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 § 112
The previous rejections under this heading are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2009/0082479; already of record), in view of Hosoi et al (US 2015/0225630; herein Hosoi). Regarding claim 1:
Cho teaches combining an aerogel and polymer to make a composite, molding the composite, and heat treating the composite (Abstract and paragraphs 0030 and 0043). Cho does not teach the required mass percentages.
In the same field of endeavor Hosoi teaches an aerogel and organic component composite. Hosoi teaches 85.013 mass% aerogel and 14.987 mass% organic component in paragraphs 0116-0123. Based on the values in paragraph 0123, one calculates the mass% of the components as follows (A=aerogel, and B=organic component):
The known total volume of A+B=cubic volume of aerogel molded body=1089 cm3
The known total volume of A=cubic volume of aerogel particle=1070.8 cm3
The known total volume of B=cubic volume of adhesive=18.2 cm3
The known density of B=density of adhesive= 1.39 g/cm3
This makes the mass of B=volume of B x density of B=18.2x1.39=25.298 g
The known total density of A+B=density of aerogel molded body=0.155 g/cm3
Thus the total mass of A+B=1089x0.155=168.795 g
Thus the mass% of B =(25.298/168.795)x100=14.987%
Then the mass% of A=100%-14.987%=85.013%
Though the organic component of Hosoi is not 10% or less, Hosoi also teaches that the properties of the composite material can be controlled by controlling the amount of adhesive (paragraph 0084).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, that based on the teachings of Cho and Hosoi that one can control the properties of the composite based on the amounts of the aerogel and organic component to arrive at 10 mass% or less of the organic component in an aerogel composite. Additionally, it has been held when prior art values are close to the claimed value a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Regarding claims 2-4:
Cho teaches using polyethylene oxide or polyvinyl alcohol (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 5:
As previously discussed Cho uses polyethylene oxide. Cho heat treats the composite at temperature of 50 to 100 degrees C above the melting point if the polymer used is semi-crystalline (paragraph 0041). Per paragraph 0030 polyethylene oxide is semi-crystalline. Polyethylene oxide has a melting point of 65-70 degrees C (as evidenced by https://eureka.patsnap.com/blog/material-tech-resources/what-is-polyethylene-oxide/). Therefore, Cho heat treats at the claimed temperature.
Regarding claim 6:
Cho teaches heat treating for 1 minute to 10 hours (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 8:
Cho teaches the aerogel is a silica aerogel (paragraph 0024).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho and Hosoi, and in further view of Menashi et al (US 2008/0287561: herein Menashi, already of record). Regarding claim 7:
Cho and Hosoi are silent to the addition of either an infrared shielding particle or an inorganic fiber. In the same field of aerogel composites, Menashi teaches adding an IR opacifier to the composite (paragraph 0135).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the IR opacifier of Menashi, since it helps reduce the thermal conductivity of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been considered but are essentially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the argument of Cho and teaching away based on paragraph 0036 of Cho. Paragraph 0036 of Cho explains what happens above and below the disclosed aerogel/polymer ratio. The Applicant argues that one cannot alter Cho since it would teach away. However, paragraph 0036 of Cho simply discloses non-preferred embodiments (See MPEP 2123 II). Since Cho and Hosoi teach what can happen at different values of the composition, this still provide a prima facie case of obviousness to a skilled artisan to alter the values of Cho based on the teachings of Cho and Hosoi.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
