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 1-10, in the reply filed on August 11, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrens et al. (PGPub US 2004/0245373) in view of Dulat et al. (PGPub US 2006/0169841) and Facciano et al. (PGPub US 2007/0228211)
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Behrens et al. disclose a ceramic thermal protection system comprising an inner structural member (base layer), a porous layer (insulating layer), and a semi-porous layer which protects the underlaying porous layer form erosion by high velocity flow (erosion resistant layer). Paragraphs 0012 and 0014.
The porous layer may be a ceramic foam such as Rescor 360 with a density of 256.3 kg/m3 which is a specific gravity of 0.256 (paragraph 0013). While Behrens et al. disclose an aircraft with an inner structural member requiring thermal protection, Behrens et al. do not appear to specifically limit the geometry of the aircraft component. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to utilize the known thermal protection system in known aircraft components. Dulat et al. disclose a guided missile comprising a tip (#10) which is cylindrical in shape and includes a cavity (figure 1) and a protective cap (nose cone) (figure 1 and paragraph 0015). Facciano et al. disclose a missile having a nose section which is a cylindrical hollow body which tapers at one end where a tip is positioned at the tapered end of the nose section (figure 1 and paragraph 0034) ; the nose section is a body comprising a radial region, a tapered region, and a cavity region as claimed, and the tip is a nose cone region adjacent to the tapered region of the nosecone section. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to employ the thermal protection system of Behrens et al. in known existing aerospace bodies including the guided missile of Dulat et al. and the missile of Facciano et al. in order to provide the missiles with improved cooling and where it is obvious to use of known systems in the manufacture of known components where the results are predictable.
Regarding applicants’ claim 2, the porous layer may be a ceramic foam such as Rescor 360 which has a density of 256.3 kg/m3 which is a specific gravity of 0.256 (paragraph 0013).
Regarding applicants’ claim 3, the inner structural member is structural and is made form a metal such as titanium (paragraph 0012) where the porous layer is a material such as Rescor 360 with a specific gravity of 0.256, therefore the porous layer would be understood to have a porosity greater than the inner structural member.
Regarding applicants’ claim 4, the thickness of the inner structural member is not defined, however the discovery of a workable thickness for the structural member is within the ordinary level of skill in the art as a matter of engineering design. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to discover a workable rage of the thickness of the inner structural member based on the structural needs of the vehicle while balancing weight. Behrens et al. disclose that the porous layer may be 1” in thickness and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude a thickness of 1” for a titanium inner structural member would be of exceptional weight and cost, therefore the volume of the porous layer would be greater than the volume of the inner structural member or the workable range would at least overlap applicants’ claimed relationship.
Regarding applicants’ claim 7, Behrens et al. disclose the porous layer to be a ceramic foam (paragraph 0013).
Regarding applicants’ claim 8, the thickness of semi-permeable layer is not defined, however the discovery of a workable thickness is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to discover a workable rage of the thickness of the semi-permeable layer based on the protection needs of the vehicle. Given the breadth of the claimed thickness and the nature of use of a densification liquid product (paragraph 0014), there is a reasonable expectation that the thickness would be less than 1.5cm or at least a workable range would overlap applicants’ claimed range.
Regarding applicants’ claim 9, Behrens et al. disclose the use of an RTV silicone to bond the ceramic foam to the inner structural member (paragraph 0013).
Regarding applicants’ claim 10, whether the vehicle is the missile of Dulat et al. or Faccinao et al. the resulting cavity is the majority of the cross-sectional area of the article (Dulat et al. – figure 1 ; Facciano et al. – Figure 1).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrens et al. (PGPub US 2004/0245373) in view of Dulat et al. (PGPub US 2006/0169841) and Facciano et al. (PGPub US 2007/0228211) as applied to claim 1 as evidenced by Coltronics (High Temperate Materials Handbook , Electrical - Structural Industrial Applications to 3000F, Volume 21 Number 64, 2006).
Regarding applicants’ claim 5, Coltronics disclose Rescor 370 to exhibit a loss factor of 0.017 and have a dielectric constant of 1.16. Given that the degree of transparency is not defined, the material would be radiofrequency and/or microwave transparent (page 45).
Regarding applicants’ claim 6, Behrens et al. disclose a ceramic porous material including Rescor 370 which is a refractory ceramic material (page 45),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
