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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-34 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 12/1/2025.
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 1-34 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 6,298,765 to Dvorak in view of US Patent Number 9,079,674 to Grillos
and US Patent Application Number 2019/0047234 by Stone.
Regarding claim 1, Dvorak discloses a space system, comprising:
A space vehicle (spacecraft 14) having a sub-structure, and further having an external surface configured to be exposed to both an atmospheric environment during launch and an exo-atmospheric environment after launch (spacecraft surface 12), the external surface being formed, at least in part, by a micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) protection system (hypervelocity impact shield assembly 10), the MMOD protection system including:
(a) a front face sheet (side of cover member 20 in Figure 1 or 37 in Figures 2 and 3 facing away from surface 12) and a rear face sheet spaced apart from the front face sheet (side of cover member 20/37 facing towards surface 12), the front face sheet facing outwardly and forming at least a portion of the external surface, and the rear face sheet facing inwardly opposite the front face sheet (see Figures 1 and 2);
(b) two or more absorption core layers (spacing element 38, column 3, lines 61-62 disclose “The primary spacing element 18 is preferably a foam”);
(c) a first impact resistant fabric layer (impactor disrupting/shocking layer 36, column 3, lines 45-48 list a variety of materials for this layer including Nextel ceramic fiber cloth and Kevlar) positioned between the first absorption core layer and the second absorption core layer (Figure 2 shows the impactor disrupting/shocking layer of, for example, multi-shock subassembly 30 being between the spacing element 38 of subassembly 28 and the rear face sheet of cover member 20);
wherein the front face sheet and the rear face sheet comprise a metal matrix composite, polymer composite, metal sheet, or combination thereof (column 4, lines 17-19 disclose “The cover member 20 is preferably formed of Beta ClothTM glass fiber material,” which is a polymer composite), and
wherein the MMOD protection system is secured to the sub-structure prior to launch (the abstract discloses “The space-rated open cell foam material provides an extremely lightweight, low-cost, efficient means of spacing and supporting the at least one sacrificial impactor disrupting/shocking layer before, during, and after launch”).
Dvorak does not disclose a first absorption core layer of the two or more absorption core layers in contact with the front face sheet and a second absorption core layer of the two or more absorption core layers in contact with the rear face sheet, the first impact resistant fabric layer being in contact with the first absorption core layer opposite the front sheet, a second impact resistant fabric layer positioned between the first impact resistant fabric layer and the second absorption core layer, the second impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the first impact resistant fabric layer on a first side and in contact with the second absorption core layer on a second side. However, these limitations are taught by Grillos. Grillos discloses composite panels for space vehicles, and Figure 2 shows a first absorption core layer 230 in contact with front face sheet 220 and a second absorption core layer 232 in contact with rear face sheet 222 and intermediate sheet 224 positioned between core layers 230 and 232. Column 3, lines 15-18 disclose “the intermediate sheet 224 can be comprised of a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin material, such as fiber fabric reinforced epoxy resin”, and the different plies comprise a plurality of impact resistant fabric layers that comprise a first impact resistant fabric layer in contact with first absorption core layer 230 and a second impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the first impact resistant fabric layer on a first side and in contact with the second absorption core layer 222 on the second side. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvorak and Joynt using the teachings from Grillos as a substitution of known types of core layers for micro-meteor protection.
Dvorak does not disclose an expandable adhesive layer carried by the rear face sheet and attached between the rear face sheet and the sub-structure to secure the MMOD protection system to the sub-structure. However, this limitation is taught by Stone. Stone discloses a protective assembly for an aerospace structure, and paragraph 50 discloses “the assembly 100 may be bonded to the aerospace structure 110 by an adhesive bonding or vulcanization process”. Dvorak discloses the use of attachment portions 40 to attach the cover member 37 to the spacecraft surface 12. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvorak using the teachings from Stone to use known types of attachment methods to attach protective assemblies to a spacecraft.
Dvorak and Stone does not explicitly disclose the adhesive layer being a foam adhesive layer. However, having disclosed the use of adhesives to bond the assembly to the aerospace structure, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose different types of adhesives as desired.
Regarding claims 2 (dependent on claim 1), Stone further teaches discloses the rear face sheet comprises at least one of a rear wall of the sub-structure or a sheet bonded to the sub-structure. Paragraph 50 discloses “the assembly 100 may be bonded to the aerospace structure 110 by an adhesive bonding or vulcanization process”
Regarding claims 3 (dependent on claim 1), 22 (dependent on claim 16), Dvorak does not disclose the metal matrix composite includes an aluminum matrix composite. However, claim 1 presents a list of material options for the face sheets, and does not specifically require a metal matrix composite. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose materials that are used in the art such as aluminum composites depending on the desired properties for the component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 4 (dependent on claim 1), 23 (dependent on claim 16), Dvorak does not disclose the polymer composite comprises fiberglass reinforced epoxy composites. However, Dvorak discloses the use of Beta Cloth glass fiber material, which is a fiberglass reinforced PTFE composite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use known materials such as epoxy composites instead of PTFE depending on the desired properties for the component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 5 (dependent on claim 1), 24 (dependent on claim 16), Dvorak does not disclose the metal sheet comprising aluminum or an alloy thereof. However, claim 1 presents a list of material options for the face sheets, and does not specifically require a metal sheet. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose materials that are used in the art such as aluminum or aluminum alloys depending on the desired properties for the component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 6 (dependent on claim 1), 7 (dependent on claim 6), 25 (dependent on claim 16), 26 (dependent on claim 25), Dvorak discloses at least one of the two or more absorption core layers comprising foam, honeycomb material, or combination thereof, wherein the foam includes perforated foam having a network of at least one of laterally or longitudinally extending tunnels. Column 3, lines 53-55 disclose “The primary spacing element is formed of an appropriate space-rated open cell foam material”.
Regarding claims 8 (dependent on claim 6), 27 (dependent on claim 25), Dvorak does not disclose the foam comprising polyurethane foam. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose materials that are used in the art such as polyurethane foams depending on the desired properties for the component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 9 (dependent on claim 1), 28 (dependent on claim 16), Dvorak discloses the at least one of the first impact resistant fabric layer or of the second impact resistant fabric layer comprising a ceramic oxide fiber (column 3, lines 45-46 discloses Nextel ceramic fiber cloth”), an aramid fiber (column 3, line 46 discloses Kevlar material).
Regarding claims 10 (dependent on claim 1), 29 (dependent on claim 16), Dvorak does not explicitly disclose a distance from the front face sheet to the sub-structure is about 4 inches. However, column 3, lines 59-61 suggests “The element 18 preferably is in a thickness of between about 1/8 inch to 4 inches depending on the desired performance of the shield assembly”, and element 18 makes up part of the thickness of the shield assembly. It would therefore be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the shield assembly of whatever thickness was desired in order to provide the desired performance of the shield assembly.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Dvorak discloses the MMOD protection system is formed as a tile (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 12 (dependent on claim 1), 31 (dependent on claim 30), Dvorak discloses the sub-structure forms a portion of the payload, and wherein the MMOD is attached to the substructure of the payload. Column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 1 discloses “Compressibility allows the assembly 10 to be flattened, if necessary, prior to launch to accommodate more payload volume”.
Regarding claims 13 (dependent on claim 1) and 17 (dependent on claim 16), Dvorak discloses the space vehicle including a payload (column 4, line 1 discloses “payload volume”), and wherein the space system does not include a removeable fairing around the payload at launch (shield assembly 10 is attached to spacecraft surface 12, which is not a removable fairing).
Regarding claims 14 (dependent on claim 1), 15 (dependent on claim 14), 34 (dependent on claim 33), Dvorak does not disclose the space vehicle including an orbital habitat, wherein the space system does not include a removable fairing around the orbital habitat at launch, wherein the orbital habitat includes a launch propulsion system activatable to propel the space system during launch. However, the examiner takes official notice that the use or orbital habitats such as space shuttles or capsules are notoriously well-known in the art, including many that do not include a removable fairing at launch.
Regarding claim 16, Dvorak discloses a method for operating a space system, comprising:
Launching a space vehicle (spacecraft 14) through an atmosphere (column 2, lines 56-60 discuss the shield materials before, during, and after launch), the space vehicle having a sub-structure, and further having an external surface configured to be exposed to both an atmospheric environment during launch and an exo-atmospheric environment after launch (spacecraft surface 12), the external surface being formed, at least in part, by a micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) protection system (hypervelocity impact shield assembly 10), the MMOD protection system including:
(a) a front face sheet (side of cover member 20 in Figure 1 or 37 in Figures 2 and 3 facing away from surface 12) and a rear face sheet spaced apart from the front face sheet (side of cover member 20/37 facing towards surface 12), the front face sheet facing outwardly and forming at least a portion of the external surface, and the rear face sheet being attached to the sub-structure (see Figures 1 and 2);
(b) a plurality of absorption core layers positioned between the front face sheet and the rear face sheet(spacing element 38, column 3, lines 61-62 disclose “The primary spacing element 18 is preferably a foam”); and
(c) a paired resistant fabric layer (impactor disrupting/shocking layer 36, column 3, lines 45-48 list a variety of materials for this layer including Nextel ceramic fiber cloth and Kevlar) positioned between the one or more absorption core layers and the rear face sheet (Figure 2 shows the impactor disrupting/shocking layer of, for example, multi-shock subassembly 30 being between the spacing element 38 of subassembly 28 and the rear face sheet of cover member 20);
wherein the front face sheet and the rear face sheet comprise a metal matrix composite, polymer composite, metal sheet, or combination thereof (column 4, lines 17-19 disclose “The cover member 20 is preferably formed of Beta ClothTM glass fiber material,” which is a polymer composite); and
Directing the space vehicle out of the atmosphere and into space with the MMOD protection system attached (column 2, lines 56-60 disclose “The space-rated open cell foam material provides an extremely lightweight, low-cost, efficient means of spacing and supporting the at least one sacrificial impactor disrupting/shocking layer before, during, and after launch”).
Dvorak does not disclose a first absorption core layer of the plurality of absorption core layers in contact with the front face sheet, a second absorption core layer of the plurality of absorption core layers in contact with the rear face sheet, and at least a third absorption core layer of the plurality of absorption core layers between the first absorption core layer and the second core layer, the paired impact resistant fabric layer including a first impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the first absorption core layer and a second impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the first impact resistant fabric layer and the third absorption core layer. However, these limitations are taught by Grillos. Grillos discloses composite panels for space vehicles, and Figure 3 shows a first absorption core layer 230 in contact with front face sheet 220, a second absorption core layer 232 in contact with rear face sheet 222, and a third impact absorption core layer 234 between the two, and intermediate sheet 224 positioned between core layers 230 and 234. Column 3, lines 15-18 disclose “the intermediate sheet 224 can be comprised of a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin material, such as fiber fabric reinforced epoxy resin”, and the different plies comprise a plurality of impact resistant fabric layers that comprise a first impact resistant fabric layer in contact with first absorption core layer 230 and a second impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the first impact resistant fabric layer on a first side and in contact with the second absorption core layer 222 on the second side. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvorak and Joynt using the teachings from Grillos as a substitution of known types of core layers for micro-meteor protection.
Dvorak does not disclose an expandable adhesive layer carried by the rear face sheet and attached between the rear face sheet and the sub-structure to secure the MMOD protection system to the sub-structure. However, this limitation is taught by Stone. Stone discloses a protective assembly for an aerospace structure, and paragraph 50 discloses “the assembly 100 may be bonded to the aerospace structure 110 by an adhesive bonding or vulcanization process”. Dvorak discloses the use of attachment portions 40 to attach the cover member 37 to the spacecraft surface 12. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvorak using the teachings from Stone to use known types of attachment methods to attach protective assemblies to a spacecraft.
Dvorak and Stone does not explicitly disclose the adhesive layer being a foam adhesive layer. However, having disclosed the use of adhesives to bond the assembly to the aerospace structure, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose different types of adhesives as desired.
Regarding claims 18 (dependent on claim 17), 19 (dependent on claim 18), 32 (dependent on claim 30), 33 (dependent on claim 32), Dvorak discloses the space vehicle including a payload (column 4, line 1 discloses “payload volume”).
Dvorak does not explicitly disclose the payload including at least one of a space station component, an orbital storage facility, an orbital habitat, an interplanetary spacecraft, or a rocket stage. However, the examiner takes official notice that these are all well-known types of payload for spacecraft, and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the space vehicle of Dvorak to deliver any of these payloads as needed. Since the applicant has not traversed the examiner’s official notice, the notice is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03(C), second paragraph).
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), Dvorak does not disclose the orbital habitat including a launch propulsion system, and wherein the method further comprises activating the launch propulsion system during launch, deactivating the launch propulsion system after launch, and converting the orbital habitat for human occupation when the orbital habitat is in orbit. However, the examiner takes official notice that these are well-known methods to launch orbital habitats such as space shuttles and capsules into space, and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvorak to use the launch system to deliver known spacecraft payloads such as space shuttles and capsules.
Regarding claim 21 (dependent on claim 16), Grillos further teaches a fourth absorption core layer of the plurality of absorption core layers (236), and a second pair impact resistant fabric layer positioned between the third absorption core layer and the fourth absorption core layer (224a), the second paired impact resistant fabric layer including a third impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the third absorption core layer and a fourth impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the fourth absorption core layer (column 3, lines 15-18 disclose “the intermediate sheet 224 can be comprised of a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin material, such as fiber fabric reinforced epoxy resin”, and the different plies comprise a plurality of impact resistant fabric layers that comprise a third impact resistant fabric layer in contact with third absorption core layer 234 and a second impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the first impact resistant fabric layer on a first side and in contact with the second absorption core layer 236 on the second side).
Regarding claim 30, Dvorak discloses a method for manufacturing a space system, comprising:
Positioning a micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) protection system (hypervelocity impact shield assembly 10) proximate to a sub-structure of a space vehicle (surface 12), the MMOD protection system including:
(a) a front face sheet (side of cover member 20 in Figure 1 or 37 in Figures 2 and 3 facing away from surface 12) and a rear face sheet spaced apart from the front face sheet (side of cover member 20/37 facing towards surface 12), the front face sheet facing outwardly and forming at least a portion of the external surface (see Figures 1 and 2);
(b) a plurality of absorption core layers (spacing element 38, column 3, lines 61-62 disclose “The primary spacing element 18 is preferably a foam”); and
(c) at least one impact resistant fabric layer (impactor disrupting/shocking layer 36, column 3, lines 45-48 list a variety of materials for this layer including Nextel ceramic fiber cloth and Kevlar) positioned between the one or more absorption core layers and the rear face sheet (Figure 2 shows the impactor disrupting/shocking layer of, for example, multi-shock subassembly 30 being between the spacing element 38 of subassembly 28 and the rear face sheet of cover member 20);
Wherein the front face sheet is positioned to be exposed during launch, and unprotected by a fairing (column 2, lines 56-60 disclose “The space-rated open cell foam material provides an extremely lightweight, low-cost, efficient means of spacing and supporting the at least one sacrificial impactor disrupting/shocking layer before, during, and after launch”, and Figures 1-3 show that the outside of cover member 37 is exposed when attached, and unprotected by a fairing).
Dvorak does not disclose a first absorption core layer of the plurality of absorption core layers in contact with the front face sheet, a second absorption core layer of the plurality of absorption core layers in contact with the rear face sheet, a plurality of resistant fabric layers including a first impact resistant fabric layer positioned between the first absorption core layer and a third absorption core layer. However, these limitations are taught by Grillos. Grillos discloses composite panels for space vehicles, and Figure 3 shows a first absorption core layer 230 in contact with front face sheet 220, a second absorption core layer 232 in contact with rear face sheet 222, and a third impact absorption core layer 234 between the two, and intermediate sheet 224 positioned between core layers 230 and 234. Column 3, lines 15-18 disclose “the intermediate sheet 224 can be comprised of a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin material, such as fiber fabric reinforced epoxy resin”, and the different plies comprise a plurality of impact resistant fabric layers that comprise a first impact resistant fabric layer in contact with first absorption core layer 230 and a second impact resistant fabric layer in contact with the first impact resistant fabric layer on a first side and in contact with the second absorption core layer 222 on the second side. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvorak and Joynt using the teachings from Grillos as a substitution of known types of core layers for micro-meteor protection.
Grillos does not explicitly disclose a second impact resistant fabric layer positioned between the third absorption core layer and the second absorption core layer, and a third impact resistant fabric layer positioned between the second impact resistant fabric layer and the second absorption core layer. However, Figure 2 of Grillos discloses an embodiment with two core layers, and Figure 2a discloses an embodiment with four core layers. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Grillos to have three core layers when more protection is needed than two layers but less protection is needed than four layers. Furthermore, since column 3, lines 15-18 disclose “the intermediate sheet 224 can be comprised of a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin material, such as fiber fabric reinforced epoxy resin”, the plurality of plies of the intermediate sheet between the second and third core layers would comprise the second and third impact resistant fabric layers.
Dvorak does not disclose an expandable adhesive layer carried by the rear face sheet and attached between the rear face sheet and the sub-structure to secure the MMOD protection system to the sub-structure. However, this limitation is taught by Stone. Stone discloses a protective assembly for an aerospace structure, and paragraph 50 discloses “the assembly 100 may be bonded to the aerospace structure 110 by an adhesive bonding or vulcanization process”. Dvorak discloses the use of attachment portions 40 to attach the cover member 37 to the spacecraft surface 12. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvorak using the teachings from Stone to use known types of attachment methods to attach protective assemblies to a spacecraft.
Dvorak and Stone does not explicitly disclose the adhesive layer being a foam adhesive layer. However, having disclosed the use of adhesives to bond the assembly to the aerospace structure, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose different types of adhesives as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642