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
The amendment filed 29 April 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-20 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 13 have been amended, claims 14-20 are withdrawn, and claims 10 and 12 are newly canceled.
Support for the new limitation presented in claim 1 and for the limitations in claim 8 regarding the heat shield co-bonded with the polymer matrix composites layers during a cure step is found in paragraph 0047 of the instant specification. Accordingly, no new matter has been presented as a result of these amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “in operative communication” in claims 1 and 8 were previously outlined for being indefinite in the Office Action mailed 30 January 2026. Applicant has not amended or addressed this limitation and therefore the disputed limitation is to be interpreted as set forth in the Office Action mailed 30 January 2026. Specifically, the disputed limitation will be considered where the heat shield is in operative communication with the at least one layer of polymer matrix composite material when they are coupled together, to be consistent with paragraph 0019 of the instant specification because paragraph 0019 states “coupling the heat shield in operative communication with the at least one of the first side and the second side (of the polymer matrix composite material component)” and the only other references to “operative communication” simply states that the heat shield is in operative communication (paragraphs 0006 and 0013 of the instant specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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 3 recites wherein the heat shield can be at least one of bonded, integrated, (or) fastened. However, claim 1 requires the heat shield to be coupled by mechanical fasteners (i.e. fastened), and therefore claim 3 is broader than the base claim due to being fastened may be an alternative being bonded or integrated.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kidd et al. (US 5,108,817).
Claim 1: Kidd teaches a multi-component heat shield including a first component having a first surface and a second heat insulating component having a second surface and an opposite surface (Col. 1, l. 63-67). The heat insulating component may be formed from a rigid sheet such as thermoset, thermoplastic, and fiber-reinforced composite sheet materials, and preferably includes a thermoset (i.e. in the art, a fiber-reinforced thermoset or thermoplastic is considered to be a polymer matrix composite material comprising fibers that are embedded in an organic polymer matrix) (Col. 2, l. 61 to Col 3, l. 4). The heat reflecting component (i.e. heat shield) comprises any suitable material having the ability to reflect infrared radiation (Col. 3, l. 23-38). The components can be connected by fasteners such as rivets, screws, clips, or bolts (Col. 3, l. 49-62) (i.e. the heat shield is coupled together by mechanical fasteners in operative communication with the at least one layer of polymer matrix composite material). The teaching of having the ability to reflect infrared radiation is considered to teach a material composition thermally resistant to thermal energy (understood to be thermal energy sufficient to degrade the polymer matrix composite material structure).
Claim 3: Kidd teaches that the components can be connected by fasteners such as rivets, screws, clips, or bolts (Col. 3, l. 49-62).
Claim 4: Kidd teaches there may be a space between the heat reflecting and heat insulating components or they may be assembled with surface 20 (which is of the insulating component) adjacent to and in contact with surface 24 (which is of the heat reflecting component) (Col. 4, l. 6-23). These surfaces are depicted in Fig. 1 as being substantially flat surfaces.
Claims 8-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westre et al. (US 6,114,050, previously cited).
Claim 8: Westre teaches a hybrid laminate including layers of titanium (i.e. metal) foil alternating with layers (i.e. multiple layers) of an organic polymeric matrix that includes a thermosetting or thermoplastic resin matrix with reinforcing fibers embedded therein possessing outstanding thermal-mechanical endurance properties and preferably including a metal foil as the outermost layer (i.e. the outermost metal foil is a heat shield due to possessing outstanding thermal-mechanical endurance properties) (Col. 2, l. 37-55 and Col. 4, l. 48-65). Any component made of such layer would be considered to have a first side and a second side, and having an outermost layer of metal foil (i.e. a heat shield) is considered where the outermost layer is in operative communication with at least one of a first or second side. Having outstanding thermal-mechanical endurance properties and the disclosure wherein the foil outer surfaces protect the polymeric composite layers (Col. 2, l. 37-55) are considered to provide where the outermost layer (i.e. heat shield) is a material composition thermally resistant to a thermal energy sufficient to degrade and/or compromise structural integrity characteristics of the multiple layers of polymer matrix composite material. Westre teaches that the laminate can be made by laying down a predetermined number of layers of metallic foil and organic polymeric matrix and applying an outer layer of metallic foil (i.e. the heat shield is integrated into a layup of the polymer matrix composite material overlapping with at least one layer of the multiple layers) (Col. 6, l. 51 to Col. 7, l. 6). All layers of the hybrid laminate may be stacked in an autoclave or press and may then be fused under applied heat and pressure into a unitary laminate (Col. 7, l. 7-11) (i.e. the heat shield is co-bonded with the polymer matrix composite layers during a cure step in the manufacture of the polymer matrix composite layers). Westre also teaches that the laminate has high open-hole tensile and compressive strengths that facilitate mechanical joining of the laminates while minimizing the risk of failure from around a throughbore through which a fastener extends and where forces concentrate (Col. 3, l. 40-44). It is noted that the preamble of “for polymer matrix composite material component for a gas turbine engine” is an intended use of the recited heat shield that does not result in a structural difference between the claimed heat shield and the prior art and therefore does not serve to limit the claim. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Furthermore, Westre teaches the laminate as being suitable for a supersonic aircraft.
Claim 9: Westre teaches a metal foil as the outermost layer (i.e. the outermost metal foil is a heat shield due as outlined above) (Col. 2, l. 37-55 and Col. 4, l. 48-65). A foil is considered to be a sheet material.
Claim 11: Westre teaches a hybrid laminate including layers of titanium (i.e. metal) foil alternating with layers (i.e. multiple layers) of an organic polymeric matrix that includes a thermosetting or thermoplastic resin matrix with reinforcing fibers embedded therein possessing outstanding thermal-mechanical endurance properties and preferably including a metal foil as the outermost layer (i.e. the internal metal foils are a heat shield due to possessing outstanding thermal-mechanical endurance properties) (Col. 2, l. 37-55 and Col. 4, l. 48-65). As shown in Fig. 1, Westre shows the organic polymer matrix layer as overlapping the metal foil layer, including at regions proximate the intersection of the metal foil layer (i.e. heat shield) with at least one other of the organic polymer matrix layers.
Claim 13: Westre teaches foils of titanium and its alloys as being preferred particularly when the alloy is heat-treated to a yield strain of greater than 1% (i.e. the heat shield comprises material property of stiffness) to provide the advantage of improving the load limit and ultimate load capability of the laminate (Col. 5, l. 1-11) and the outer layer of foil protect the underlying organic composite from the environment and attack by fluids (Col. 7, l. 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (US 5,108,817) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Westre et al. (US 6,114,050, previously cited).
Claim 2: The teachings of Kidd regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Kidd teaches a multi-component heat shield including a first component having a first surface and a second heat insulating component having a second surface and an opposite surface (Col. 1, l. 63-67). The heat insulating component may be formed from a rigid sheet such as thermoset, thermoplastic, and fiber-reinforced composite sheet materials, and preferably includes a thermoset (i.e. a fiber-reinforced thermoset or thermoplastic) (Col. 2, l. 61 to Col 3, l. 4). Kidd further teaches that the heat reflecting component may be a metallic sheet material, but teaches an aluminum sheet (Col. 3, l. 23-38).
In a related field of endeavor, Westre teaches a hybrid laminate including layers of titanium (i.e. metal) foil alternating with layers of an organic polymeric matrix that includes a thermosetting or thermoplastic resin matrix with reinforcing fibers embedded therein possessing outstanding thermal-mechanical endurance properties and preferably including a metal foil as the outermost layer (Col. 2, l. 37-55 and Col. 4, l. 48-65). Westre teaches that aluminum and aluminum alloy foils may be used, but foils of titanium and its alloys (i.e. a Ti-based alloy) are preferred, particularly of beta titanium alloy, to allow increased operating load and use of the metal alloy foil up to their elastic yield strain (Col. 5, l. 1-11).
As Kidd and Westre both teach a fiber-reinforced thermoset or thermoplastic layer coupled with a metal foil layer, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the aluminum foil of the heat reflecting component of Kidd for a titanium foil as taught by Westre because it can allow an increased operating load, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (US 5,108,817) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eastman et al. (2021/0053333, previously cited).
Claim 5: The teachings of Kidd regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Kidd teaches a multi-component heat shield including a first component having a first surface and a second heat insulating component having a second surface and an opposite surface (Col. 1, l. 63-67). The heat insulating component may be formed from a rigid sheet such as thermoset, thermoplastic, and fiber-reinforced composite sheet materials, and preferably includes a thermoset (i.e. a fiber-reinforced thermoset or thermoplastic) (Col. 2, l. 61 to Col 3, l. 4). Kidd further teaches that the heat reflecting component may be a metallic sheet material (Col. 3, l. 23-38), but does not teach a further thermal barrier coating on the metallic sheet (i.e. on the heat shield).
In a related field of endeavor, Eastman teaches a composite laminate (paragraph 0001) with a substrate of thermoplastics that may be fiber reinforced (i.e. a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic) (paragraph 0031) and a reflective coating coupled to a thermal barrier coating (paragraph 0037). The thermal barrier coating can include filler that can promote oxidative protection by acting as an oxygen barrier to the underlying substrate as well as a gaseous barrier of volatile degradation products from the substrate out to the hot side (paragraph 0032). The reflective coating can include a metal layer capped with conformal inorganic coating for added infrared reflectivity (paragraph 0038). The reflective coating reduces thermal load through the substrate, can provide some mechanical durability, and can withstand thermal, oxidative, and abrasive environment in use (paragraph 0039).
As Kidd and Eastman both teach a fiber-reinforced thermoset or thermoplastic layer coupled with a metal layer, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat reflecting component of Kidd to include an additional inorganic coating on the metal layer for added infrared reflectivity and which can withstand thermal environment (i.e. a thermal barrier layer), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 and 7: Based on the combined teachings of Kidd and Eastman as outlined above regarding claim 5, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat reflecting component of Kidd to include a thermal barrier coating that includes filler that can promote oxidative protection (i.e. this thermal barrier coating is an environmental barrier layer) as taught by Eastman, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the thermal barrier coating to be placed on the heat reflecting component as a simple rearrangement of parts because the placement of this layer would not substantially affect the ability of the coating to act as an oxygen barrier, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Response to Arguments
The indefiniteness previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 30 January 2026 regarding claims 1 and 8 were not amended or addressed in the remarks filed 29 April 2026, and therefore claims 1 and 8 are considered to be interpreted as outlined in the Office Action. The amendment deleting the disputed limitation of “and the like” from claims 3, 4, and 13 have overcome this indefiniteness. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 April 2026, regarding the prior art of Eastman, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore the prior art rejections previously set forth have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection has been set forth, as outlined above, over the disclosure of Kidd, of Westre, of Kidd in view of Westre, and of Kidd in view of Eastman. It is noted that the teachings of Eastman are not relied upon for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights