DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed February 9, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed February 9, 2026.
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, 4, 6, 13, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (US Pat. No. 3,395,035) in view of Kaul (US Pat. No. 6,939,610).
Regarding claim 1, Strauss teaches a composition (1) comprising a composite material (2) comprising a resin impregnated into and at least partially filling the accessible pore volume of a porous ceramic material comprising an interconnected network of ceramic, which is in contact with an adhesive (3), a backup strip (4), a honeycomb (5), and metal skins (7) (Fig. 1; col. 2, ln. 55-59; col. 7 ln. 42-69; col. 8, ln. 22-33). The porous ceramic material may comprise aluminum oxide and/or spinel (MgO-Al2O3, i.e. a porous ceramic material that “comprises aluminum oxide, and further comprises magnesium oxide”), or a combination of ceramics, such as a metal oxide refractory coating silicon carbide (col.5, ln. 1-43).
As the instant disclosure teaches that composites that are in contact with a substrate may be in direct or indirect contact with their substrate (Applicant’s published application, par. 70), any of Strauss’s adhesive, backup strip, honeycomb, or metal skins may be considered to correspond to the recited “substrate” that the composite material contacts. Strauss also separately teaches that his composite may comprise a resin-impregnated ceramic composite in contact with a metal backup strip (“substrate”) (col. 2, ln. 55-68).
The teachings of Strauss differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach an aluminum alloy substrate in contact with a resin-impregnated porous ceramic, as discussed above. However, as noted above, Strauss does teach that his product may include a metal backup strip and metal skins, either of which may be considered a “substrate”. Strauss also teaches that that his product is a heat shield that is intended to protect bodies that are exposed to severe thermal environments and exemplifies aerospace vehicles, rockets, and satellites as being in need of such protection (col. 1, ln. 13-55). Kaul further teaches that virtually all launch vehicles are fabricated from aluminum alloys because of their low weights (col. 5, ln. 18-23). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an aluminum alloy as one or more of the metal components (i.e. “substrate”) Strauss’s product because Strauss makes clear that his heat shield is intended for space vehicles, and because Kaul discloses that aluminum alloys are used in virtually all launch vehicles and beneficial due to their low weights. Therefore, the product (“composition”) of Strauss and Kaul comprises a composite material having a polymer, wax, and/or resin impregnated into a porous ceramic including aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide that is in contact with an aluminum alloy substrate.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, as Strauss makes no disclosure of his ceramic including a binder or being made up of particles that are joined by something other than ceramic material, Strauss’s ceramic is presumed to be a “binderless ceramic” and to have substantially all of its mass, which includes at least 20 % by mass, interconnected.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Strauss might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly discuss a porous ceramic including spinel and comprising a plurality of interconnected networks of ceramic material. However, as noted above, Strauss does teach that his porous ceramic substrate may include a combination of ceramics, such as a metal oxide refractory coating a carbide ceramic, and Straus teaches that spinel is a high-melting compound useful for such a purpose (col. 5, ln. 2-22).
Strauss further exemplifies a porous ceramic that includes a zirconia-coated silicon carbide foam (i.e. the ceramic comprises “an oxide”), which is impregnated with resin (col. 7, ln. 29-69), thereby demonstrating that a refractory ceramic-protected ceramic carbide, in practice, may be a silicon carbide foam coated with a refractory oxide ceramic. As Strauss teaches that the exemplified refractory coating forms an impervious layer over the silicon carbide foam (col. 7, 61-67), Strauss’s exemplified ceramic material includes an interconnected network of the refractory and an interconnected network of the silicon carbide foam (i.e. “the composite material comprises a plurality of interconnected networks”). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a composite product of Strauss and Kaul to include a porous ceramic comprising a silicon carbide foam that is coated with a layer of ceramic including aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide (as discussed above), thereby forming two interconnected networks of ceramic because Strauss teaches that his protective ceramic may include silicon carbide coated/protected by a refractory and discloses that aluminum oxide and spinel, which includes aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide, are appropriate as the refractory, and explicitly teaches that a silicon carbide foam coated with a refractory is an appropriate and useful structure for such a combination.
Regarding claim 22, Strauss teaches that the open porous ceramic material has porosity that is at least 66 % by volume (i.e. which is greater than 1 %) impregnated by resin (claim 1). Strauss elsewhere teaches configuring the composite coating to be 15 to 70 % by weight resin (claim 8), which, given the relative densities of the ceramics and polymers disclosed, equates to more than 1 % of the pore volume being filled by the polymer or resin.
Regarding claim 23, Strauss teaches that the surface of a porous ceramic material that has been infiltrated with resin is scraped clean after the infiltration (col. 8, ln. 8-12), which indicates that the resin layer is not thicker than and, therefore, has a thickness that is less than 1.5 times that of the ceramic material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss and Kaul, as applied above, and further in view of Prior (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0035474).
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of Strauss differ from the current invention in that he does not disclose infiltrating tung oil into his porous ceramic. However, Strauss does teach that resins that start in an unpolymerized condition, which become polymerized by heating after application to the refractory ceramic, may be used and teaches a large variety of different examples of polymers that are appropriate (col. 5, ln. 60-col. 6, ln. 39), thereby demonstrating that the specific resin or polymer used is not particularly limited. Prior further teaches treating refractory ceramics with a polymerizable material, and discloses that drying oils, such as tung oil, are preferable because they improve the hydration resistance of such ceramics (par. 27). Prior also discloses that, upon being heat-treated, the drying oil polymerizes and becomes cross-linked to form a vast polymer network, and that it can be conveniently applied to a surface by various methods, including spraying, dipping, and impregnation to achieve partial or full impregnation of the refractory product (par. 27-29). Prior teaches that the oils advantageously can also cure without subsequent drying steps (par. 30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize tung oil to infiltrate Strauss’s refractory ceramic alone or in combination with one of Strauss’s other taught resins because Strauss teaches using a resin that polymerizes after application to the ceramic refractory, but makes clear that the type of resin used is not particularly limited, and Prior discloses that tung oil is a preferable material (“resin”) for applying to ceramic refractories because it can be applied by various methods and polymerizes (i.e. thereby forming a “polymer derived from tung oil”) with or without heating to form a protective polymer network that improves hydration resistance of the porous ceramic it has infiltrated.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss and Kaul, as applied above, and further in view of Azo Materials (Azo Materials, “Using Polymer Plasticizers”, 2002, p. 1-9).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the teachings of Strauss differ from the current invention in that the polymer, was, and/or resin in his composite material is not taught to include a plasticizer additive. However, Strauss does teach a wide variety of different resins and polymers that may be used in his composite and teaches that the polymer or resin may be injected into the porous ceramic (col. 5, ln. 60-col. 6, ln. 39). Azo Materials further teaches that plasticizers are a type of additive that make polymers elastic, extensible, flexible, and plastic at low temperatures, that a majority of injection molding compounds would be completely unfit for that purpose without plasticizers, and that polymer products can be produced only on a commercial basis by integrating a plasticizer (p. 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plasticizer additive, which increases flexibility, in the resin or polymer used to infiltrate Strauss’s ceramic material in order to make the resin or formed polymer material elastic, extensible, flexible, plastic at low temperatures, suitable for being used in an injection operation, and suitable for use on a commercial basis.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 22, and 23 are rejected as being under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Lee, J. et al.; Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1606040, p. 1-11) in view of Ezuber (Ezuber, H. et. al.; Mater. Des., 2008, p. 801-805), as evidenced by Dupont (Dupont, “Dupont™ Krytox® PFPE Oils” Material Safety Data Sheet, 2013, p. 1-7) and Jiang (Jiang, X. et al.; J. Mater. Res. Technol.; 2025, p. 622-637).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Lee teaches compositions comprising a composite material comprising Teflon (i.e. a polymer) and Krytox GPL 100 oil (i.e. a “polymer, wax, and/or resin”) or a photoresist polymer impregnated into a porous aluminum oxide (i.e. a ceramic) material that is in contact with an aluminum substrate (Abstract, p. 10, 4. Experimental). As evidenced by Dupont, Krytox GPL 100 is a polymer (p. 1, 4).
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the aluminum oxide material comprises an interconnected network of ceramic with an accessible pore volume, which Lee teaches is completely filled (i.e. which includes more than 1 % of the accessible pore volume) with the Krytox oil or the photoresist material (Figs. 1, 2; Abstract; p. 3, p. 10).
The teachings of Lee differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach a composite material that includes an aluminum alloy as the substrate that is topped with a ceramic layer including aluminum oxide and one of the other recited metal oxides. However, Lee does teach that aluminum alloys are key components in numerous industrial applications and that his oil-impregnated surfaces will be of great importance in corrosion protection of metallic systems, such as in naval systems (p. 1, left col.; p. 10, left col.). Ezuber further teaches that 5xxx series aluminum alloys, which contain magnesium, are commonly used in marine applications where low-density materials, good mechanical properties, and better corrosion resistance are required (p. 801, left col.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a 5xxx series aluminum alloy as the substrate in Lee’s product because Lee teaches that aluminum alloys are key components in industrial applications, with his own protection system being relevant to naval systems, and Ezuber teaches that 5xxx series aluminum alloys are useful for marine applications that require lightweight, good mechanical properties, and improved corrosion resistance. It further would have been obvious to form Lee’s oil-infiltrated ceramic layer on a 5xxx series aluminum alloy in order to protect the material (or a metallic system made from it) from corrosion, as disclosed by Lee.
The ceramic layer in Lee’s product is formed by anodizing in an acidic solution (p. 10, left col.). As evidenced by Jiang, who teaches that MgO and MgAl2O4 compounds are formed in addition to aluminum oxide when 5xxx series aluminum alloys are anodized in acidic conditions (p. 623, left col.), the anodic ceramic layer on the substrate of the 5xxx series aluminum alloy substrate of Lee and Ezuber includes aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide. Therefore, the product (“composition”) of Lee and Ezuber comprises a composite material having a polymer impregnated into a porous ceramic including aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide that is in contact with an aluminum alloy substrate.
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Lee differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly exemplify a composition that includes a composite coating with a thickness in the recited range. However, Lee does suggest that his oil impregnation method would be valuable for commercial anodic alumina layers having “deeper” pores with depths of more than tens of micrometers (p. 4, right col.) and, as noted above, he teaches that his composite coating enhances corrosion protection. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a composite coating including Krytox oil impregnated into the pores of an anodic alumina layer of the structure discussed above, but with pores that have depths of “more than tens of micrometers”, thereby forming a composite coating with a thickness of more than tens of micrometers because Lee suggests that doing so is possible and would be valuable, and in order to provide such commercial products with enhanced corrosion protection. It also would have been obvious to configure the oil-infiltrated pores to have a depth of and, therefore, the composite coating to have a thickness of greater than 20 up to around 100 micrometers because such a range is implied by Lee’s teachings of “more than tens of micrometers”. The instantly claimed thickness range is obvious in view of Lee. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, as no criticality has been established, the recited coating thickness appears is a prima facie obvious selection of size or dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, as Lee and Ezuber’s ceramic material layer is generated by anodizing the aluminum alloy substrate (p. 10, 4. Experimental), the ceramic material is a “binderless ceramic material” and, given that Lee makes no disclosure of the anodized layer being disconnected, is presumed to have substantially all of its mass, which includes at least 20 % by mass, interconnected.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in his figures, the ceramic material in Lee’s composite coatings extend over surfaces and is made up of interconnected regions of ceramic material (Figs. 1 a-d, 6). As the claimed “plurality of networks of ceramic material” are not recited to be separate, disconnected, or discontinuous, and no features are claimed that define the start and stop of one network versus another, any set of interconnected ceramic portions in Lee’s coating may be considered an “interconnected network of ceramic material” and any other set of interconnected ceramic portions can be considered another “interconnected network of ceramic material”. As such, Lee’s figures demonstrate that his composite coating comprises many (i.e. “a plurality”) interconnected networks of ceramic material (Figs. 1a-d, 6). Lee also teaches an example wherein the composite coating has been cracked to form separate regions of ceramic material and, therefore, separate interconnected networks of ceramic material, with a structure like what is shown in Figure 6c (p. 8, left and right col; Fig. 6c). Therefore, Lee teaches a composite material comprising a plurality of interconnected networks of ceramic material.
Regarding claim 23, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, the Krytox oil and photoresist polymer that fill the pores of Lee’s ceramic layer have a thickness that is less than 1.5 time the thickness of the composite layer (Figs. 1, 2).
Claims 12 and 30 are rejected as being under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Ezuber, as evidenced by Dupont and Jiang, and as applied above, and further evidenced by or in view of Buchheit (US Pat. No. 5,266,356).
Regarding claims 12 and 30, the teachings of Lee and Ezuber may be considered to differ from the current invention in that neither explicitly discusses the corrosion resistance provided by the disclosed ceramic/polymer material in terms of the change in polarization resistance of the substrate with or without having had the porous ceramic coating impregnated with a polymer, wax, or resin. However, Lee does teach that the Krytox oil imparts enhanced corrosion protection to the substrate (p. 9, Conclusions) as compared to a substrate that has not been treated with the oil, and a primary goal of his is to provide corrosion protection to the underlying substrate (Abstract). Buchheit further teaches that measuring polarization resistance equates to measuring the corrosion resistance of a material, with higher polarization resistance values indicating better corrosion resistance (col. 4, ln. 25-32). Therefore, as evidenced by Buchheit’s teaching that corrosion resistance is proportional to polarization resistance, Lee and Ezuber’s product including a Krytox oil-treated ceramic layer demonstrates a higher polarization resistance than an identical ceramic material that has not been treated with Krytox oil. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Lee and Ezuber’s product such that it demonstrates as high of a polarization resistance as possible, including a higher polarization resistance than when the material is not treated with Krytox oil in order to improve the corrosion resistance provided by the oil-impregnated ceramic layer as much as possible, and because Lee teaches that the applied oil is intended to improve corrosion resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot.
Applicant has argued that the product of claim 1 is distinguished over Strauss because limitations of now-cancelled claims 8, 11, and 27 have been incorporated and because Strauss teaches away from an aluminum porous ceramic material. However, claims 8 and 27 were rejected in view of Strauss in the previous Office Action. Additionally, it would have been obvious to make the metal substrate in Strauss’s product from an aluminum alloy in view of Kaul’s teachings for the reasons discussed above. Applicant’s argument that Strauss teaches away from a ceramic layer including aluminum is not persuasive because, although Strauss teaches that porous (metallic) aluminum is not appropriate (col. 4, ln. 7-10), Strauss also discloses that aluminum oxide and spinel (i.e. a ceramic including aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide) are appropriate refractories for the porous ceramic material (col. 5, ln. 12-25).
Applicant has further argued that the claimed invention is distinguished over Lee because limitations from claim 27, which was not rejected in view of Lee, has been incorporated into claim 1. However, claim 27 was not rejected in view of Lee because Lee does not teach infiltrating a ceramic with drying oil, which is still not recited in claim 1.
Applicant has further argued that the claimed invention is distinguished over Lee because Lee’s porous ceramic is an anodic alumina layer that has disconnected, columnar pores, which Applicant asserts makes it difficult for complete infiltration with a polymer and which Applicant alleges is a teaching away from an “interconnected ceramic network” as claimed. However, claim 1 does not require that the porous ceramic to be completely infiltrated with a polymer and, as discussed above, Lee does teach completely filling the pores with a polymer. Applicant’s argument that Lee teaches away from an interconnected ceramic network is not persuasive because the instant disclosure states that an “‘interconnected network of ceramic’ refers to a network or matrix of ceramic material, wherein ceramic material in the network is in physical contact with (connected to) other ceramic material in the network” (Applicant’s published application, par. 47). This definition does not require pores to be interconnected. Lee’s porous ceramic material qualifies as “interconnected ceramic network” because it is a network of ceramic material, wherein ceramic material in the network is in physical contact with (connected to) other ceramic material in the network.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Taylor are moot in view of the current rejections.
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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784