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.
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) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 7,252,890, “Wong”) in view of Moore et al. (US 2012/0251801, “Moore”).
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches a heat-insulating blanket for spacecraft, comprising: a stack of a plurality of heat - insulating layers (e.g., Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 45-68), and an external layer superimposed on the stack, wherein the external layer includes: a second surface mirror SSM film (metallized layer col. 2 lines 20- 55), comprising a mirror layer and a polyimide layer joined to the SSM film (col. 2 lines 20-55). Wong fails to specifically teach the inclusion of an exterior FEP layer, however, in the same field of endeavor of protective films or layers for use in aerospace applications (e.g., [0012]), Moore teaches that it is known to provide a fluoropolymer film ([0039], Fig. 2, layer 36 [0078], including fluorinated ethylene polymer), a metallized reflection film (i.e., films 20, 40, 18, Fig. 2, [0034], wherein the layer under the external FEP layer may be a metallized layer), and a polyimide base layer under the metallized layer ([0064], Fig. 2, layer 30) to a substrate and that doing so helps to reinforce and protect the overall composite laminate during manufacturing, installation, and service ([0020], [0021]). Therefore, the inclusion of the protective layer of Moore over the laminated polyimide layer of the heat insulating layers of Wong would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to provide additional protection to the layers, including improve gas impermeability and strength (Moore, [0020], [0021]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Wong (Moore) additionally teaches that the polyimide layer of the external protective film may be adhered to the mirror layer on the side of the mirror layer opposite the FEP layer (see Fig. 2, polyimide layer 30, mirror layer corresponding to numeral 18, and FEP layer 36, [0039], [0078], [0034], [0064]) and the polyimide layer would be applied to the stack (see Fig. 2, polyimide layer 30 applied closer to substrate layer 12).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wong (Moore) additionally 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]).
Regarding claim 7, Wong additionally teaches that the layer so the stack are formed of polyimide comprising a metal coating (see, e.g., Fig. 1, col. 3 line 45 – col. 4 line 50).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 7,252,890, “Wong”) in view of Slemp (US 4,008,348, “Slemp”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Wong teaches a heat-insulating blanket for spacecraft, comprising: a stack of a plurality of heat - insulating layers (e.g., Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 45-68), and an external layer superimposed on the stack, wherein the external layer includes: a second surface mirror SSM film (metallized layer col. 2 lines 20- 55), comprising a mirror layer and a polyimide layer joined to the SSM film (col. 2 lines 20-55). Wong fails to specifically teach the inclusion of an exterior FEP layer, 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 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). Therefore, the inclusion of the protective laminate of Slemp over the laminated polyimide layer of the heat insulating layers of Wong would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to maintain and control temperature of an underlying materials during spaceflight (col. 3 line 20 – col. 4 line 15).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wong 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).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 7,252,890, “Wong”) in view of Moore et al. (US 2012/0251801, “Moore”) and further in view of Rockenfeller et al. (US 2020/0122432, “Rockenfeller”).
Regarding claim 12, Wong teaches a heat-insulating blanket for spacecraft, comprising: a stack of a plurality of heat - insulating layers (e.g., Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 45-68), and an external layer superimposed on the stack, wherein the external layer includes: a second surface mirror SSM film (metallized layer col. 2 lines 20- 55), comprising a mirror layer and a polyimide layer joined to the SSM film (col. 2 lines 20-55). Wong fails to specifically teach the inclusion of an exterior FEP layer, however, in the same field of endeavor of protective films or layers for use in aerospace applications (e.g., [0012]), Moore teaches that it is known to provide a fluoropolymer film ([0039], Fig. 2, layer 36 [0078], including fluorinated ethylene polymer), a metallized reflection film (i.e., films 20, 40, 18, Fig. 2, [0034], wherein the layer under the external FEP layer may be a metallized layer), and a polyimide base layer under the metallized layer ([0064], Fig. 2, layer 30) to a substrate and that doing so helps to reinforce and protect the overall composite laminate during manufacturing, installation, and service ([0020], [0021]). Therefore, the inclusion of the protective layer of Moore over the laminated polyimide layer of the heat insulating layers of Wong would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to provide additional protection to the layers, including improve gas impermeability and strength (Moore, [0020], [0021]). Modified Wong fails to specifically teach the exterior FEP layer should be directly in contact with the metallized reflection layer, however, in the same field of endeavor of protective films or layers for use in aerospace applications (e.g., [0020], [0021]), Rockenfeller teaches that it is known to provide an exterior FEP film ([0033], Fig. 2, layer 202 [0078], including fluorinated ethylene polymer) to a metallized reflection film (i.e., , Fig. 2, layer 204, [0043], [0003] – [0010], wherein the layer metallized film layer directly under the external FEP layer may be a metallized layer, wherein the metallized layer is included in order to reflect spectral frequencies in a rang o from 700 nm to 2500 nm) as a sealant layer in order to prevent vapor desorption of underlying layers ([0003] – [0010]). The Examiner notes that the removal of organics from an insulation blanket under vacuum conditions is a noted concern of Wong (see Wong, col. 3 lines 15-45, col. 5 line 55 – col. 6 line 11). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included an FEP layer directly in contact with, and exterior to, the exterior reflective layer in order to prevent vapor desorption of underlying layers while maintaining the ability to reflect spectral frequencies in a rang o from 700 nm to 2500 nm (Rockenfeller, [0003] – [0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/26/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that because the FEP layer of Moore is described as being useful for protection against ozone it is an unnecessary layer for use in a protective blanket for space flight. The Examiner respectfully disagrees at least because while spacecraft may eventually operate in an atmosphere-less environment, they are manufactured and transported through environments having an atmosphere (including ozone) and thus it would be useful to consider the operation of a blanket in such environments. Further, the use and improvement of an insulating protective blanket in an environment having an atmosphere would be a benefit that the ordinarily skilled artisan would find useful or helpful. Applicant argues that Moore requires its outermost layer to be resistant to atomic oxygen and does not describe FEP as suitably resistant to atomic oxygen. But Moore merely describes that the outermost exterior layer should be “resistant to corrosion from the selected environment.” ([0078]). Therefore, including an outermost exterior layer of FEP would be useful when desiring to protect the underlying layers from, for example, ozone ([0078], [0040], [0020], [0021]). Moore further describes protection from atomic oxygen and ozone to be helpful for use in spacecraft ([0040]). The Examiner therefore maintains that the inclusion of the protective layer of Moore over the laminated polyimide layer of the heat insulating layers of Wong would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to provide additional protection to the layers, including improve gas impermeability and strength (Moore, [0020], [0021]).
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected as described above.
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 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