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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 06/15/2026 amending Claims 1, 4, 11, and 13 and canceling Claims 5 and 12. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 – 11, and 13 – 22 are examined.
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 3 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 3 recites “The rocket motor of claim 1, wherein the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall are part of a monolithic piece formed from an additive manufacturing process”. Claim 1, 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 by an additive manufacturing process”. 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. 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. wherein the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall are part of a monolithic piece formed from an additive manufacturing process
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 by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space”. Claim 1, ll. 13 - 15 recites “ablative layer being formed by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space”. 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 13 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 13 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein forming the ablative layer disposed in the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space comprises: injecting an ablative material into the passage space between the internal metallic sacrificial wall and the external metallic wall; and curing the ablative material to form the ablative layer between the internal metallic sacrificial wall and the external metallic wall of the motor case”. Claim 11, ll. 19 - 22 recites “forming the ablative layer disposed in the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space”. Claim 13 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 20 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 18 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein the set of surface structures comprises a radially protruding member”. Claim 20 recites “The method of claim 18, wherein the radially protruding member is formed as part of the additive manufacturing process”. Claim 11, ll. 12 - 15 recites “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 by the additive manufacturing process”. Since the set of surface structures are formed as part of the monolithic piece by the additive manufacturing process, then the radially protruding members of the set of surface structures would be formed as part of the additive manufacturing process. Claim 20 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 21 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 21 recites “The rocket motor of claim 1, wherein the set of surface structures is formed as part of an additive manufacturing process”. Claim 1, ll. 19 - 20 recites “a set of surface structures on the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall and formed as part of the monolithic piece by the additive manufacturing process”. Claim 21 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 22 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 22 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein the set of surface structures is formed as part of an additive manufacturing process”. Claim 11, ll. 12 - 15 recites “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 by the additive manufacturing process”. Claim 22 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, 4, 7 – 11, and 13 – 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) as evidenced by Hao Wu et al., "Ablation Performances of Additively Manufactured High-Temperature Thermoplastic Polymers", AIA A-2020-1125, AIA A Scitech 2020 Forum, January 2020, hereinafter “Hao Wu”, alternatively, in view of Liu (5,151,216) as evidenced by Reaction injection molding - Wikipedia webpage [accessed on 07/24/2026 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_injection_molding], hereinafter “RIM”
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 facing the passage space (interior facing side of the external wall 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 – shown in the enlarged portion of Fig. 1); 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.”) disposed 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 (external wall interior side that faces 10) of the external wall (12).
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 by an additive manufacturing process.
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. [Note: The following well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the Office Action mailed on 02/13/2026 in Applicant’s reply filed on 06/15/2026. MPEP 2144.03(C)] 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 said ablative layer being formed by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space, the ablative layer being formed from a composite material different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall.
Lawrynowicz teaches, in Fig. 2, Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 5 – 15, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, that an ablative material [18 - PEEK (PolyEtherEther Ketone was a thermoplastic, i.e., NOT a metal] was injection molded into a passage space (space inside 16) in fluid form so that said ablative “…material can easily flow into and around any geometry formed in the shell, including ribs 24 or porous portion 28 and flange portion 32, direct contact between the polymeric support 18 and the shell 16 may be the primary method of attachment therebetween. Incorporation of rib 24 and flange portion 32 furthers this attachment because the polymer flows into the shell, fully encasing the flange portion 32.” In other words, the ablative material (PEEK) in fluid phase 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 ablative material (18) and fully affixing, i.e., mechanical interlocking, the PEEK ablative material (18) to the insulator-carrying surface of the wall (16). As evidenced by Hao Wu, PolyEtherEther Ketone (PEEK) was a high-temperature thermoplastic polymer that could function as an ablative material. Hao Wu teaches, in Abstract, Pg. 2, last paragraph, Pg. 3, Table 1, Pg. 4, last 3 paragraphs, Fig. 3 – Pg. 6, Pg. 9, last paragraph, Pg. 14, Table 3, Pg. 22, last 2 paragraphs, that the ablative properties of five different high-temperature thermoplastic materials were tested. The five different high-temperature thermoplastic materials included two different PEEK test units whose ablative test performance were middle of the pack, see Fig. 12 on Pg. 13. The PEKK test material had the best ablative properties while the ULTEM 9085 test material had the worst ablative properties since the ULTEM 9085 test unit failed prematurely during the 120 second duration test, Pg. 13, last paragraph. Consequently, PEEK was an ablative material.
Alternatively, 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 (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). As evidenced by RIM, Pg. 1, first and third paragraphs, during Reaction injection molding (RIM) two parts of a polymer, i.e., not a metal, were mixed together, the mixture was injected into a mold, i.e., a passage space, then the mixture was allowed to sit in the mold long enough for it to expand, i.e., filling the empty spaces inside the mold/passage space, and finally cure into a solid form.
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 and Fite, with said ablative layer being formed by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space, the ablative layer being formed from a composite material different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall, taught by Lawrynowicz or alternatively 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 being formed by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space, the ablative layer being formed from a composite material different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall, 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 ablative material forming method, taught by Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, for the non-disclosed ablative material forming method of Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, 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 of the passage space 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).
Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, 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 by the additive manufacturing process, the set of surface structures protruding from said insulator-carrying surface into said passage space, and being shaped to mechanically retain the ablative layer after curing by mechanically interlocking with the ablative layer, wherein the ablative layer includes complementary recesses formed by the set of surface structures during said injecting and curing.
Lawrynowicz further 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 (plurality of T-shaped surface structures – 24, 32) on an insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18) of an external metallic wall (16 - Col. 5, ll. 1 – 5) and formed as part of a monolithic piece by an additive manufacturing process (Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, teaches that additive manufacturing processes can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures), the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) protruding from said insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18) into a passage space (empty space that was later filled by an ablative material), and being shaped (T-shaped – 24, 32) to mechanically retain the ablative material (18 - a polymer such as polyetherether ketone (PEEK) was an insulator) after curing by mechanically interlocking with the ablative material, wherein the ablative material includes complementary recesses (shown in Fig. 2) formed by the set of surface structures (T-shaped structures – 24, 32) during said injecting (Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 1 – 15, and Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55) and curing (Col. 7, ll. 10 – 15). 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 ablative material (18 - PEEK insulator) and the wall (16) with the insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18).
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, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, 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 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 after an ablative material was injected into the passage space in fluid form and cured into a solid that surrounded each one of the set of surface structures. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 3, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the ablative layer is formed by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 7, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, because Claim 8 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 7.
Re Claim 8, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, because Claim 8 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 10.
Re Claim 21, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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.) facing the passage space, and 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.”) disposed in the passage space between the external wall and the internal wall, the ablative layer being in contact with the insulator-carrying surface (external wall interior side that faces 10) of the external wall (12).
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 by the additive manufacturing process.
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. [Note: The following well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the Office Action mailed on 02/13/2026 in Applicant’s reply filed on 06/15/2026. MPEP 2144.03(C)] 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 by the additive manufacturing process, the set of surface structures protruding from the insulator-carrying surface into the passage space and being shaped to mechanically retain an ablative layer after curing by mechanically interlocking with the ablative layer.
Lawrynowicz teaches, in Fig. 2, Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 5 – 15, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, forming, via an additive manufacturing process (Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, teaches that additive manufacturing processes can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures), a set of surface structures (plurality of T-shaped surface structures – 24, 32) on an insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18) of an external metallic wall (16 - Col. 5, ll. 1 – 5), the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) formed as part of a monolithic piece by the additive manufacturing process, the set of surface structures (plurality of T-shaped surface structures – 24, 32) protruding from the insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18) into a passage space (empty space that was later filled by an ablative material) and being shaped to mechanically retain an ablative material (18 - PEEK insulator) after curing (Col. 7, ll. 10 – 15) by mechanically interlocking with the ablative material. As evidenced by Hao Wu, PolyEtherEther Ketone (PEEK) was a high-temperature thermoplastic polymer that could function as an ablative material. Hao Wu teaches, in Abstract, Pg. 2, last paragraph, Pg. 3, Table 1, Pg. 4, last 3 paragraphs, Fig. 3 – Pg. 6, Pg. 9, last paragraph, Pg. 14, Table 3, Pg. 22, last 2 paragraphs, that the ablative properties of five different high-temperature thermoplastic materials were tested. The five different high-temperature thermoplastic materials included two different PEEK test units whose ablative test performance were middle of the pack, see Fig. 12 on Pg. 13. The PEKK test material had the best ablative properties while the ULTEM 9085 test material had the worst ablative properties since the ULTEM 9085 test unit failed prematurely during the 120 second duration test, Pg. 13, last paragraph. Consequently, PEEK was an ablative material. Lawrynowicz further 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 ablative material (18 - PEEK insulator/ablative material) 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 by the additive manufacturing process, the set of surface structures protruding from the insulator-carrying surface into the passage space and being shaped to mechanically retain an ablative layer after curing by mechanically interlocking with 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 evidenced by Hao Wu, as discussed above, is silent on said forming the ablative layer disposed in the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space, wherein the ablative layer is 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 includes complementary recesses formed by the set of surface structures during said injecting and curing.
Lawrynowicz teaches, in Fig. 2, Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 5 – 15, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, that an ablative material [18 - PEEK (PolyEtherEther Ketone was a thermoplastic, i.e., NOT a metal, and PEEK was an ablative material as evidenced by Hao Wu] was injection molded into a passage space (space inside 16) in fluid form so that said ablative “…material can easily flow into and around any geometry formed in the shell, including ribs 24 or porous portion 28 and flange portion 32, direct contact between the polymeric support 18 and the shell 16 may be the primary method of attachment therebetween. Incorporation of rib 24 and flange portion 32 furthers this attachment because the polymer flows into the shell, fully encasing the flange portion 32.” In other words, the ablative material (PEEK) in fluid phase 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 ablative material (18) and fully affixing, i.e., mechanical interlocking, the PEEK ablative material (18) to the insulator-carrying surface of the wall (16). After injecting the ablative material into the passage space, the ablative material is cured (Col. 7, ll. 10 – 15) in the passage space, wherein the ablative layer is formed from a composite material (PEEK was a high-temperature thermoplastic material that was different from metal) different from a metallic material of the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall, and wherein the ablative material (18) includes complementary recesses (shown in Fig. 2) formed by the set of surface structures (T-shaped structures – 24, 32) during said injecting (Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 1 – 15, and Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55) and curing (Col. 7, ll. 10 – 15).
Alternatively, 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 (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). As evidenced by RIM, Pg. 1, first and third paragraphs, during Reaction injection molding (RIM) two parts of a polymer, i.e., not a metal, were mixed together, the mixture was injected into a mold, i.e., a passage space, then the mixture was allowed to sit in the mold long enough for it to expand, i.e., filling the empty spaces inside the mold/passage space, and finally cure into a solid form.
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, as evidenced by Hao Wu, with said forming the ablative layer disposed in the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space, wherein the ablative layer is 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 includes complementary recesses formed by the set of surface structures during said injecting and curing, taught by Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the method for making a rocket motor comprising a motor case comprising an external metallic wall that had an insulator-carrying surface; an ablative layer carried by the insulator-carrying surface, and forming the ablative layer disposed in the passage space between the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall by injecting an ablative material into the passage space and curing the ablative material in the passage space, wherein the ablative layer is 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 includes complementary recesses formed by the set of surface structures during said injecting and curing, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the injection moldable ablative material, taught by Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, for the ablative material of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz, as evidenced by Hao Wu, 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, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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 13, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein forming the ablative layer (10 – Wilson - Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60 “the ablative and insulation materials can be used as a chamber internal insulation liner, as shown in FIG. 1.”) disposed in the passage space between the external metallic wall (12) and the internal metallic sacrificial wall (14) by injecting an ablative material into the passage space (Lawrynowicz - Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 5 – 15, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20 or Liu - Col. 3, ll. 20 – 25, Col. 14, l. 64 to Col. 15, l. 5, Claim 14, and Claim 18) and curing the ablative material (Lawrynowicz - Col. 7, ll. 5 – 15) in the passage space comprises: injecting an ablative material into the passage space (Lawrynowicz - Col. 6, ll. 15 – 30, Col. 7, ll. 5 – 15, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20 or Liu - Col. 3, ll. 20 – 25, Col. 14, l. 64 to Col. 15, l. 5, Claim 14, and Claim 18) between the internal metallic sacrificial wall and the external metallic wall; and curing the ablative material (Lawrynowicz - Col. 7, ll. 5 – 15) to form the ablative layer between the internal metallic sacrificial wall and the external metallic wall of the motor case, refer to the Claim 11 rejection above. As evidenced by RIM, Pg. 1, first and third paragraphs, during Reaction injection molding (RIM) two parts of a polymer, i.e., not a metal, were mixed together, the mixture was injected into a mold, i.e., a passage space, then the mixture was allowed to sit in the mold long enough for it to expand, i.e., filling the empty spaces inside the mold/passage space, and finally cure into a solid form.
Re Claim 14, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising sealing the passage space to prevent the ablative material from outflowing from the passage space.
Liu further 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, i.e., changed from liquid phase to solid phase.
Re Claim 15, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, because Claims 18 and 19 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 15.
Re Claim 16, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the invention of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, because Claims 18 and 19 recites the T-shaped set of surface structures of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 17.
Re Claims 18 and 19, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, [See the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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) as evidenced by Hao Wu et al., "Ablation Performances of Additively Manufactured High-Temperature Thermoplastic Polymers", AIA A-2020-1125, AIA A Scitech 2020 Forum, January 2020, hereinafter “Hao Wu”, alternatively, in view of Liu (5,151,216) as evidenced by Reaction injection molding - Wikipedia webpage [accessed on 07/24/2026 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_injection_molding], hereinafter “RIM” 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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, and Lawrynowicz or alternatively Liu, as evidenced by Hao Wu and RIM, 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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered. To the extent possible they have been addressed in the rejections above at the appropriate locations, and furthermore they were found not persuasive for the following reasons.
In response to applicant's argument on Pg. 9, last paragraph that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument on Pg. 9, last paragraph continuing on to Pg. 10 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant’s arguments failed to cite exactly what knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure or exactly what knowledge was beyond the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention. The Supreme Court held in KSR that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The rejections are maintained.
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
Prosecution Insights