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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 9-16, in the reply filed on 10/13/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction should not be intermediate-final product but combination-subcombination and that the search for each group would not impose a burden on the Office. This is found persuasive with respect to claims 1-8 and 17 but maintained for claims 18-20 as the issues arising in examining method and product claims is diverse and the fields of search are mutually exclusive and this would constitute a burden on the Office regardless of an intermediate-final product or a combination-subcombination relationship.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, claims 1-20 remain in the application with claims 18-20 having been non-elected. Hence, claims 1-17 remain active in the application for prosecution thereof.
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.
Claims 1-4,6-14 and 16-17 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 BTA 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 8, the claims recite a ratio of the thickness of the protective layer to that of the ablator layer is 0.0016-0.1 inches. Gathman et al. (2024/0424527) teaches the first thickness to be 0.03-0.04inches 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 17, 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].
Claims 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.
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 Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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