DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 4/8/2026 and the supplemental amendment filed 5/7/2026 have been entered. Currently, claims 1, 4-12 and 14-24 are pending, claims 2, 3 and 13 are canceled, and claims 14-19, 23 and 24 are withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0073], the first sentence of the paragraph has a typo “conclude”. The second sentence has a syntax and grammar that does not make sense, e.g. “that are prone to or comprise be”. Also, it appears that it should be “or polymer-based material” based on the context of the [0039] and [0040].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the phrase “comprise oxidation-resistant material, heating resistance material, and polymer-based material” is objected to grammatically. It appears that it should be “or polymer-based material” based on the context of the [0039] and [0040], which is how the claim has been interpreted.
In claim 8, the phrase “wherein one or more chemical compounds” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the one or more chemical compounds” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 9, the phrase “the one or more metal containing layers comprise metals or metal oxides” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the metal containing layer comprises a metal or a metal oxide” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 9, the phrase “wherein (Z)” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the atomic number (Z)” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 11, the phrase “with the atomic number (Z) is from” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “with an atomic number (Z) of from” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 12, the phrase “each metal containing layer” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the metal containing layer” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 20, the phrase “provide heat and thermal protection; provide resistance to fire” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “provides heat and thermal protection; provides resistance to fire” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9-12 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 9, the limitations of “[a] metal or [a] metal oxide with atomic number (Z)” renders the claim indefinite as a metal oxide is a compound and not an atom, and therefore it is unclear how a metal oxide can have an atomic number. The rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “a metal or metal oxide having a metal atom with an atomic number (Z)” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 9, the limitations of “wherein (Z) is from 22 to 30 and/or 72 to 79” renders the claim indefinite as a metal atom cannot have two different atomic numbers. The rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the atomic number (Z) is from 22 to 30 or 72 to 79” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 10, the limitations “the atomic number (Z)” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “an atomic number (Z)” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 10, the limitations of “is 13 for metals or metal oxides of at least two metal containing layers” renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is unclear if this is a conditional limitation, i.e. when two metal layers are present they have the atomic number, or if this is requiring the presence of two metal layers. Second, it is unclear if the at least two metal containing layers are in addition to the metal containing layer of claim 1 or include the layer of claim 1. Third, a metal oxide is a compound and not an atom, and therefore it is unclear how a metal oxide can have an atomic number 13. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as conditional.
In claim 11, the limitations of “said one or more metal containing layers comprise a metal or metal oxide with atomic number (Z)” renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, “said one or more metal containing layers” lacks antecedent basis as it is unclear if it is referring to the metal containing layer of claim 1 or the two metal containing layers of claim 10. Second, a metal oxide is a compound and not an atom, and therefore it is unclear how a metal oxide can have an atomic number. Lastly, it is unclear if this is requiring a mixture of a metal with an atomic number of 13 with a metal having an atomic number of 72 or 79 or if they are separate layers. See below on how to address this rejection.
In claim 11, the limitations “positioned between at least two other metal containing layers of lower atomic number (Z)” renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is unclear if the two other metal containing layers are the same as those in claim 10 or in addition to them. Also, if it is referring to the two metal layers of claim 10, then the term “lower atomic number” does not make sense as claim 10 already requires an atomic number of 13, and therefore it is unclear what layers are required. The rejection can be overcome by changing claims 10 and 11 to make clear that the metal containing layer comprises a first, second and third metal containing layer, how these layers are ordered, and specifying what the atomic number of the metal atom may be in each of the layers. For purposes of examining claim 11, the Examiner will be searching a first layer having a metal atom with atomic number 13, a second layer having a metal atom with atomic number of from 72 to 79, and a third layer having a metal atom with atomic number 13 in this order.
In claim 20, the phrase “including X-rays and gamma rays” is exemplary language that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if these are required or a preference. The rejection can be overcome by deleting this phrase, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claims 20 and 22, the phrase “fast, slow…secondary neutrons” are terms of degree that render the claims indefinite. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of fast and slow neutrons are in terms of the energies and behaviors. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claims 20-22, the phrase “(e.g. against micrometeoroids, debris, etc.)” renders the claims indefinite because this is exemplary language, the term “etc.” is undefined and unclear, and the parenthesis make it unclear whether these limitations are required in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by deleting this phrase, which is how the claims will be interpreted.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 requires the two other metal containing layers to have a metal with a “lower atomic number”, but claim 10 already requires that the two metal containing layers has a metal with an atomic number of 13. Going from a specific value, i.e. 13, to requiring “lower” is a broadening which fails to limit the claim from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 12 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyt et al. (US 2015/0048209).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 5 and 9, 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 having an atomic number in the range of from 72 to 79 [0121]-[0123]. There can be a carbon fiber composite placed on the inner 50 and outer surfaces 10 of the multi-layer insulation, wherein the carbon fiber composite on the inner surface reads on applicants’ thermal protection layer and the carbon fiber composite placed on the outer surface reads on applicants’ micrometeoroid protection layer comprising multifunctional composite materials and being an oxidation-resistant, heating resistant polymer material [0039].
Hoyt et al. also teach that it is known to include additional materials such as a satellite external structure that protects against atomic oxygen, which reads on applicants’ atomic oxygen resistance layer [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.
With regard to claim 6, the definition of a composite by Merriam Webster is something made up of distinct parts of elements, which means plural layers can read on a composite. The low Z layers read on applicants’ first and second shielding layers [0121]-[0123]; however, each low-Z layer is not shown as being made of plural layers.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated each low-Z layer, such that they were a laminate of two layers each. The rationale for doing so is to increase the protection from charged particles.
With regard to claim 10, this claim is being interpreted as being conditional limitations due to the indefinite nature of the claim (see above). Given the fact that there is only one metal containing layer in the structural multi-layer insulation Hoyt et al., this also reads on claim 10.
With regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the thickness of the high Z layer be any amount, including from 1 to 30 mm as claimed, such that the layer had the proper thickness to block X-rays while not being so thick as to waste materials and make the spacecraft too heavy.
With regard to claims 20-22, the structural multi-layer insulation would serve a structural purpose [0049]. Also, given all of the materials of the structural multi-layer insulation, it would intrinsically provide all of the protections of claim 22.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyt et al. (US 2015/0048209) in view of Harris Jr. et al. (US 2020/0143951).
Hoyt et al. render obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They also teach that the low-Z PEEK layer is for stopping proton and electron radiation, i.e. beta radiation; however, they do not specifically teach that the PEEK has a boron or lithium chemical compound in the layer.
Harris Jr. et al. teach radiation-shielding capabilities of composite materials for space vehicles can be increased by adding metal hydrides, such as lithium hydride, to polymer matrices of PEEK [0001], [0021], [0030] and [0048]. This is done block beta-particle radiation [0077].
Since Hoyt et al. and Harris Jr. et al. are both drawn to radiation-shielding layers for space vehicles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined in the lithium hydride into the PEEK layers of Hoyt et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they had separately. The rationale would be to increase the beta-particle blocking of the multi-layer composite of Hoyt et al. These composite layers would also meet a set of mechanical and thermal requirements as any material would meet these functional limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections and the rejection under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on pages 10 and 13 of their Remarks that since Hoyt et al. do not teach the specific layer order, including for the second shielding layer, as an anticipation type rejection, then it cannot render obvious the claim as an obviousness rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Examiner has explained which layers of Hoyt et al. read on the layers claimed, including the second shielding layer. Additionally, the Examiner has explained where in Hoyt et al. they suggest a satellite external structure that would read on applicants’ atomic oxygen resistance layer of previous claim 3. As such, the Examiner set forth a proper prima facie case of obviousness to include this structure on the structural multi-layer insulation of the prior art, which read on the layer order claimed. Applicants have not explained or provided evidence on how the previous rejection of claim 3 was improper, and therefore the Examiner maintains his position was proper and has repeated the thrust of his obviousness rejection as it now applies to claim 1.
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 GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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
Prosecution Insights