CTFR 18/747,177 CTFR 71651 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The amendment filed 4/20/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 8 and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Hence, claims 1-7,9-17 and 21-24 remain active in the application for prosecution thereof. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4,6,7,9-14,16-17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) in combination with Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) . Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) teaches a hybrid ablative thermal protection system whereby a first Boeing lightweight ablator (BLA) is applied to a high speed aircraft vehicle worked in a felt layer (claimed ablator layer) and a second layer is thereafter applied (claimed protection layer) resulting in a dual layer component protection system (abstract, Fig. 4 and [0021],[0029],[0031]). Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) teaches the BLA layer to be room cured [0029]. Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) fails to teach the BLA layer to include a room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone. Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches a silicone composition for an ablative coating which is a room temperature curable silicon composition (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) dual layer ablative system to include the curable room temperature silicone material as evidenced by Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) with the expectation of similar success. Regarding claims 1 and 9, while the references are silent with respect to the claimed siloxane linkages, the Examiner takes the position that since the materials are both cured siloxane coatings then siloxane linkages would be present. Regarding claim 10, Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches the ablative layer thickness is 2.5mm-5mm which calculates to 0.2 inches. Regarding claims 6,7 and 11, Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches the protective layer can be up to 1.27 mm which would be inclusive of the claimed thickness of 0.005-0.02 (0.127-0.5 mm) as it states “up to” which includes amounts less than including the claimed amounts. This would be inclusive of the cured or non-cured coating thickness - Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches not losing coating thickness/depth upon curing [0117] and furthermore absent a showing of criticality thereof, the thickness would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art based upon the desired product. Regarding claims 2,3,12 and 13, Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches methyltrimethoxysilanes (MTM) but is silent with respect to the claimed concentration, however, the Examiner takes the position that the concentration amounts would be a matter of design choice by one practicing the invention absent a showing of criticality thereof [0131]. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches more than one polymer (Table 1 and [0123]-[0129]). Regarding claim 22, the claims recite a ratio of the thickness of the protective layer to that of the ablator layer is no more than 0.5. Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches the first thickness to be 0.03-0.04 inches but is silent with respect to the second thickness, however, the Examiner takes the position that the ratio of thickness between the first and second ablator/protection layer would be a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art and would be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain the claimed ratio absent a showing of criticality thereof. Regarding claim 16, Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches viscosity of 100mPA.s which equates to 100cP [0129]. Regarding claim 21, Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) teaches the felt layer (claimed ablator to be 0.16 inches in thickness and the BLA layer bid worked therein to a depth of 0.03-0.04 inches while Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches the protective layer can be up to 1.27 mm which would be inclusive of the claimed thickness of 0.005-0.02 inches which makes the protective layer less than the ablator layer. Regarding claim 23, Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) teaches two layers of BLA applied one being worked into the felt and the other applied thereto (Fig. 4). Regarding claims 17 and 24, Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) teaches a hybrid ablative thermal protection system whereby a first Boeing lightweight ablator (BLA) is applied to a high speed aircraft vehicle worked in a felt layer (claimed ablator layer) and a second layer is thereafter applied (claimed protection layer) resulting in a dual layer component protection system (abstract, Fig. 4 and [0021],[0029],[0031]). Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) teaches the BLA layer to be room cured [0029]. Regarding claim 24, the felt layer would meet the claimed “reinforcing framework” and have claimed “cavities” as felt is not smooth and is porous having the claimed “framework” and “cavities” . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4,5,14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) in combination with Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) in combination with He et al. (2021/0221958) . Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) in combination with Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) are incorporated here. Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) in combination with Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) fail to teach the claimed organosilicon octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane. He et al. (2021/0221958) teaches a silicone rubber for ablative thermal protection coatings [0002] whereby octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane is included [0010]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) in combination with Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) ablative protective coating to include octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane as evidenced by He et al. (2021/0221958) with the expectation of providing an ablative protective coating layer. Regarding claims, 4 and 14, He et al. (2021/0221958) teaches more than one siloxane (organosilicon) [0010]. Regarding claims 5 and 15, He et al. (2021/0221958) teaches octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane but is silent with respect to the claimed concentration, however, the Examiner takes the position that the concentration amounts would be a matter of design choice by one practicing the invention absent a showing of criticality thereof . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) fails to teach an ablator layer and a protection layer disposed on the ablator layer as in Fig. 4 a first layer of BLA applied to a felt layer and then a second BLA applied and cured to form a single BLA layer. The Examiner agrees in part. As detailed above, Brewer et al.’s (2016/0325857) ablator layer is deemed as the felt layer (with or without the first BLA) and the protection layer applied thereto is the second BLA layer and hence the claimed ablator (felt) layer having a protection layer (second BLA layer) applied thereto which would meet the claimed ablator layer and a protection layer applied thereto. Applicant argued there is no motivation to apply another ablator layer to Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) as it already teaches one that addresses thermal performance, abrasion resistance, durability and cost issue as another layer would increase the cost fabrication and complexity. The Examiner disagrees. Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches advantages of the one part room temperature curable silicone ablative composition to include cure time, being sprayable, stable viscosity, long-shelf life, no solvent or diluent and being thixotropic for coating both horizontal and vertical application [0047]-[0052]. Therefore, the additional layer would provide advantages in combination with those provided by Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) which would lead one skilled in the art to be suggestive to utilize the additional layer of Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) for its advantages in combination with those detailed in Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) or in the alternative to substitute Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) room temperature silicon for Brewer et al. (2016/0325857) ablator composition to obtain the advantages of the RTV silicone as detailed in Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM. 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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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. /BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 2 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 3 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 4 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 5 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 6 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 7 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 8 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/747,177 Page 9 Art Unit: 1712
Prosecution Insights