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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 18 November 2025, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious search burden exists. This is not found persuasive because, in the Office Action mailed 19 September 2025, the examiner stated that there would be a serious search burden and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of a list of reasons apply in accordance with MPEP § 808.02. The examiner provided evidence for the separate classification requirement at the end of each grouping on p. 2 of the Office Action mailed 19 September 2025 (e.g., “I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a heat shield, classified in F02C7/24” and similarly, Group II is shown to be classified in B32B37/00). Furthermore, the inventions have recognized divergent subject matter (i.e. a heat shield vs. a process). Each of these subjects inherently have different search terms in view of their different parts and manner of function and have different resources (e.g., peer-reviewed journals), even when searching for prior art that contains some common features in the end-product. Since the examiner presented support for one or more of the reasons provided by MPEP § 808.02 for establishing a serious burden, this requirement has been met.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 November 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 each recite a heat shield in operative communication with the at least one layer of polymer matrix composite material. It is unclear what is meant by “operative communication” (e.g., communication by radio, thermally, mechanically, etc.). In the interest of advancing prosecution, 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).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 13, the phrase "and the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eastman et al. (US 2021/0053333).
Claim 1: Eastman teaches polymer matrix composite substrates with a thermal barrier coating and heat reflective coating for a gas turbine engine (paragraphs 0001-0002). The substrate can be a polymer ducting made from thermoplastics or can be a thermoset composite ducting made from fiber reinforced epoxy, polyimide and phthalonitrile, etc. (i.e. at least one layer of polymer matrix composite material comprising materials made up of fibers embedded in an organic polymer matrix) (paragraph 0031). The substrate has a hot side and a cold side opposite the hot side (i.e. a first side opposite a second side), and the thermal barrier coating is coupled to the hot side of the substrate with the reflective coating disposed on the thermal barrier coating (paragraph 0004) (i.e. the thermal barrier coating and/or the reflective coating are a heat shield). Being coupled to one side of the substrate is considered to be in operative communication with the substrate (i.e. with the at least one layer of polymer matrix composite material) due to the indefiniteness outlined above. Eastman teaches the thermal barrier coating includes filler with a low bulk thermal conductivity (i.e. limiting heat conductivity to the substrate) (paragraph 0032) and the reflective coating can reflect IR heat away to reduce thermal load through the substrate and can withstand the thermal, oxidative, and abrasive environment of elevated temperature ducting in aerospace applications (paragraph 0039) (i.e. less conductivity and reflecting heat away are considered to provide thermal resistance to thermal energy that would degrade the substrate).
Claim 5: Eastman teaches that the thermal barrier coating can be applied sequentially (layer-by-layer) (paragraph 0033). As such, the first layer of the layer-by-layer coating is considered a heat shield (i.e. due to being a thermal barrier coating) and subsequent layer(s) is/are considered to be a thermal barrier coating formed on an exterior surface of the heat shield.
Claims 6 and 7: Eastman teaches a reflective coating coupled to the thermal barrier coating (i.e. the reflective coating is shown in Fig. 2 to be over the thermal barrier coating) (paragraph 0037), and further teaches that the reflective coating can withstand the thermal, oxidative, and abrasive environment of elevated temperature ducting in aerospace applications and can provide some mechanical durability/life extension to the underlying thermal barrier coating (paragraph 0039) (i.e. the reflective coating also functions as an environmental barrier layer).
Claim 8: Eastman teaches polymer matrix composite substrates with a thermal barrier coating and heat reflective coating for a gas turbine engine (paragraphs 0001-0002). The substrate can be a polymer ducting made from thermoplastics or can be a thermoset composite ducting made from fiber reinforced epoxy, polyimide and phthalonitrile, etc. (i.e. at least one layer of polymer matrix composite material comprising materials made up of fibers embedded in an organic polymer matrix) (paragraph 0031). An additional composite layer can be coupled to an air flow layer that is coupled to the composite substrate such that there is a hot side composite substrate and a cold side composite layer (i.e. multiple layers of polymer matrix composite material) (paragraphs 0040-0041). The substrate has a hot side and a cold side opposite the hot side (i.e. a first side opposite a second side), and the thermal barrier coating is coupled to the hot side of the substrate with the reflective coating disposed on the thermal barrier coating (paragraph 0004) (i.e. the thermal barrier coating and/or the reflective coating are a heat shield). Being coupled to one side of the substrate is considered to be in operative communication with the substrate (i.e. with the at least one layer of polymer matrix composite material) due to the indefiniteness outlined above. Eastman teaches the thermal barrier coating includes filler with a low bulk thermal conductivity (i.e. limiting heat conductivity to the substrate) (paragraph 0032) and the reflective coating can reflect IR heat away to reduce thermal load through the substrate and can withstand the thermal, oxidative, and abrasive environment of elevated temperature ducting in aerospace applications (paragraph 0039) (i.e. less conductivity and reflecting heat away are considered to provide thermal resistance to thermal energy that would degrade the substrate and additional composite layer).
Claim 9: Eastman teaches that the thermal barrier layer may comprise a preform sheet (i.e. the heat shield is configured as a sheet material) (paragraph 0010).
Claim 13: Eastman teaches that the thermal barrier coating can include filler with a low bulk thermal conductivity (paragraph 0032) (i.e. the heat shield comprises material properties of heat transfer coefficient; being a thermal barrier coating and having low thermal conductivity is considered as being configured to preserve the material properties of the underlying polymer matrix composite material).
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman et al. (US 2021/0053333).
Claim 2: The teachings of Eastman regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Eastman teaches polymer matrix composite substrates with a thermal barrier coating and heat reflective coating for a gas turbine engine (paragraphs 0001-0002). The reflective coating can reflect IR heat away to reduce thermal load through the substrate and can withstand the thermal, oxidative, and abrasive environment of elevated temperature ducting in aerospace applications (paragraph 0039) (i.e. less conductivity and reflecting heat away are considered to provide thermal resistance to thermal energy that would degrade the substrate). Eastman teaches that the metal reflective layer (i.e. part of the heat shield as outlined above) can be any deposited metal, such as an inert metal with examples including nickel, etc., and the like (paragraph 0038). A Ni-based alloy would have been an obvious variant of the metal being nickel in view of the teaching “and the like” and “can be any deposited metal”.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed heat shield, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Eastman to include where the reflective coating (i.e. of the heat shield as outlined above) includes a Ni-based alloy, as this is considered an obvious variant of the metal reflective layer being any deposited metal such as an inert metal including nickel, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 3: Eastman teaches that the thermal barrier coating can be applied sequentially or in a single pass coating (paragraph 0033) and the reflective coating can be applied using vapor deposition to provide a conformal coat (paragraph 0037). This is considered to teach the thermal barrier coating and reflective coating (i.e. the heat shield as outlined above) as being bonded or integrated with the substrate (i.e. with the at least one layer as outlined above) since it is applied directly and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a coating applied to a substrate is to remain adhered to the substrate absent a teaching to the contrary.
While not teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed heat shield, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the thermal barrier coating and conformal coating to be coupled to the substrate by being bonded or integrated because Eastman teaches these coatings to be applied or deposited, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4: Eastman teaches the reflective coating (i.e. part of the heat shield) as providing a conformal coat (i.e. the heat shields conforms to the underlying surface). Eastman shows in Fig. 1 portions of the gas turbine engine including components arranged in a flow series with upstream inlet and downstream exhaust (paragraph 0028), and the composite laminate (i.e. the above outlined coated substrate) can form a structure within a fluid passage or air flow ducting (paragraph 0031) (i.e. understood to be part of the flow series of components of the gas turbine engine). These components and air flow ducting are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be flat, curved, or contoured as these are the geometric configurations for a surface, and particularly for a surface that air/fluid flows past.
While not teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed heat shield (i.e. Eastman is not explicit about the shape of the surface being coated), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the component and/or ducting being coated to be at least one of flat, curved, or contoured, because these are the possible geometric configurations for a surface, particularly for a surface that air/fluid flows past, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman et al. (US 2021/0053333) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Churcher et al. (US 2021/0388726).
Claim 10: The teachings of Eastman regarding claim 8 are outlined above. Eastman teaches polymer matrix composite substrates with a thermal barrier coating and heat reflective coating for a gas turbine engine (paragraphs 0001-0002). Eastman teaches that materials of the substrate may include thermoplastics and composites thereof (paragraph 0031). However, Eastman does not teach the instantly claimed overlap.
In a related field of endeavor, Churcher teaches components of gas turbine engines made of composite materials such as fiber-reinforced polymers (paragraph 0003). Churcher further teaches that composite components have previously been provided with shields etc. to mitigate surface erosion but that it can be difficult to achieve a flush interface to not reduce aerodynamic performance (paragraph 0004). Churcher teaches that a thermoplastic polymer sheet may be applied over a composite body and a shield applied over part of the composite body such that the shield terminates at an end which overlies the thermoplastic polymer sheet, and the shield is pressed into the thermoplastic polymer sheet such that the thermoplastic polymer sheet deforms around the end of the shield so that the interface between the shielded and unshielded regions is flush (paragraph 0005). The flush, or continuous, interface between shielded and unshielded regions of the exterior profile of the component is important to enable smooth fluid/air flow across the profile during use (paragraph 0005).
As Eastman and Churcher both teach a gas turbine engine component made of a polymer composite, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the composite of Eastman to include a sheet of thermoplastic polymer (i.e. considered to be part of the polymer matrix composite material) that will deform around the end of the shield (i.e. deform around the heat shield of Eastman, which creates a layup of polymer matrix composite material that overlaps with at least one layer of the multiple layers) so that the interface is flush as taught by Churcher because the flush interface enables smooth fluid/air flow across the profile during use, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11: Churcher teaches that the thermoplastic polymer sheet deforms around the end of the shield so that the interface between the shielded and unshielded regions is flush (paragraph 0005) (i.e. overlap regions are located proximate the heat shield intersection with the polymer matrix composite material at least one layer).
Claim 12: Churcher teaches that a thermoplastic polymer sheet may be applied over a composite body and a shield applied over part of the composite body such that the shield terminates at an end which overlies the thermoplastic polymer sheet, and the shield is pressed into the thermoplastic polymer sheet such that the thermoplastic polymer sheet deforms around the end of the shield so that the interface between the shielded and unshielded regions is flush (paragraph 0005). Since the thermoplastic polymer is applied over the substrate and the shield is applied over the thermoplastic polymer sheet, the thermoplastic polymer is considered to be a bond coat.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fish et al. (US 2013/0122763) teaches fiber reinforced thermoset plastic (i.e. polymer) composites (paragraph 0002) usable for a jet engine nacelle such as compressor, combustor, and turbine components of the jet engine (paragraph 0052). The fiber reinforced thermoset plastic composite materials contain a plurality of layers (paragraph 0080) and can be formed by hand lay-up (paragraph 0083). Fish teaches that the thermoset polymeric composites are generally preferred in applications wherein additional protective measures can be taken to keep the composites from thermal degradation (paragraph 0009).
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