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 § 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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0333490 A1, cited in IDS submitted June 25, 2025) in view of either of Krajewski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0269734 A1) or Rhine et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0246806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method of making an article ([0003] of Wang, methods for producing window retrofits), comprising: positioning an aerogel sheet on a glass sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 is formed and directly bonded to glass sheet #1503), the aerogel sheet comprising a first face, a second face, and an edge forming an outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 has opposed faces and edges forming an outer perimeter); and applying a material to encapsulate the edge along at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab and glass sheet assembly encapsulated in a polymer envelope).
Wang does not specifically disclose the encapsulating material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol. Moreover, Wang discloses encapsulating the aerogel-glass assembly in a polymer envelope ([0065] of Wang) but does not specifically disclose an encapsulating polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol. Krajewski discloses aerogel composites comprising an aerogel material coated with a polymeric material (Abstract of Krajewski). According to Krajewski, the polymer coating can be a glycol modified polyethylene terephthalate ([0014] of Krajewski). Rhine similarly discloses transparent aerogel assemblies wherein the aerogel is faced with a transparent plastic such as a glycol modified polyethylene terephthalate (Abstract, [0049] of Rhine). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an encapsulating material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol in the method of Wang since Krajewski and Rhine Each establish that it was known to coat or face aerogels with such polymers. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses that the step of applying the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol encapsulates the edge along an entirety of the outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15B of Wang, glass aerogel assembly completely encapsulated by polymer envelope which would necessarily encapsulate the edge along the entire perimeter).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses that the step of positioning the aerogel sheet on the glass sheet comprises positioning an entirety of the first face of the aerogel sheet on the glass sheet (FIG. 15B of Wang, entire face of aerogel #104 positioned on glass #1503).
Regarding claims 4-6, Wang does not specifically disclose: that the step of applying the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol places the aerogel sheet in contact with the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol without any resulting degradation of the aerogel sheet as recited in claim 4; that the step of applying the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol bonds the aerogel sheet to the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol without any resulting degradation of the aerogel sheet as recited in claim 5; or that the step of applying the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol bonds the aerogel sheet to the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol without any resulting cracking of the aerogel sheet as recited in claim 6. The heated polymeric would necessarily come into contact with and bond to some degree to the aerogel sheet during spraying. In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying conditions to prevent degradation or cracking of the aerogel sheet in the modified process.
Regarding claim 10, Wang does not specifically disclose that the step of applying the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol includes dispensing heated polyethylene terephthalate glycol from a nozzle while maintaining a gap distance between the nozzle and the second face of the aerogel sheet, such that the heated polyethylene terephthalate glycol dispensed from the nozzle cools while moving between the nozzle and the second face of the aerogel sheet. Krajewski, however, discloses that the polymeric coating can be applied on the surface of the aerogel material by spraying a molten polymer through a nozzle ([0019] of Krajewski). Krajewski also discloses that a gap distance is maintained between the nozzle of the sprayer #4 and the aerogel composite #2 (FIG. 2 of Krajewski). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to spray the heated polymeric material to form the polymeric coating on the aerogel in the modified method since Krajewski establishes that it was known to do so to form polymer coatings on aerogels. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Spraying necessarily involves maintaining a gap between the nozzle and the surface being sprayed and heat would necessarily be lost while spraying the heated polymeric material.
Regarding claim 11, Krajewski does not specifically disclose that the gap distance is maintained so as to allow the heated polyethylene terephthalate glycol to begin curing before coming into contact with the second face of the aerogel sheet. Some heat would necessarily be lost by the polymer while spraying the heated polymeric material as the material travels the gap between the spray nozzle and the aerogel surface in the modified method resulting in a partially cured material contacting and bonding to the aerogel sheet.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of either of Krajewski or Rhine as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li (“Dynamic Mismatch Between Bonded Dissimilar Materials”, JOM, June 1993, pp. 43-46, https://www.efineametals.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Dynamic_Mismatch_Between_Bonded_Dissimilar_MaterialsR.pdf).
Regarding claim 7, Wang does not specifically disclose that the step of applying the material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol comprises applying the polyethylene terephthalate glycol in a heated state such that it becomes compatible with the thermal expansion coefficient of the aerogel sheet before contacting the aerogel sheet. Li, however, discloses that mismatches in temperature, CTEs and thermal strain and stress profiles are important criteria is bonding dissimilar materials and can result in damage to the joint or coated substrate (pg. 43 of Li). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the polyethylene terephthalate glycol in a heated state such that it becomes compatible with the thermal expansion coefficient of the aerogel sheet before contacting the aerogel sheet in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent damage to the substrate as taught by Li (pg. 43 of Li).
Claims 19-22, 31-33 and 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Krajewski.
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses a method of making an article ([0003] of Wang, methods for producing window retrofits), comprising: positioning an aerogel sheet on a glass sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 is formed and directly bonded to glass sheet #1503), the aerogel sheet comprising a first face, a second face, and an edge forming an outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 has opposed faces and edges forming an outer perimeter); and dispensing heated organic material to encapsulate the edge along at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab and glass sheet assembly encapsulated in a polymer envelope; [0070] of Wang, thermoforming and heat sealing used to encapsulate the assembly in the polymer envelope which would necessarily involve heating the polymer).
Wang does not specifically disclose that the dispensing involves dispensing the heated organic material from a nozzle while maintaining a gap distance between the nozzle and the aerogel sheet, such that the heated organic material cools while moving between the nozzle and the aerogel sheet. Krajewski, however, discloses applying a polymeric coating to the surface of an aerogel material by spraying a molten polymer through a nozzle ([0019] of Krajewski). Krajewski also discloses that a gap distance is maintained between the nozzle of the sprayer #4 and the aerogel composite #2 (FIG. 2 of Krajewski). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to spray the heated polymeric material to form the coating on the aerogel in the method of Wang since Krajewski establishes that it was known to do so to form coating on aerogels. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Some heat would necessarily be lost by the polymer while spraying the heated polymeric material as the material travels the gap between the spray nozzle and the aerogel surface.
Regarding claim 20, Krajewski does not specifically disclose that the gap distance is maintained so as to allow the heated organic material to begin curing before contacting the aerogel sheet. Some cooling or curing, however, would necessarily occur after the heated material leaves the nozzle in the modified method.
Regarding claim 21, Krajewski does not specifically disclose that the heated organic material, upon contacting the aerogel sheet, is in a partially cured state such that it bonds to the aerogel sheet without any resulting degradation of the aerogel sheet. Some heat would necessarily be lost by the polymer while spraying the heated polymeric material as the material travels the gap between the spray nozzle and the aerogel surface resulting in a partially cured material contacting and bonding to the aerogel sheet. In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying conditions to prevent degradation of the aerogel sheet in the modified process.
Regarding claim 22, Krajewski does not specifically disclose that the heated organic material, upon contacting the aerogel sheet, is in a partially cured state such that it bonds to the aerogel sheet without any resulting cracking of the aerogel sheet. Some heat would necessarily be lost by the polymer while spraying the heated polymeric material as the material travels the gap between the spray nozzle and the aerogel surface resulting in a partially cured material contacting and bonding to the aerogel sheet. In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying conditions to prevent cracking of the aerogel sheet in the modified process.
Regarding claim 31, Wang discloses that the aerogel sheet comprises silica aerogel ([0003] of Wang, silica aerogel slab).
Regarding claim 32, Wang discloses that the silica aerogel comprises silica aerogel synthesized from methyl silicate ([0011] of Wang, aerogel formed from tetramethyl orthosilicate).
Regarding claim 33, Wang does not disclose that the heated organic material comprises heated polyethylene terephthalate glycol. Krajewski, however, discloses aerogel composites comprising an aerogel material coated with a polymeric material (Abstract of Krajewski). According to Krajewski, the polymer coating can be a glycol modified polyethylene terephthalate ([0014] of Krajewski). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an encapsulating material comprising polyethylene terephthalate glycol in the method of Wang since Krajewski establishes that it was known to coat or face aerogels with such polymers. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 40, Wang discloses that the step of positioning the aerogel sheet on the glass sheet comprises positioning an entirety of the first face of the aerogel sheet on the glass sheet (FIG. 15B of Wang, entire face of aerogel #104 positioned on glass #1503).
Regarding claim 41, Wang discloses that some of the heated organic material contacts the second face of the aerogel sheet, the first face of the aerogel sheet being in contact with the glass sheet, the second face of the aerogel sheet facing away from the glass sheet (FIG. 15B of Wang).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 12-18, 23-30 and 34-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 8, 12, 13 and 18, the closest prior art is to Wang. Wang discloses a method of making an article ([0003] of Wang, methods for producing window retrofits), comprising: positioning an aerogel sheet on a glass sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 is formed and directly bonded to glass sheet #1503), the aerogel sheet comprising a first face, a second face, and an edge forming an outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 has opposed faces and edges forming an outer perimeter); and applying a material to encapsulate the edge along at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab and glass sheet assembly encapsulated in a polymer envelope). While Krajewski provides motivation to use polyethylene terephthalate glycol as an encapsulating polymer (Abstract, [0014] of Krajewski), neither Wang, Krajewski nor any of the other prior art references teach or reasonably suggest a method wherein: the PET-G has a temperature of 150 – 194 ℃ upon contacting the aerogel sheet as recited in claim 8; wherein the heated polyethylene terephthalate glycol, upon leaving the nozzle, is at a temperature in a range of from 185 °C to 250 °C and the gap distance is in a range of from 1 mm to 4 mm as recited in claim 12; wherein the gap distance is in a range of from greater than 4 mm to 6 mm as recited in claim 13 or wherein wherein the heated polyethylene terephthalate glycol, upon contacting the second face of the aerogel sheet, is at a temperature in a range of from 150°C to 194°C.
Regarding claims 23, 34 and 36, the closest prior art is also to Wang. Wang discloses a method of making an article ([0003] of Wang, methods for producing window retrofits), comprising: positioning an aerogel sheet on a glass sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 is formed and directly bonded to glass sheet #1503), the aerogel sheet comprising a first face, a second face, and an edge forming an outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab #104 has opposed faces and edges forming an outer perimeter); and dispensing heated organic material to encapsulate the edge along at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the aerogel sheet (FIG. 15A, [0065] of Wang, aerogel slab and glass sheet assembly encapsulated in a polymer envelope; [0070] of Wang, thermoforming and heat sealing used to encapsulate the assembly in the polymer envelope which would necessarily involve heating the polymer). While Krajewski provides motivation to dispense the heated organic material from a nozzle while maintaining a gap distance between the nozzle and the aerogel sheet, such that the heated organic material cools while moving between the nozzle and the aerogel sheet (FIG. 2, [0019] of Krajewski), neither Wang, Krajewski nor any of the other prior art references teach or reasonably suggest a method wherein: the gap distance is is in a range of from 1 mm to 6 mm as recited in claim 23; the heated polyethylene terephthalate glycol, upon contacting aerogel sheet, is at a temperature in a range of from 150°C to 194°C as recited in claim 34; or wherein, upon leaving the nozzle, the polyethylene terephthalate glycol is at a temperature in a range of from 185 °C to 250 °C and the gap distance is in a range of greater than 4 mm to 6 mm as recited in claim 36.
The prior art as a whole therefore fails to teach or reasonably suggest the totality of the invention as defined by claims 8, 12, 13, 18, 23, 34 and 36. In the absence of further prior art guidance, it would not have been obvious to arrive at the invention of these claims without impermissible hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, the invention of these claims is deemed non-obvious. Claim 9 depends from claim 8. Claims 14-17 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 13. Claims 24-30 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 23. Claim 35 depends from claim 34. Claims 37-39 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 36. These dependent claims are therefore also deemed non-obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 8, 12, 13, 18, 23, 34 and 36.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights