DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 3, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7, 11-14, 20-22, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Robertson (Nature, Vol. 557 (May 10, 2018), 12 pages) in view of Nguyen (Advanced Engineering Materials, Vol. 18, No. 11 (2016), pp. 1906-1912) and Tarfaoui (J. Mater. Sci., Vol. 54 (2019). Pp. 1351-1362), already of record.
As to claims 1, 7, 11, 12, and 14, Robertson teaches a method of curing of thermoset resin. Robertson disposes thermoset resin layers comprising a frontal polymerization resin (Fig. 3b and 3d) and embedded woven carbon fiber reinforcement (Fig. 2J) in a layup (Fig. 3b). Robertson disposes heaters (embedded wires in Fig. 3b) coupled to an external electricity source and providing enough electricity to heat the layup to activate the polymerization of the one or more thermoset layers (Methods, Fabrication and testing of neat resin panels). Robertson teaches that once a polymerization front is activated, the electric current to the heaters is stopped (Fig. 3b, Power input at time 20 s) to cause the one or more thermoset resin layers to continue to polymerize into a fully cured laminate (Fig. 3b, 60 s). The Robertson heaters become an integral/embedded part of the cured carbon fiber reinforcing material laminate (Fig. 3 description, “embedded”). Decoupling of the electrodes from the external electricity source/power supply would have been inherent or obvious in order that the power supply can be subsequently used, or because Robertson performs testing on the resulting article that would require removal of the power supply (see Methods, right column).
Robertson is silent to (a) one or more buckeypaper (elected species) sheet heaters in the layup with electrodes, and (b) coupling the electrodes to an electrical circuit separate from the external electricity source.
Regarding (a), Nguyen teaches disposing buckypaper sheet heaters in a layup (page 1907), wherein each of the one or more sheet heaters includes two electrodes (page 1907, copper wire), wherein the two electrodes of each of the sheet heaters are couplable to an external electricity source when the one or more heaters are disposed in the layup (Fig. 1, “Power” and page 1907 Keithley). Nguyen meets claim 7 because the buckeypaper is an embedded sheet heater. Nguyen provides Nguyen teaches providing enough electricity to the electrodes of each of the one or more sheet heaters to cause the sheet heaters to heat the layup and activate polymerization/curing (page 1908).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Nguyen sheet heaters into Robertson because (i) Robertson teaches/suggests heaters (Fig. 3c) and Nguyen provides a heater within the teaching/suggestion of Robertson, or (ii) one would have recognized the incorporation of the Nguyen sheet heaters to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the Robertson heaters.
Regarding (b), Tarfaoui teaches that a composite containing a buckypaper heater can be used for deicing by coupling/connecting the buckypaper electrodes to a power supply to form an electrical circuit (page 1356, right column and Fig. 1) and heating to 28 C. When the Nguyen sheet heaters is used as an interchangeable substitute for the Robertson heaters discussed above, one having knowledge of Tarfaoui would have recognized that the modified Robertson article could be connected to a power supply for deicing.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these steps from Tarfaoui into the modified Robertson process motivated by the knowledge available in this reference that buckypaper heated composites are capable of heating to a deicing temperature which would improve aerodynamic performance and avoid airfoil distortion (Tarfaoui, page 1351).
As to claim 2 and 3, Nguyen teaches that five layers of prepreg and six layers of buckypaper were stacked. Since the buckypaper is provided on the top of the stack (Fig. 1(b)), at least one layer of buckypaper was inherently (or obviously by selecting the order of steps) disposed after the last thermoset resin layer was placed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these stacking sequences into Robertson in orcer to distribute heaters and heating more evenly throughout the article. As to claims 4 and 5, Nguyen’s buckypaper heaters become an integral part of the cured laminate and are the only disclosed stimulus applied to cause curing (Section 3.1). This would be obvious for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 13, Robertson is silent to glass fibers, but Tarfaoui teaches a glass fiber reinforcing material. One would have recognized the Tarfaoui glass fibers to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the carbon fibers of Robertson. As to claims 20-22, Tarfaoui teaches a power supply (105) that meets the claimed electronic control unit which would cause electrical current to flow through a buckypaper sheet heater to achieve deicing. The 6 V applied by the Tarfaoui power supply causes a net current flow of 0.5 A (paragraph bridging pages 1355-1356) which therefore directly or indirectly determines the resistance or change in resistance. As to claim 44, Robertson’s Fig. 3b at 30 seconds meets this claim. See no power input at 30 seconds and corresponding frontal polymerization state at 30 seconds.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (Nature, Vol. 557 (May 10, 2018), 12 pages) in view of Nguyen (Advanced Engineering Materials, Vol. 18, No. 11 (2016), pp. 1906-1912), Tarfaoui (J. Mater. Sci., Vol. 54 (2019). Pp. 1351-1362), and further in view of Abe (US 20160339615). Robertson, Nguyen, and Tarfaoui teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 6, Robertson is silent to a sacrificial polymer component.
However, Abe teaches (Fig. 4) a sacrificial core (26C) can be provided in a fiber reinforced resin structure (10), and shrinking the core at a temperature equal to or lower than the curing temperature of the resin matrix ([0071]), which is a thermal degradation process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate Abe’s sacrificial core into Robertson as an obvious improvement to provide a hollow structure of a specified shape for stiffening the article.
Claims 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (Nature, Vol. 557 (May 10, 2018), 12 pages) in view of Nguyen (Advanced Engineering Materials, Vol. 18, No. 11 (2016), pp. 1906-1912), Tarfaoui (J. Mater. Sci., Vol. 54 (2019). Pp. 1351-1362), and further in view of Thunhorst (US 20110088841). Robertson, Nguyen, and Tarfaoui teach the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claims 13 and 15-19, Robertson and Nguyen teach a method of curing of thermoset resin, but are silent to the wide range of materials and resin recited in these claims.
However, Thunhorst teaches a method of impregnating woven glass fiber webs ([0048]) with thermosetting resins that may include acrylates, epoxies, cyclic olefins, polyurethanes, and thiol-ene monomers ([0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the Thunhorst woven glass fiber reinforcement or resins for the woven carbon fiber already taught by Roberson. See Thunhorst, [0041] and [0032].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are addressed by the new rejection above.
The arguments are generally drawn to the amended feature of coupling of the two electrodes to an electrical circuit (separate from the one used for initiating polymerization) now present in claim 1. Applicant argues that either Roberston nor Nguyen teaches or suggests “decoupling the two electrodes of each of the one or more sheet heaters from the external electricity source”. Applicant further argues that the cited references do not contemplate or suggest any post-curing uses for the integral sheet heaters.
These arguments are not persuasive or are addressed by the revised rejection above. The Tarfaoui reference (already of record) demonstrates that an embedded buckypaper heater (similar to that already present in the Nguyen combination with Robertson) already has a known deicing capability. Even if there is no express statement that electrodes are decoupled from the heaters in Robertson, the Examiner takes the position that this feature is inherent or obvious over Robertson (or further in view of Nguyen). As discussed in the rejection above, decoupling of the electrodes from the Robertson external electricity source/power supply would have been inherent or obvious in order that the power supply can be subsequently used, or because Robertson suggests performing mechanical testing on the resulting article that would require removal of the power supply (see Methods, right column). Stated differently, to accept Applicant’s argument that Robertson does not provide a step of decoupling from the electrodes, one would have to accept that somewhere in Robertson’s lab there is a power supply still connected to a composite, and that mechanical testing of that composite was performed while the power supply was still connected. The Examiner believes that a preponderance supports the opposite view, and that it was likely that Robertson’s composite was decoupled from the power supply when testing was completed so that the (typically expensive) power supply could be used for other tests.
Additionally, in view of Tarfaoui, one would have found it obvious to decouple the composite from the Robertson power supply in order to couple it to a different Tarfaoui power supply specifically to apply the power necessary for deicing. The Examiner notes the similarity between the buckypaper used in Nguyen, and the buckypaper suggests for heating and deicing in Tarfaoui.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742