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 Interpretation
The transitional phrases “having” and “has” I the claims are being interpreted per MPEP 2111.03 IV, based on a reading of the specification these phrases are being interpreted as open claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is seen as vague and indefinite since as written it requires all 7 chemicals listed, which seems to be counter to the specification (e.g. paragraph 0015 and 0044). The specification appears to indicate using at least one of the listed surfactants. For examination purposes claim 4 will be interpreted as if it said “comprises at least one of.”
Claim 7 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is referring back to? Essentially, what type of what? “Type” is used in claim 3, but it refers to the type of dispersant; this is not the case in claim 7. It is suggested to amend claim 7 to say: “wherein the composition further has other components selected from…” This language is supported by paragraph 0046 of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US 2009/0082479). 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)
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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of Menashi et al (US 2008/0287561: herein Menashi). Regarding claim 7:
Cho is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2008/0220333, US 2015/0079485, and US 2016/0181585 disclose molding of aerogel composites.
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
Prosecution Insights