DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curliss et al. (US 20160334180 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Curliss teaches a multilayer article comprising a metal layer (22), a thermally conductive hybrid layer (50) overlaying the metal layer, the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprising a polymer matrix with glass or ceramic and a first thermally conductive material (carbon fiber) disposed therein, and a thermally conductive continuous fiber composite layer (52) overlaying the thermally conductive hybrid layer (Curliss, Abstract, Par. 0023-0027, 0032-0033, 0039, 0041, 0044-0046, and Fig. 6-7).
Regarding claim 2, Curliss teaches the metal layer comprises steel (Curliss, Par. 0023).
Regarding claims 11-13, Curliss teaches the thermally conductive continuous fiber composite layer comprises continuous carbon fibers and a second thermally conductive material that is carbon fibers disposed in epoxy thermoset polymer (Curliss, Abstract, Par. 0011, 0023-0025, 0032-0034, and 0039).
Regarding claim 14, Curliss teaches a gun barrel comprising the multilayer article (Curliss, Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degerness (US 20040244257 A1) in view of Simmons et al. (US 20110017867 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Degerness teaches a multilayer article comprising a metal layer (18), a thermally conductive hybrid layer (30) overlaying the metal layer, the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprising a polymer matrix with a first thermally conductive material (carbon fibers) disposed therein, and a thermally conductive continuous fiber composite layer (32) overlaying the thermally conductive hybrid layer (Degerness, Abstract, Par. 0028, 0030-0031, 0049-0053, 0058, 0066-0067, and Figs 1-2).
Degerness is silent regarding the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprising glass or ceramic dispose in the polymer matrix.
Simmons teaches a composite material comprising a polymer matrix, conductive fibers, and glass or ceramic beads (Simmons, Abstract, Par. 0001-0003, and 0050-0057).
Degerness and Simmons are analogous art as they both teach composite materials comprising a polymer matrix and conductive fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the glass or ceramic of Simmons into the polymer matrix of the thermally conductive hybrid layer of Degerness. This would allow for improved bulk resistivity (Simmons, Par. 0051).
Regarding claim 2, modified Degerness teaches the metal layer comprises steel (Degerness, Par. 0045).
Regarding claims 3-6, and 16, modified Degerness teaches the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprises spherical hollow beads comprising glass or ceramic (Simmons, Par. 0050-0057).
Regarding claims 7, 17, and 20, modified Degerness teaches the first thermally conductive material comprises carbon fiber (Degerness, Abstract, Par. 0030, 0050, 0058, and 0066-0067).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 19, modified Degerness teaches the polymer matrix of the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprises a thermoset polymer that is a novolac epoxy (Degerness, Par. 0053).
Regarding claims 11-13, modified Degerness teaches the thermally conductive continuous fiber composite layer comprises continuous carbon fibers and a second thermally conductive material that is carbon fibers disposed in epoxy thermoset polymer (Degerness, Par. 0030-0031, 0050, 0053, 0058, and 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 14, modified Degerness teaches the multilayer article is a gun barrel (Degerness, Abstract and Par. 0001).
Regarding claim 15, modified Degerness teaches the gun barrel comprises a gas tube port (Degerness, Abstract, Par. 0032, 0054-0055, and Figs 3-4).
Claims 3-8, 10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curliss et al. as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 above in view of Simmons et al.
Regarding claim 3, Curliss teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Curliss is silent regarding the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprising hollow beads disposed in the polymer matrix.
Simmons teaches a composite material comprising a polymer matrix, conductive fibers, and glass or ceramic beads (Simmons, Abstract, Par. 0001-0003, and 0050-0057).
Curliss and Simmons are analogous art as they both teach composite materials comprising a polymer matrix, conductive fibers, and glass or ceramic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the glass or ceramic of Simmons into the polymer matrix of the thermally conductive hybrid layer of Curliss. This would allow for improved bulk resistivity (Simmons, Par. 0051).
Regarding claims 4-6, and 16, modified Curliss teaches the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprises spherical hollow beads comprising glass or ceramic (Simmons, Par. 0050-0057).
Regarding claims 7, 17, and 20, modified Curliss teaches the first thermally conductive material comprises carbon fibers (Curliss, Abstract, Par. 0023-0025, 0033-0034, and 0039).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 18-19, modified Curliss teaches the polymer matrix of the thermally conductive hybrid layer comprises a thermoplastic polymer, or a thermoset polymer that is bismaleimide (Curliss, Par. 0032).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curliss et al. in view of Simmons et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, and 8 above, further in view of Krumm et al. (GB 2288006 A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Curliss teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Curliss further teaches the multilayer structure forms a gun barrel (Curliss, Abstract).
Modified Curliss is silent regarding the thermoplastic polymer comprising polyamides, polyphenylene sulfides, polyetherimides, polysulfones, polyethersulfones, polyketones, polyaryletherketones, or a combination thereof.
Krumm teaches a gun barrel comprising a fiber reinforced polyamide (Krumm, Abstract and Page 2).
Modified Curliss and Krumm are analogous art as they both teach gun barrels comprising a fiber layer of a thermoplastic reinforced with fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyamide as the thermoplastic polymer of modified Curliss. This would allow for prevention of erosion of the gun barrel (Krumm, Abstract and Page 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curliss et al. as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 above in view of Degerness.
Regarding claim 15, Curliss teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Curliss is silent regarding the gun barrel comprising a gas tube port.
Degerness teaches a gun barrel comprising a metal layer and a composite layer wherein the gun barrel comprises a gas tube port (Degerness, Abstract, Par. 0028, 0030-0032, 0049-0055, and Figs 3-4).
Curliss and Degerness are analogous art as they both teach gun barrels comprising a metal layer and a composite layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a gas tube port in the gun barrel of Curliss. This would allow for protection from hot gasses (Degerness, Abstract and Par. 0032).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights