/5DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 4/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10−20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 3−5B are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84. Drawing standards are set forth in 37 CFR 1.84 and explained in greater detail in MPEP §608.02. Drawings must be black and white line drawings except in very limited circumstances that DO NOT apply to the present application (see 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and MPEP §608.02(VII)(A)). The lines must be “solid black lines” (§1.84(a)(1)). Furthermore, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black…, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines…” (§1.84(l)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1−4 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,257,757 to Paul et al. (“Paul”).
Regarding claim 1, Paul teaches a nose tip for a vehicle (Abstract), comprising:
a nose body 10;
an insulative layer (porous cores 30) that covers at least a portion of the nose body (such as back wall 22 of nosecap 10); and
an outer skin (nonporous structural outer shells 28) that covers and encloses the insulative layer (figs. 1−2),
wherein the insulative layer is constructed and arranged to receive a coolant (supply 38 of transpirant coolant) for protecting the nose body from heat during entry of the vehicle into an atmosphere (col. 4 lines 36−51).
Regarding claim 2, Paul teaches that the insulative layer is composed at least in part of material having a porous, open-cell structure (col. 5 lines 12−16, where one of ordinary skill would consider sintered metal as having an open cell structure because the many open pathways through solid passages would be considered equivalent to open cells).
Regarding claim 3, Paul teaches a coolant reservoir (supply 38 of transpirant coolant) constructed and arranged to release the coolant into the insulative layer on command (where col. 4 line 36 to col. 5 line 8 discusses the different situations where the coolant can be released, i.e. where the release of coolant is commanded).
Regarding claim 4, Paul teaches that the coolant is composed of at least one of noble gas, sodium, or water (col. 5 lines 55−58).
Regarding claim 8, Paul teaches an inner skin (including back wall 22 and inner shell 14) disposed between the nose body and the insulative layer, wherein the inner skin and the outer skin form a container that resists leakage of the coolant (i.e. 14 and 22 together form a container which encloses first manimold 18 and third manifold 26 and resists leakage because these manifolds are fluidically separated from second manifold 24 that receives the transpirant coolant.
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.
Claims 6−7 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Paul as applied to claims 3 or 8 above.
Regarding claims 6−7, Paul teaches that “Pin fin outer shells 28 can be made of any nonporous material sufficiently strong to structurally separate shells 12 and 14,” but fails to teach using a carbon-carbon material for the outer skin with carbon fiber that runs in an axial direction to conduct heat from an upper region of the nose tip to a lower region of the nose tip during entry of the vehicle into the atmosphere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use carbon-carbon since it is a well-known structural material used for re-entry or hypersonic applications. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use fibers running in an axial direction, since that is the main direction requiring strucutral support to separate shells 12 and 14.
Regarding claim 9, Paul fails to teach that the inner skin includes carbon fiber that runs in one of an axial direction and a circumferential direction, and wherein the outer skin includes carbon fiber that runs in the other of the axial direction and the circumferential direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select such fiber orientations, where determination of optimal fiber orientation is considered routine design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the nearest prior art is considered to be Paul as described above and US Patent No. 8,196,415 to Veprik.
Veprik discloses generating a cold plasma from a noble gas (Abstract) and using the cold plasma as a working fluid for cooling. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the cold plasma generator of Veprik into the system of Paul, since Paul specifically teaches using water generated during operation of the system as a cooling fluid, where one of ordinary skill would not expect the cold plasma to provide increased benefit that outweighs the added complexity and weight of incorporating a noble gas cold plasma system for a transpiring fluid that is essentially pumped overboard in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights