silicate), water and alcohol is acetone (construed as a Ketone) and mixed and stirred, see at least [0137] – (construed as after contacting the silicate-water solution with the first alcohol, shaking and/or stirring of a container takes place, wherein the mixture comprising the silicate-water solution and the first alcohol is inside the container).
Regarding claims 10, 19, while modified Steiner discloses the additive manufacturing apparatus applies the gel onto a build platform via an extrusion-based manufacturing and/or an extrusion-based additive manufacturing process, see at least Steiner [0129]; it does not explicitly disclose the temperature of the gel in the apparatus is at or about room temperature and a temperature of the build platform is up to 70°C. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide extrude the gel at room temperature onto the build platform which is kept at a higher temperature, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select a build platform temperature of 70°C to stabilize the aerogel by drying it as its extruded onto a higher temperature build platform.
Claims 3-4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, III et al. (US 2021/0317283 A1), in view of Zhao et al. (WO 2021/089815 A1 – of record), as applied to claim xx above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0380222 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, 16, while modified Steiner discloses the use of an alkali metal in forming the solid phase of the gel material; it does not explicitly disclose the alkali silicates is described by a formula M20·nSi02, wherein M is selected from a group consisting of: alkali metals lithium (Li), sodium (Na), and potassium (K).
Kim discloses a method of preparing a highly hydrophobic silica aerogel product with an excellent surface modification efficiency. The method to include having a silica precursor as a water glass solution formed of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) obtained by melting silicon dioxide and alkali, see at least [0045] – (construed as the silicate is selected from a group consisting of: alkali silicates described by a formula M20· nSi02, wherein M is selected from a group consisting of alkali metals lithium (Li), sodium (Na), and potassium (K); wherein the silicate is water glass and M is selected from a group consisting of: sodium (Na), lithium (Li) and potassium (K)). And where the water glass solution has a dispersion of 1% to 11% weight of silicon dioxide – (construed as the silicate-water solution contains a proportion of the silicate in the range between 9% and 45 % based on the mass of the silicate--water solution). Kim further discloses such an amount allows for a balance between aerogel formation and surface area degradation, see [0046].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of aerosol production of modified Steiner to include the use of water glass using the claimed formula and in the claimed amount as taught by Kim to provide the method with a means for ensuring proper formation of the aerogel as suggested by Kim.
Claims 11, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, III et al. (US 2021/0317283 A1), in view of Zhao et al. (WO 2021/089815 A1 – of record), as applied to claim xx above, and further in view of Mayr et al. (US 2018/0148378 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 13, 20, while modified Steiner discloses the use of a second alcohol and placing the aerogel in an oven; it doesn’t explicitly disclose the second alcohol is introduced into the pores of the build part by dropping, spraying, soaking and/or with a bath, wherein the introduction of the second alcohol into the bath is parallel or after ejecting the gel using the additive manufacturing and/or the extrusion-based process.
Mayr discloses an additive manufacturing process to include printing an aerogel. Wherein after printing the aerogel is soaked in an alcohol solvent to clean the gel, see at least [0157] – [0160] – (corresponds to a second alcohol is introduced into the pores of the build part by dropping, spraying, soaking and/or with a bath, wherein the introduction of the second alcohol into the bath is parallel or after ejecting the gel using the additive manufacturing and/or the extrusion-based process). Additionally, the gel is post-cured by heat to improve stability at temperatures of 40 to 80° C and/or dried in an oven to remove solvent at temperatures up to 150° C, see [0162], [0201] - (construed as for drying and/or heating the build part is transferred into an oven and/or a microwave; and the drying and/or heating occurs at a temperature of up to 500° C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steiner’s method to include an alcohol bath and drying steps in an oven at temperatures up to 500°C as taught by Mayr to clean and dry the aerogel after printing which improves the stability of the aerogel as suggested by Mayr.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Whatley can be reached on 5712705545. 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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749