DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 canceling Claims 2 and 6, adding new Claims 21 and 22, and amending Claims 1, 3 – 5, 9, and 11 - 13 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 5, and 7 – 22 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, l. 5 “curing the ablative material to form an ablative layer between” is believed to be in error for --curing the ablative material to form [[an]] the ablative layer between-- because Claim 11, l. 15 previously recited ‘an ablative layer’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 4 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 4 recites “The rocket motor of claim 1, wherein the ablative layer is formed of an ablative material that is injection molded into the passage space.” Claim 1, ll. 11 - 12 recites “…an ablative layer filled by injection molding in the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall”. Claim 4 recitation that “…the ablative layer is formed of an ablative material” is inherent and therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1. It is inherent that “…the ablative layer is formed of an ablative material” because it was impossible for the ablative layer to be formed from a non-ablative material. Claim 4 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. 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 5 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 5 recites “The rocket motor of claim 1, wherein the insulator-carrying surface faces the passage space.” Claim 1, ll. 17 - 19 recites “…a set of surface structures on the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall and formed as part of the monolithic piece, the set of surface structures radially protruding from the insulator-carrying surface into the passage space”. Claim 5 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. 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 12 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 12 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein the motor case is a monolithic piece that is formed by the additive manufacturing process, the monolithic piece comprises the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall.” Claim 11, ll. 6 - 8 recites “…wherein the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall are formed as a monolithic piece of the motor case”. Claim 12 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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7 – 12, and 15 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (6,235,359) in view of Beck et al. (10,527,003) in view of Fite, Jr. (3,056,171) in view of Lawrynowicz et al. (9,763,791) in view of Liu (5,151,216).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 5, l. 55 to Col. 6, l. 5, the invention as claimed, including a rocket motor (Fig. 1) comprising: a combustion chamber (space inside motor case) configured to carry propellant (16) for propelling the rocket (Designed and intended purpose of the propellant.); a motor case (12-10-14) enclosing the combustion chamber (shown in Fig. 1), the motor case (12-10-14) comprising an external wall (12 - shown in the enlarged view of Fig. 1) and an internal wall (14) that is spaced apart from the external wall (12) to form a passage space (space for ablative layer 10) between the external wall (12) and the internal wall (14), wherein the external wall (12) has an insulator-carrying surface (interior side facing 10 since the external wall, i.e., rocket motor case, supported the static and dynamic loads of the rocket.), wherein the internal wall (14) has a lower thickness than, i.e., is thinner than, the external wall (12); an ablative layer (10 – Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60 “the ablative and insulation materials can be used as a chamber internal insulation liner, as shown in FIG. 1.”) in the passage space (space for ablative layer 10) between the external wall (12) and the internal wall (14), the ablative layer (10) in contact with the insulator-carrying surface (interior side facing 10) of the external wall (12) of the motor case (12-10-14).
Wilson is silent on said external wall being a metallic external wall, on said internal wall being an internal metallic sacrificial wall, and wherein the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall are formed as a monolithic piece of the motor case.
Beck teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Abstract, Col. 2, ll. 25 - 36, Col. 3, l. 60 to Col. 4, l. 5, Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, and Col. 10, ll. 1 – 5, a similar rocket motor (100) having a motor case (102, 103) having a metallic external wall (106) and an internal metallic wall (107) that were formed as a monolithic piece (single piece) by an additive manufacturing process, in this case direct laser metal sintering (DLMS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson to have the external wall and the internal wall be metallic walls formed as part of a monolithic piece using an additive manufacturing process, taught by Beck, because Beck teaches, in the Abstract and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
Wilson, i.v., Beck, as discussed above, is silent on said internal metallic wall being an internal metallic sacrificial wall, i.e., configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant.
Fite teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 3, ll. 1 – 15, and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, a similar rocket motor having a combustion chamber (11) configured to carry propellant (12) for propelling the rocket; a motor case (10-15) enclosing the combustion chamber (11), the motor case comprising an external wall (10) and an internal wall (15) configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that during combustion of the propellant the inner surface of the internal wall was consumed, i.e., sacrificed, but retained its form due to the short burning duration of the solid propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 55 – 60, that combustion of solid propellant generated temperatures in excess of 4,900 °F. Examiner takes Official Notice that metals such as stainless steel and copper alloys, cited by Beck, had melting points that were significantly lower than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant. For example, stainless steel had a melting point of 2,500 °F to 2785 °F (1375 °C to 1530 °C) depending on the specific grade and copper alloys had a melting point of 1,650 °F to 1,900 °F (900 °C to 1,030 °C) which were significantly less than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant.
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Fite, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that during combustion of solid propellant in the combustion chamber of the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, a portion of the thinner internal metallic wall would have been consumed, i.e., sacrificed, due to the extremely high combustion temperatures while the thicker external metallic wall provided the mechanical strength necessary to contain the high temperature and high pressure combustion gases within the combustion chamber. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, as discussed above, is silent on a set of surface structures on said insulator-carrying surface of said external metallic wall and formed as part of said monolithic piece, the set of surface structures radially protruding from said insulator-carrying surface into said passage space, wherein the set of surface structures are shaped to provide mechanical retention of said ablative layer.
Lawrynowicz teaches, in Fig. 2, Col. 6, ll. 5 – 30, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 67, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, a set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) on an insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18), the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) radially protruding from said insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18), wherein the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) are shaped to provide mechanical retention of the insulator [18 - a polymer such as polyetherether ketone (PEEK) was an insulator]. Lawrynowicz teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 25 – 30, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 67, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 10, that the T-shaped surface structures provided mechanical retention, i.e., mechanical interlocking, between the PEEK insulator (18) and the wall (16) with the insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18). Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing processes can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures.
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Lawrynowicz, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating a set of surface structures on the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall and formed as part of the monolithic piece (i.e., single piece formed by an additive manufacturing process) would have resulted in the set of surface structures radially protruding from the insulator-carrying surface into the passage space, and the set of surface structures would have been shaped to facilitate providing mechanical retention of the ablative layer. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz, as discussed above, is silent on said ablative layer filled by injection molding, ablative layer formed from a composite material different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall; and wherein the ablative layer has complementary recessing surface structures formed from the injection molding, the complementary recessing surface structures being complementary to the set of surface structures of the external metallic wall.
Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 10 – 15, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, that the PEEK (PolyEtherEther Ketone was a thermoplastic, i.e., NOT a metal) insulator (18) was injection molded so that the PEEK fluid material would have flowed into and around the geometry of the T-shaped surface structures thereby fully encasing the T-shaped surface structures within the cured, i.e., solidified, PEEK insulator (18) and fully affixing, i.e., mechanical interlocking, the PEEK insulator (18) to the wall (16). Liu teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 20 – 25, Col. 14, l. 64 to Col. 15, l. 5, Claim 14, and Claim 18, a polymeric foam composite material (primarily isocyanate by weight, see Claim 14 for the material composition) ablative material that was injection molded into a passage space (open space inside a closed mold) for use on solid fuel rockets, i.e., rocket motors with solid propellent grains, like the space shuttle solid rocket motors (SRMs).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz, with said ablative layer filled by injection molding, ablative layer formed from a composite material different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall; and wherein the ablative layer has complementary recessing surface structures formed from the injection molding, the complementary recessing surface structures being complementary to the set of surface structures of the external metallic wall, taught by Lawrynowicz and Liu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket motor comprising a motor case enclosing a combustion chamber configured to carry propellant, the motor case comprising an external metallic wall that had an insulator-carrying surface; an ablative layer carried by the insulator-carrying surface, and an ablative layer formed from an ablative material that was injection molded into a passage space, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the injection moldable ablative material, taught by Liu, for the ablative material of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the injection moldable ablative material would have been injected into the passage space where it would have flowed into and around the geometry of the surface structures thereby fully encasing the surface structures within the cured, i.e., solidified, ablative material layer thereby providing mechanical retention of the ablative layer to the insulator-carrying surface of the external wall. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, taught said ablative layer formed from a composite material (not a metal) different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall; and wherein the ablative layer has complementary recessing surface structures formed from the injection molding, the complementary recessing surface structures being complementary to the set of surface structures of the external metallic wall (e.g., fluent material that flowed into the empty air space around solid objects like the radially protruding set of surface structures).
Re Claim 3, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall are part of a monolithic piece formed from an additive manufacturing process, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 4, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the ablative layer is formed of an ablative material that is injection molded into the passage space, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 5, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the insulator-carrying surface faces the passage space, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 7, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the set of surface structures comprises a lattice surface structure. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 9, ll. 5 – 10, that while the T-shape surface structures was the preferred pattern, the surface structures, i.e., ribs, could be designed into different patterns. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing process can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to have the set of surface structures comprise a lattice surface structure because Applicant has not disclosed that “set of surface structures comprise a lattice surface structure” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 8 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprises a radially protruding member that has a first width that is wider than a second width at a level that is closer to the insulator-carrying surface”, i.e., T-shaped surface structures. Claim 10 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members”. Applicant’s disclosed and claimed set of surface structures being at least three (3) distinct shapes (lattice, T-shaped, and hook-shaped) is indicative of the fact that the claimed shapes are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as the T-shape of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, because Claim 8 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 7.
Re Claim 8, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the set of surface structures (T-shape) comprises a radially protruding member (the T-shape would have radially protruded from the interior side of wall 12, i.e., the insulator-carrying surface) that has a first width (the head of the ‘T’) that is wider than a second width (at the base of the ‘T’) at a level that is closer to the insulator-carrying surface (where the base of the ‘T’ was connected to the interior side of wall 12).
Re Claim 9, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Wilson further teaches, in Fig. 1, wherein the propellant (16) is a solid propellant grain (Col. 4, ll. 13 – 17 and Claim 1) that is in contact with the internal metallic sacrificial wall (14) of the motor case (12-10-14).
Re Claim 10, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 9, ll. 5 – 10, that while the T-shape surface structures was the preferred pattern, the surface structures, i.e., ribs, could be designed into different patterns. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing process can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to have the set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members because Applicant has not disclosed that “set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 7 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprises a lattice surface structure”. Claim 8 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprises a radially protruding member that has a first width that is wider than a second width at a level that is closer to the insulator-carrying surface”, i.e., T-shaped surface structures. Applicant’s disclosed and claimed set of surface structures being at least three (3) distinct shapes (lattice, T-shaped, and hook-shaped) is indicative of the fact that the claimed shapes are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as the T-shape of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, because Claim 8 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 10.
Re Claim 21, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the set of surface structures is formed as part of an additive manufacturing process, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding Claim 11, Wilson teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 5, l. 55 to Col. 6, l. 5, the invention as claimed, including a method for making a rocket motor (Fig. 1), the method comprising: performing a manufacturing process to form a motor case (12-10-14) that comprises an external wall (12) and an internal wall (14) that is spaced apart from the external wall (12) to form a passage space (space for ablative layer 10) between the external wall (12) and the internal wall (14), wherein the external wall (12) has an insulator-carrying surface (interior side facing 10 since the external wall, i.e., rocket motor case, supported the static and dynamic loads of the rocket.), wherein the internal wall (14) has a lower thickness than, i.e., is thinner than, the external wall (12); and forming an ablative layer (10 – Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60 “the ablative and insulation materials can be used as a chamber internal insulation liner, as shown in FIG. 1.”), the ablative layer in contact with the insulator-carrying surface (interior side facing 10) of the external wall (12) of the motor case (12-10-14).
Wilson is silent on said manufacturing process to form said motor case is an additive manufacturing process, said external wall being a metallic external wall, on said internal wall being an internal metallic wall, and wherein the external metallic wall and the internal metallic wall are formed as a monolithic piece of the motor case.
Beck teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Abstract, Col. 2, ll. 25 - 36, Col. 3, l. 60 to Col. 4, l. 5, Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, and Col. 10, ll. 1 – 5, a similar rocket motor (100) having a motor case (102, 103) having a metallic external wall (106) and an internal metallic wall (107) that were formed as a monolithic piece (single piece) by an additive manufacturing process, in this case direct laser metal sintering (DLMS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson to have the external wall and the internal wall be metallic walls formed as part of a monolithic piece using an additive manufacturing process, taught by Beck, because Beck teaches, in the Abstract and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
Wilson, i.v., Beck, as discussed above, is silent on said internal metallic wall being an internal metallic sacrificial wall, i.e., configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant.
Fite teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 3, ll. 1 – 15, and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, a similar rocket motor having a combustion chamber (11) configured to carry propellant (12) for propelling the rocket; a motor case (10-15) enclosing the combustion chamber (11), the motor case comprising an external wall (10) and an internal wall (15) configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that during combustion of the propellant the inner surface of the internal wall was consumed, i.e., sacrificed, but retained its form due to the short burning duration of the solid propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 55 – 60, that combustion of solid propellant generated temperatures in excess of 4,900 °F. Examiner takes Official Notice that metals such as stainless steel and copper alloys, cited by Beck, had melting points that were significantly lower than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant. For example, stainless steel had a melting point of 2,500 °F to 2785 °F (1375 °C to 1530 °C) depending on the specific grade and copper alloys had a melting point of 1,650 °F to 1,900 °F (900 °C to 1,030 °C) which were significantly less than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant.
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Fite, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that during combustion of solid propellant in the combustion chamber of the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, a portion of the thinner internal metallic wall would have been consumed, i.e., sacrificed, due to the extremely high combustion temperatures while the thicker external metallic wall provided the mechanical strength necessary to contain the high temperature and high pressure combustion gases within the combustion chamber. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, as discussed above, is silent on forming, as part of the additive manufacturing process, a set of surface structures on the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall, the set of surface structures formed as part of the monolithic piece, the set of surface structures radially protruding from the insulator-carrying surface into the passage space; wherein the set of surface structures are formed by the additive manufacturing process to be shaped to provide mechanical retention of the ablative layer.
Lawrynowicz teaches, in Fig. 2, Col. 6, ll. 5 – 30, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 67, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, forming, via additive manufacturing process, a set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) on an insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18), the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) radially protruding from said insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18); wherein the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) are formed by the additive manufacturing process to be shaped to provide mechanical retention of the insulator [18 - a polymer such as polyetherether ketone (PEEK) was an insulator]. Lawrynowicz teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 25 – 30, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 67, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 10, that the T-shaped surface structures provided mechanical retention, i.e., mechanical interlocking, between the PEEK insulator (18) and the wall (16) with the insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18). Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing processes can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures. As discussed above, Beck taught, in the Abstract and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
Thus, improving a particular method (for making a rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Lawrynowicz and Beck, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the method for making the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that forming, as part of the additive manufacturing process, a set of surface structures on the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall, the set of surface structures formed as part of the monolithic piece during additive manufacturing, the set of surface structures radially protruding from the insulator-carrying surface into the passage space and shaped to provide mechanical retention of the ablative layer would have facilitated providing mechanical retention of the ablative layer to the external wall, i.e., rocket motor case, that supported the static and dynamic loads of the rocket. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz, as discussed above, is silent on said forming an ablative layer being by injection molding to fill the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall, the ablative layer in contact with the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall of the motor case, the ablative layer formed from a composite material different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall, and wherein the ablative layer has complementary recessing surface structures formed from the injection molding, the complementary recessing surface structures being complementary to the set of surface structures of the external metallic wall.
Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 10 – 15, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, that the PEEK (PolyEtherEther Ketone was a thermoplastic, i.e., NOT a metal) insulator (18) was injection molded so that the PEEK fluid material would have flowed into and around the geometry of the T-shaped surface structures thereby fully encasing the T-shaped surface structures within the cured, i.e., solidified, PEEK insulator (18) and fully affixing, i.e., mechanical interlocking, the PEEK insulator (18) to the wall (16). Liu teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 20 – 25, Col. 14, l. 64 to Col. 15, l. 5, Claim 14, and Claim 18, a polymeric foam composite material (primarily isocyanate by weight, see Claim 14 for the material composition) ablative material that was injection molded into a passage space (open space inside a closed mold) for use on solid fuel rockets, i.e., rocket motors with solid propellent grains, like the space shuttle solid rocket motors (SRMs).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz, with injection molding said ablative layer to fill the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall, the ablative layer in contact with the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall of the motor case, the ablative layer formed from a composite material different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall, and wherein the ablative layer has complementary recessing surface structures formed from the injection molding, the complementary recessing surface structures being complementary to the set of surface structures of the external metallic wall, taught by Lawrynowicz and Liu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket motor comprising a motor case enclosing a combustion chamber configured to carry propellant, the motor case comprising an external wall that had an insulator-carrying surface; an ablative layer carried by the insulator-carrying surface, and injection molding said ablative layer to fill the passage space between an external wall and an internal wall, the ablative layer in contact with an insulator-carrying surface of the external wall of a motor case, the ablative layer formed from a composite material different from a metallic material, and wherein the ablative layer has complementary recessing surface structures formed from the injection molding, the complementary recessing surface structures being complementary to the set of surface structures of the external wall, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the injection moldable ablative material, taught by Liu, for the ablative material of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the injection moldable composite ablative material would have been injected into the passage space where it would have flowed into and around the geometry of the surface structures thereby fully encasing the surface structures within the cured, i.e., solidified, ablative material layer thereby providing mechanical retention of the ablative layer to the insulator-carrying surface of the external wall, i.e., rocket motor case, that supported the static and dynamic loads of the rocket. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, taught said ablative layer formed from a composite material (not a metal) different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall; and wherein the ablative layer has complementary recessing surface structures formed from the injection molding, the complementary recessing surface structures being complementary to the set of surface structures of the external metallic wall (e.g., fluent material that flowed into the empty air space around solid objects like the radially protruding set of surface structures).
Re Claim 12, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the motor case (12-10-14) is a monolithic piece that is formed by the additive manufacturing process (refer to Claim 11 rejection above), the monolithic piece comprises the external metallic wall (12) and the internal metallic sacrificial wall (14).
Re Claim 15, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 9, ll. 5 – 10, that while the T-shape surface structures was the preferred pattern, the surface structures, i.e., ribs, could be designed into different patterns. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing process can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to have the set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members because Applicant has not disclosed that “set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 17 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprises a lattice surface structure”. Claim 18 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprises a radially protruding member” and Claim 19 recites “wherein the radially protruding member that has a first width that is wider than a second width at a level that is closer to the insulator-carrying surface”, i.e., T-shaped surface structures. Applicant’s disclosed and claimed set of surface structures being at least three (3) distinct shapes (lattice, T-shaped, and hook-shaped) is indicative of the fact that the claimed shapes are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as the T-shape of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, because Claims 18 and 19 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 15.
Re Claim 16, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Wilson further teaches, in Fig. 1, wherein the motor case has a longitudinal body (length along the longitudinal axis).
Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, as discussed above, is silent on the additive manufacturing process is progressed along a longitudinal direction to build the motor case. As discussed in the Claim 11 rejection above, Beck teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Abstract, Col. 3, l. 60 to Col. 4, l. 5, Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, and Col. 10, ll. 1 – 5, additively manufacturing a motor case as a monolithic piece (single piece) by using direct laser metal sintering (DLMS) which was a layer-by-layer process. Beck teaches, in Col. 9, ll. 15 – 30, “In additive manufacturing, the component typically starts out as empty space and a specialized printer then deposits material layer-by-layer in order to build up the part. In direct laser metal sintering (DLMS), loose metal particles are deposited in areas where the component will have material structure and then a focused laser beam is used to fuse the particles at those locations together in order to form a solid, contiguous structure.”
PNG
media_image1.png
799
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, improving a particular method (for making a rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Beck, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the method for making the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that building the motor case via an additive manufacturing process like direct laser metal sintering (DLMS) would have involved progressing along a longitudinal direction (along longitudinal axis) where a first layer of material would have been deposited in areas where the motor case would have material structure and then a focused laser beam would be used to fuse the material particles at those locations together in order to form a solid, contiguous structure as the process is repeated for each successive layer until the last layer was fused thereby completing the motor case. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 17, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the set of surface structures comprises a lattice surface structure. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 9, ll. 5 – 10, that while the T-shape surface structures was the preferred pattern, the surface structures, i.e., ribs, could be designed into different patterns. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing process can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to have the set of surface structures comprise a lattice surface structure because Applicant has not disclosed that “set of surface structures comprise a lattice surface structure” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 15 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprise a plurality of hook-shaped members”. Claim 18 recites “wherein the set of surface structures comprises a radially protruding member” and Claim 19 recites “wherein the radially protruding member that has a first width that is wider than a second width at a level that is closer to the insulator-carrying surface”, i.e., T-shaped surface structures. Applicant’s disclosed and claimed set of surface structures being at least three (3) distinct shapes (lattice, T-shaped, and hook-shaped) is indicative of the fact that the claimed shapes are indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as the T-shape of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, because Claims 18 and 19 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 17.
Re Claims 18 and 19, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Claim 18) wherein the set of surface structures (T-shape) comprises a radially protruding member (the T-shape would have radially protruded from the interior side of wall 12) and (Claim 19) wherein the radially protruding member has a first width (the head of the ‘T’) that is wider than a second width (at the base of the ‘T’) at a level that is closer to the insulator-carrying surface (where the base of the ‘T’ was connected to the interior side of wall 12).
Re Claim 20, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the radially protruding member is formed as part of the additive manufacturing process. As discussed in the Claim 11 rejection above, Lawrynowicz taught that the T-shaped surface structures, including the radially protruding member, were formed by the additive manufacturing process.
Re Claim 22, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the set of surface structures is formed as part of an additive manufacturing process, refer to the Claim 11 rejection above.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (6,235,359) in view of Beck et al. (10,527,003) in view of Fite, Jr. (3,056,171) in view of Lawrynowicz et al. (9,763,791) in view of Liu (5,151,216) as applied to Claims 1 and 11, respectively above, and further in view of O’Neill et al. (7,537,664).
Re Claims 7 and 17, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the set of surface structures comprises a lattice surface structure. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 9, ll. 5 – 10, that while the T-shape surface structures was the preferred pattern, the surface structures, i.e., ribs, could be designed into different patterns. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing process can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures. Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Fig. 2 and Col. 5, ll. 60 – 65, that porous metal coating (28) described in O’Neill U.S. Patent No. 7,537,664 (which was incorporated by reference) on the insulator-carrying surface (interior surface facing 18) of the wall (16) were shaped to provide mechanical retention of the layer (18). O’Neill teaches, in Fig. 30, Col. 1, ll. 35 – 60, Col. 3, ll. 25 – 35, and Col. 14, ll. 20 – 25, using an additive manufacturing process (selective laser sintering) to fabricate three-dimensional (3D) quasi-porous lattice surface structures which functioned as interlocking structures.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, with the set of surface structures comprises a lattice surface structure, taught by O’Neill which was incorporated into Lawrynowicz, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket motor comprising a motor case enclosing a combustion chamber configured to carry propellant, the motor case comprising a wall that had an insulator-carrying surface, and a set of surface structures comprises a lattice surface structure which functioned as interlocking structures, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the lattice surface structure, taught by O’Neill and Lawrynowicz, for the T-shaped surface structure of Wilson, i.v.,Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the quasi-porous lattice surface structures would have facilitated providing mechanical retention (interlocking) of the injection molded ablative material which would have flowed into the pores of said lattice surface structures and around the solid lattice members of said lattice surface structures thereby fully encasing at least a portion of the lattice surface structures within the cured, i.e., solidified, ablative material layer thereby providing mechanical retention of the ablative layer to the insulator-carrying surface of the wall. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (6,235,359) in view of Beck et al. (10,527,003) in view of Fite, Jr. (3,056,171) in view of Lawrynowicz et al. (9,763,791) in view of Liu (5,151,216) as applied to Claim 11, respectively above, and further in view of Pinheiro et al. (6,641,471).
Re Claim 13, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein forming the ablative layer on the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall (12) of the motor case (12-10-14) comprises: injecting (RIM - reaction injection molding) an ablative material into the passage space between the internal metallic sacrificial wall (14) and the external metallic wall (12). Liu further teaches, in Col. 15, ll. 1 – 5, reaction injection molding (RIM)the composite ablative material into a closed mold.
Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, as discussed above, is silent on curing the ablative material to form an ablative layer between said internal metallic sacrificial wall and said external metallic wall of said motor case.
Pinheiro teaches, in Col. 4, l. 65 to Col. 5, l. 10, that reaction injection molding (RIM) involved injecting a reactive liquid material into a mold, then once the mold was filled, the reactive liquid material reacts chemically causing solidification, i.e., curing, of the injected reactive liquid material into the final molded form inside the mold (which had walls that defined the open volume that received the reactive liquid material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu, would have curing the ablative material to form an ablative layer between said internal metallic sacrificial wall and said external metallic wall of said motor case as part of the reaction injection molding process, as taught by Pinheiro.
Re Claim 14, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, Liu, and Pinheiro, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including further comprising sealing the passage space to prevent the ablative material from outflowing from the passage space. Liu teaches, in Col. 15, ll. 1 – 5, reaction injection molding (RIM) using a closed mold, i.e., a sealed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, Liu, and Pinheiro, the reaction injection molding (RIM) would have involved injecting a reactive liquid composite ablative material into the passage space, then sealing the passage space thereby forming a closed mold which would have prevent the ablative material from outflowing from the passage space while it cured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8, second paragraph that, “In Beck, the space between the exterior and interior skin is used to carry coolant and is explicitly formed from layers of metal, not ablative material. The interior skin in Beck must remain intact to preserve the coolant flow path. Therefore, Beck's interior skin cannot be reasonably interpreted as a "metallic sacrificial wall." In response to applicant's arguments against the reference Beck individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The independent claims were rejected based on the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Lawrynowicz, and Liu. Wilson already taught a sacrificial internal wall (14) which was located between the solid propellant (16) and the ablative layer (10). Wilson did not explicitly use the name “sacrificial wall”; however, merely using a different name for the wall does not change its function. Wilson’s internal wall (14) had to be sacrificial, i.e., partially consumed during combustion of the solid propellant, for the ablative layer (10) to perform its designed and intended function of protecting the external wall (12) of the rocket motor case from the extreme conditions, i.e., the high temperatures, produced by combustion of the solid propellant. There were several types of ablative materials that function slightly differently. Intumescent ablative materials expand from a thin layer to a substantially thicker foam layer (from 10 to 100 times its original thickness) when heated by the combustion gases. The thicker expanded foam layer would have improved the insulation ability while a portion of the ablative layer directly exposed to the combustion gases would have charred (pyrolysis) and turned into porous carbon-rich char that would have further increased the insulation ability of the expanded and charred ablative layer. Charring ablative materials function similar to intumescent ablative materials; however, charring ablative materials do not expand as much as intumescent ablative materials. When directly exposed to the combustion gases, the exposed surface of a charring ablative material would undergo chemical decomposition (pyrolysis) that produced gases that flowed out through the porous puffed up char layer (on the exposed surface), cooling it and creating a "boundary layer" of gas that reduces the amount of convective heat (from the combustion gases) from reaching the charred surface of the ablative layer. Obviously, neither type of ablative materials would have been able to perform their designed and intended function if Wilson’s internal wall (14) was not sacrificial. If Wilson’s internal wall (14) was not sacrificial then the ablative layer would have remained sealed inside the passage space between the external wall and the internal wall where it could not have increased its insulating ability by expanding and charring or pyrolyzing to create a "boundary layer" of gas adjacent to an outer char layer.
Furthermore, as discussed above, Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that during combustion of the propellant the inner surface of the internal wall was consumed, i.e., sacrificed, but retained its form due to the short burning duration of the solid propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 55 – 60, that combustion of solid propellant generated temperatures in excess of 4,900 °F. As discussed above, Beck was applied for its teaching that it was known in the prior art to use additive manufacturing to produce a rocket motor case enclosing a combustion chamber, the motor case comprising an external metallic wall and an internal metallic wall that is spaced apart from the external metallic wall to form a passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic wall. Examiner took Official Notice that metals such as stainless steel and copper alloys, cited by Beck, had melting points that were significantly lower than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant. For example, stainless steel had a melting point of 2,500 °F to 2785 °F (1375 °C to 1530 °C) depending on the specific grade and copper alloys had a melting point of 1,650 °F to 1,900 °F (900 °C to 1,030 °C) which were significantly less than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant. Therefore, when exposed to the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature the internal metallic wall would have melted, i.e., been sacrificed, thereby exposing the ablative layer to the high temperature combustion gases so the ablative layer could have increased its insulating ability by expanding and charring or pyrolyzing to create a "boundary layer" of gas adjacent to an outer char layer to protect the external wall (12) of the rocket motor case from the extreme conditions, i.e., the high temperatures, produced by combustion of the solid propellant. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s further arguments on Pg. 8, last paragraph continuing on to Pg. 9 have been addressed in the rejections above at the appropriate locations.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741