Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/038,706

COMPOSITE MULTIFUNCTIONAL STRUCTURAL MATERIAL FOR HIGH ENERGETIC CHARGED PARTICLE RADIATION SHIELDING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 24, 2023
Examiner
HIGGINS, GERARD T
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Cosmic Shielding Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
526 granted / 839 resolved
-2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
891
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
§112
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 839 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 20-22, in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-19, 23 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/2025. Claim Objections Claims 5-13 and 20-22 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 5-13 and 20-22 have not been further treated on the merits. Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, the phrase “wherein each structural layer comprises” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein each of the one or more structural layers comprises” which is how the claim will be interpreted. In claim 3, the phrase “micrometeoroid layer” (two instances) is objected to grammatically as the layer is not made of micrometeoroids. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “micrometeoroid protection layer” which is how the claim will be interpreted. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyt et al. (US 2015/0048209). With regard to claim 1, Hoyt et al. teach the structural multi-layer insulation, which reads on applicants’ composition material, of Figures 1 and 2 that includes a layered structure of low Z layer/a high Z layer/low Z layer [0049] and [0050]. The low Z layers, which read on applicants’ first and second shielding layers, can be PEEK polymer and the high Z layer can be PEEK entrained tungsten, which reads on applicants’ metal containing layer [0121]-[0123]. With regard to claims 2 and 4, there can be a carbon fiber composite placed on the inner 50 and outer surfaces 10 of the multi-layer insulation, which reads on applicants’ one or more structural layers comprising multifunctional composite materials and being a heating resistant material [0039]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyt et al. (US 2015/0048209). Hoyt et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 2 above. The Examiner also notes that the carbon fiber composite on the outer surface 10 taught above would read on applicants’ micrometeoroid protection layer as it would provide some protection against impacts from such objects [0039]. Also, Hoyt et al. teach that it is known to include additional materials such as a satellite external structure that protects against atomic oxygen [0158] and [0165]; however, they do not specifically teach a structure that includes this satellite external structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the satellite external structure taught in Hoyt et al. over the carbon fiber composite layer that is on the outer surface 10 of the structural multi-layer insulation in order to have added atomic oxygen protection to the structure. This is a known concern for spacecraft that must be protected against, which provides a rationale to include such a layer/structure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm (variable one work-at-home day). 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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. /Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594781
PRINTED MATERIAL, METHOD FOR PRODUCING PRINTED MATERIAL AND PRINTING MEDIUM FOR LASER PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596302
CROSSTALK REDUCTION OF MICROCAPSULE IMAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590849
ACTIVATABLE WARMING INDICATOR WITHOUT DYE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589608
LASER MARKED ARTICLES WITH MACHINE READABLE CODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589609
LASER MARKED ARTICLES WITH MACHINE READABLE CODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.8%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 839 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month