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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-14, 16-18, 20-21, and 25-26 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 20-21 and 25-26 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
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 1-3, 8, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0082691 to Restuccia in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0049292 to Kruckenberg and CN 106079481 to Xian.
NOTE: The English Machine Translation of 106079481 provided by Applicant on July 15, 2026 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 10-14, and 16-18 , Restuccia teaches a composite material (laminate structure) comprising two or more layers of reinforcement carbon fibers that have been infused or impregnated with a curable matrix resin (fibre laminate impregnated with a laminate matrix material) and an interlaminar region containing conductive nanosized particles, such as carbon nanotubes and a light-weight carbon veil (veil of carbon impregnated with a veil matrix material doped with carbon particles) (Restuccia, abstract). Restuccia teaches the matrix resin impregnating the reinforcement fiber also containing conductive nanoparticles dispersed therein (Id., para 0025), reading on the laminate matrix material being doped with carbon particles. Restuccia teaches the nanoparticles being carbon nanoparticles (claim 16) and graphene (Id., para 0035, 0041). Restuccia teaches the nonwoven carbon veil being composed of intermingled, randomly arranged fibers and teaches an example of a suitable carbon veil being OptiveilTM (Id., para 0045). Restuccia teaches the fibers of the nonwoven veil being chopped or continuous fiber filaments or a combination thereof (Id., para 0046-0047). Restuccia teaches increasing electrical conductivity of fiber-reinforced polymer composites is desirable in order to meet the requirements for lightning strike protection of an aircraft and to avoid a phenomenon called “edge glow” that may appear during a lightning strike event, especially on composite laminates having low z-direction electrical conductivity (Id., para 0011-0012), reading on an aircraft comprising the composite material (claim 17) (laminate structure).
Restuccia does not explicitly teach the carbon veil being a veil of carbon nanotubes.
However, Kruckenberg teaches an aircraft component that includes an improved lightning strike protection surface film comprising a substrate with carbon nanotubes, wherein the substrate is formed of electrically conductive fibers such as carbon fibers or carbon nanotube reinforced polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbonized fibers or a nonwoven veil containing fibers formed of a plurality of carbon nanotubes that has a surface resistivity less than about 0.5 ohm/square (Kruckenberg, abstract, para 0020-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite material of Restuccia, wherein the carbon veil is a nonwoven veil containing fibers formed of a plurality of carbon nanotubes as taught by Kruckenberg, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known carbon containing electrically conductive substrate predictably suitable for use in aircraft for lightning strike protection in combination with carbon nanotubes and desirable as having a low surface resistivity.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach there being a gradient of carbon particles loading across the thickness of the laminate structure and the concentration of the carbon particles decreases away from the veil in a thickness direction of the fibre laminate.
However, Xian teaches a composite material with lightning protection comprising nano conductive particles dispersed in a resin and present in a gradient distribution along the thickness direction of the composite material to improve the conductive properties of the composite material and reduce the lightning damage of the composite material and save manufacturing cost and reduces the weight of the component material (Xian, p. 1-2). Xian teaches composite containing a fiber preform and comprising a fiber cloth such as a carbon fiber and woven carbon fiber cloth (Id., p. 2). Xian teaches the nano conductive particle including nanoparticles of carbon nanotubes and graphene (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the conductive nanosized particles are present in a gradient as taught by Xian from the conductive carbon veil, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known composites predictability suitable for use in lightning protection and containing conductive nanoparticles in combination with carbon fiber and by the desire to improve the conductive property of the composite material to reduce lightning damage while saving manufacturing cost and reducing the weight of the composite material.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination does not teach the composite material requiring a metal or metallic layer (Restuccia, all, especially abstract, para 0101-0125, claim 1), reading on the veil of carbon nanotubes not being bonded to a metallic lightning strike protection layer.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches laminating the carbon veil (veil of carbon nanotubes) onto a carbon fiber layer (Restuccia, para 0095), reading on the veil of carbon nanotubes being bonded to the fibre laminate.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the veil of carbon (veil of carbon nanotubes) being bonded to a film layer comprising the conductive nanoparticles (carbon particles) that forms the interlaminar region that is the same of the matrix (Restuccia, para 0095-0097), reading on the veil of carbon nanotubes being bonded to the fibre laminate by the veil matrix material and/or a bonding layer which is doped with carbon particles.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the prior art combination teaches the combination of conductive nanoparticles and light weight carbon veil at the interlaminar region of a multilayered composite material produces synergistic effect that results in an improvement in the z-direction electrical conductivity (Restuccia, para 0023, 0029), indicating the conductive nanoparticles in the carbon veil being most beneficial for the inventive effect. The prior art combination teaches increasing electrical conductivity of composite material by incorporating different conductive material, such as conductive particles, in the matrix resin of the fiber-reinforced polymer composite or in the interlaminar regions of a multilayer composite and teaches the resin at the interlaminar region being the same or different from the matrix resin impregnating the reinforcement fibers (Id., para 0020, 0025, 0088), indicating difference between the matrix being within the scope of the invention.
While the prior art combination does not explicitly teach the laminate matrix material being doped with carbon particles at a lower average concentration (second average concentration) than the veil matrix material which impregnates the veil of carbon nanotubes (first average concentration) (claim 10 & 12), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite material of the prior art combination, wherein the concentration of the carbon particles is higher in the veil matrix than the laminate matrix as being taught as beneficial in the veil matrix and optional in the laminate matrix, motivated by the desire of practicing the invention of Restuccia based upon the totality of the teaching and applying carbon particles to increase the conductivity in region taught as most beneficial and imparting increased conductivity to specific regions of the composite based on the desire properties.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches the veil of carbon being sandwiched between carbon fiber layers (fibre laminate composite plies) (Restuccia, para 0095- 0097), reading on the fibre laminate comprising an outer composite ply which is bonded to the veil of carbon nanotubes and doped with carbon particles.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the composite laminate comprising laying up multiple prepregs to form lay-ups with quasi-isotropic configuration with a veil of carbon between plies (Rus, abstract, Table 2, para 0108-0125, claim 1), reading on a first substack of composite plies which is bonded to the veil of carbon nanotubes and a second substack of plies. The prior art combination teaches the layers of carbon fiber comprising the carbon nanotubes being disposed near the outer surface of the composite component, most preferably within about 0.5 mm of the outer surface of the component (Kruckenberg, para 0033). While the prior art combination does not explicitly teaches the laminate matrix impregnating the second sub-stack of composite plies being doped with carbon particles at a lower average concentration than the laminate matrix material which impregnates the first subs-stack of composites, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the first substacks closest to the surface having the higher concentration of carbon nanotubes as being taught by Kruckenberg as beneficial
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination teaches the layers of carbon fiber comprising the carbon nanotubes being disposed near the outer surface of the composite component, most preferably within about 0.5 mm of the outer surface of the component (Kruckenberg, para 0033), reading on the laminate structure having an external surface and an internal surface with the veil of carbon nanotubes being closer to the external surface than the internal surface.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art combination teaches the use of composites (first laminate and second laminate) in different zones on the aircraft for lightning strike application requiring different resistivity levels based on the location, specifically when used for Zone 1A lightning strike protection having a surface resistivity less than about 0.5 ohm/square and for Zone 2A lightning strike protection having a surface resistivity less than about 1 ohm/square (Kruckenberg, abstract, para 0015-0026). As the carbon particles increase the conductivity of the composites, a higher loading, i.e. doping with a higher average concentration, would result in lower surface resistivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the aircraft of the prior art combination comprising the composites in different zones of the aircraft, wherein a first composites (first laminate) contains a higher concentration of carbon particles than a second composite (second laminate) as a to be position in a Zone 2A as to impart a higher conductivity, and therefore lower resistivity, based on the desired performance, reading on the claimed limitation as best understood by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Xian is relied upon for teaching the presence of the claimed gradient with the benefit of cost and lower weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “A review of using conductive composite materials in solving lightning strike and ice accumulation problems in aviation” to Alemour teaches the use of carbon fiber reinforced plastic composite containing conductive particles in aviation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:00 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights