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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on October 17, 2025 have been entered and considered. Claims 1-11, 13-19, 21, and 22 are pending, claim 1 is amended, claims 12 and 20 are cancelled, claims 21 and 22 are added.
In view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, the Examiner has withdrawn the previously set forth rejection. The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 9 and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody (US 6,555,211) in view of Moores et al. (US 4,193,828) and Delecroix et al. (CA 2757139 A1).
Moody is directed to a thermal protection system (TPM) for protecting a surface subject to high thermal load (Abstract). Mod teaches that the strength, weight and heat absorption can be varied across the thickness or the length of the TPM so as to achieve an optimal balance of these variables at the lowest attainable cost (column 4, lines 37 – 54).
As to claim 1, Moddy teaches various composite structures such as those shown in at least Figures 1 and 2 provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
293
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
331
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moody teaches that the C-C substrate is a three dimensional object which can be woven or non-woven and the fiber density can be varied along the thickness by varying either the weaving method of type of fabric used (i.e. woven, non-woven, knitted or braided fabrics) (column 4, lines 54 – 68). Moody notes that the types of fibers that can be used for the substrate include carbon, PAN, graphite, silicon carbide or ceramic fibers (column 8, lines 19 – 23). Moody additionally notes that alternative suitable structures included combined woven and non-woven fiber substrates consisting of several layers of fabric which are laminated together to form a structure (column 8, lines 51 – 60). The substrate is impregnated with a resin that is converted to carbon (claims 11 and 12). In the background of Moody, Moody notes the SiC layer which forms over the fibers of the carbon substrate in the interior of the ablator has a different coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) than the carbon itself. Thus, the SiC material is known to have a different CTE from carbon.
While Moody teaches the use of both SiC and carbon fibers in woven fabric form and SiC and carbon fibers in non-woven fabrics, Moody fails to specifically disclose a layer having a plurality of fiber layers including first carbon fiber yarns weaved with non-carbon yarn.
Moores et al. is directed to an ablative material such as rocket cone noses, nozzle components and heat shields having good mechanical strength and provides a thermal protection system that has a substantially uniform rate of erosion across the surface (column 1, lines 25 – 50). Moores et al. teach that the carbon reinforcements comprise a multi-dimensional network of carbon fiber material in a carbonized form, e.g., carbon or graphite yarn, arranged in a plurality of groups, each group comprising a plurality of yarns arranged parallel to teach other (column 2, lines 29 – 40). Figure 3 has the preferred embodiment of Moores et al. where three groups of graphite yarns are interwoven together as shown in Figure 1 in mutually orthogonal directions, each axis being normal to a face of the preform. Moores et al. note that columns or non-carbon (shown as 24 in Figure 3) are implanted into the body preform cell with the graphite fibers 22 along the Z axis (column 4, lines 10 – 26). The non-carbon can include silicone carbides (column 3, lines 1 – 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
296
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moores et al. note the volume proportion occupied by the non-carbon implants of the composite reinforced body, and also the locations of the non-carbon implants in the body will depend upon the particular shape of the composite body, the anticipated heat and pressure conditions at various surface locations on the body, type of non-carbon implants, and the behavior of the composite constituent materials at these locations at the various heat and pressure conditions. As a general rule the composite body will comprise between about 5 and 25 volume percent of non-carbon implants. The latter are preferably arranged in elongated columns essentially parallel to one another at selected sites in the direction of expected thermal flux. The non-carbon implants are found to change certain of the physical properties of the carbon-carbon composite adjacent the area of implantation. For one, the volume of the material at the implants has a lower melting point than the remaining areas of the composite. The tensile strength of the material proximate the non-carbon columns generally is also changed (column 4, lines 26 – 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tailor the composite structure of Moody with layers of a multi-dimensional networks of carbon and silicon carbide as warp and/or weft as suggested by Moores et al. in order to create an ablative material having the desired mechanical properties such as level of heat resistance, pressure resistance and tensile strength.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a hybrid woven ablative material of carbon and silicon carbide as warp and/or weft in order to create an ablative material having the desired mechanical properties such as level of heat resistance, pressure resistance and tensile strength. It has been held that, the mere duplication of parts and simple substitution, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
As to claim 6, Moody teaches the insulation material can be attached between
attaching insulation material between the ablator and the vehicle's outer shell by using various connections such as needled fibers or stiffeners made of carbon fibers (column 7, lines 15 – 35 and column 11, lines 40 – 53, Figure 7). The Examiner equates these to Applicant’s “fastener”.
Moody in view of Moores et al. fail to specifically teach the use of fiber tows as a type of fabric used.
Delecroix et al. is directed to a method of making a three-dimensional preform made of stacking fiber sheets made of carbon yarns or tows (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tows instead of yarns as taught in Moody in view of Moores et al. motivated to tailor a hybrid woven ablative material having the desired mechanical properties such as level of heat resistance, pressure resistance and tensile strength. It has been held that, the mere simple substitution, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
As claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Moody in view of Moores et al. and Delecroix et al. teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the differences and relative values in the coefficient of thermal expansion of the fibers, matrix, fastener and the composite as a whole. It is reasonable to presume that the coefficient of thermal expansion values are inherent to Moody in view of Moores et al. and Delecroix et al. Support for said presumption is found in that and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
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 JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights