DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/7/26 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 12, 3, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parenti, Jr. et al. (US 4,915,998, “Parenti”).
Regarding claim 12, Parenti teaches a heat insulating blanket (e.g., col. 1) for use in spacecraft applications (e.g., col. 1 lines 1-65) and comprising a stack of heat insulating layers (plurality of layers 4 and 6, col. 2 lines 35-65, Figs. 1-3, reproduced below). Parenti additionally teaches that the outer or external layers may comprise a PTFE insulating component (PTFE containing layers 12, col. 2 lines 30-65, and see Figs. 1-3) having thereunder a metallized or goldized polyimide layer (outermost layer 4, having polyimide core and being goldized which may be considered to function as a reflective layer, see Figs. 1-3, col. 2 lines 30-65). The Examiner note that with regard to the claimed “external layer” there is no structural limitation to this that makes it different than the exterior layers of Parenti.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Parenti teaches that the polyimide layers may be metallized, Parenti fails to specifically teach that such a material functions as a mirror. However, in the same field of endeavor of protective films or layers for use in aerospace applications (e.g., col. 1 lines 10-50), Slemp teaches that applying a mirror finish to a surface of a thermal control coating for spacecraft in order to effectively reflect radiation (see Slemp, e.g., col. 2 lines 5-50) and thus it would have been obvious to have established the goldized layer as a mirrored surface in order to effectively reflect solar radiation (see Slemp, e.g., col. 2 lines 5-50).
Regarding claim 2, Parenti fails to specifically disclose the thickness of the fluoropolymer layer. However, Slemp teaches that it is known to provide a fluoropolymer film (FEP film, col. 3 lines 1 – 40, Fig. 3, layer 12), a metallized reflection film (i.e., films 14, Fig. 3, col. 3 lines 1 – 40, wherein the layer under the FEP layer may be a metallized layer), and a polyimide base layer over the FEP layer (col. 3 lines 1 – 40, Fig. 3, layer 16). Slemp teaches that the FEP layer may have a thickness of 0.5 to 5.0 mils (i.e., 12.7 to 127 micrometers, and thus greater than 50 micrometers, col. 3 lines 5 – 25). Slemp teaches to apply the external protective layer to a substrate and that doing so helps to maintain and control temperature of an underlying material during spaceflight (col. 3 line 20 – col. 4 line 15). It would have been obvious to have adopted the structural features of Moore in order to provide additional protection to the layers, including improve gas impermeability and strength (Moore, [0020], [0021]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Parenti additionally teaches that the polyimide layer may be adhered to the mirror or goldized layer on the side of the goldized layer opposite the outer FEP layer and thus such that the SSM film is arranged between the polyimide layer and the stack of heat insulating layers (see Figs 1-3, polyimide layer may be goldized and then have the FEP layer applied exterior to that, col. 2 lines 30-65).
Regarding claim 5, modified Parenti additionally teaches that the layers corresponding to the claimed SSM layers may be arranged towards the stack layers in the laminate (e.g., see Slemp, Fig. 3, layers 12 and 14 arranged towards underlying substrate 18, col. 3 lines 1 – 40).
Regarding claim 7, Parenti additionally teaches that the layers in the insulating blanket stack may comprise polyimide layers comprising a metal coating (goldized polyimide film layers, col. 2 lines 35-60).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parenti in view of Slemp as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Moore et al. (US 2012/0251801, “Moore”).
Regarding claim 6, Parenti fails to specifically teach that the metallized layer comprises an area devoid of polyimide in order to allow for grounding. However, in the same field of endeavor of … Moore teaches that it is important to provide grounding to the metallized layers and thus it would have been obvious to have electrically connected them to ground, including by doing so through the adjacent polyimide layers, in order to avoid static discharge (see Moore, [0055]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/8/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments which are deemed relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Therefore, claims 12, and 2-7 are rejected as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights