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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/03/2026 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 21, 25-28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Cawthorne et al. (US 2019/0329906).
Regarding claim 1, Hojjati teaches a composite substrate comprising a mesh layer and a composite material layer, wherein said composite substrate can be coated in metal and then be used as an electro-thermal heating element (“a metallized polymer substrate”) (Paragraph [0001]). The composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymeric layer (“a polymer substrate having a surface”) (Paragraph [0105]). The mesh layer includes an adhesive layer and a mesh material wherein the adhesive layer adheres the mesh material to the composite material layer and the mesh material is a metal woven wire which protects the composite material layer during coating processes and helps anchor the metal coating to the composite substrate (“a bond layer disposed on the polymer substrate surface, the bond layer comprising a hybrid structure comprising a polymer component and a metal component”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). A metal coating layer may further be provided on the composite substrate and may be formed from any suitable metal (“a metal layer disposed on the bond layer”) (Paragraphs [0119]-[0122]). The starting material for the metal layer is a metal power which is spray deposited (Paragraphs [0161]-[0162]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal powder being niobium. Hojjati does teach the powders being used preferably have high electric resistivity, high mechanical strength, and high resistance to galvanic corrosion (Paragraph [0161]).
Cawthorne teaches erosion protection of airfoils (Paragraph [0001]). The method include providing, via cold spray methods over a fiber reinforced composite substrate, a bond layer including a first metal powder, and then providing, via cold spraying, a second layer of metal powders forming an abrasion coating (Paragraph [0004]). The second metal powder layer is niobium having a higher modulus providing the desired strength, ductility, damage tolerance, and durability for the coating (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metal layer of Hojjati, which is desired to have high mechanical strength, from the powders of Cawthorne which include niobium having a higher modulus providing the desired strength, ductility, damage tolerance, and durability for the layer.
Regarding claim 2, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymer.
Regarding claim 3, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the mesh layer includes an adhesive layer which permeates the mesh material, which also may be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“wherein the polymer component is in the form of a polymer film that is disposed over the surface of the polymer substrate, wherein the polymer film layer is homogenous and the metal component is disposed over and in contact with the polymer film ”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]; [0150]).
Regarding claim 21, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the mesh material is metal woven wire.
Regarding claim 25, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 21. As discussed above, the mesh material is woven wire (“wherein the metal mesh used to form the metal mesh layer has an opening size”) and the metal layer formed from a metal powder (“a plurality of metal particles having a powder diameter is used to form the metal layer”).
Regarding claim 26, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 25.
Hojjati is silent with respect to an opening ratio between the metal mesh opening size and the metal particle powder diameter of from about 1 to 3.
However, Hojjati teaches the mesh size of the mesh material being sized in order to allow the adhesive layer to be able to penetrate and hold the metal mesh while also protecting the composite material layer from the metal coating during the anchoring of the metal coating (Paragraphs [0109]-[0111]). Additionally, the size of the metal powder for the metal coating layer is chosen based on porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency (Paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to optimize the mesh size and the size of the metal powders to have an opening ratio between the metal mesh opening size and the metal particle powder diameter of from about 1 to 3 such that the selection of the mesh size and the particle size optimizes various properties of the metal coat anchoring to the composite material substrate including porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 25.
Hojjati is silent with respect to an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles.
However, Hojjati teaches the mesh size of the mesh material being sized in order to allow the adhesive layer to be able to penetrate and hold the metal mesh while also protecting the composite material layer from the metal coating during the anchoring of the metal coating (Paragraphs [0109]-[0111]). Additionally, the size of the metal powder for the metal coating layer is chosen based on porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency (Paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to optimize the mesh size and the size of the metal powders to have an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles such that the selection of the mesh size and the particle size optimizes various properties of the metal coat anchoring to the composite material substrate including porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 28, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 21. As discussed above, the mesh material is woven wire.
Regarding claim 34, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 21. As discussed above, the mesh layer includes an adhesive layer which permeates the mesh material, which also may be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“wherein the polymer component is in the form of a polymer film that is disposed over the surface of the polymer substrate, wherein the polymer film layer is homogenous and the metal component is disposed over and in contact with the polymer film”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]; [0150]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Cawthorne et al. (US 2019/0329906) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2020/0115044).
Regarding claim 22, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 4. Hojjati teaches any known step may be used to deposit the metal coating (Paragraph [0164]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal mesh material being aluminum.
Huber teaches the protection of aerodynamic surfaces from erosion (Paragraph [0003]). The method includes applying a screen formed from aluminum to a leading edge with an adhesive layer wherein the screen allows for the largest practical surface area for an erosion coating to be applied (Paragraphs [0007]; [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metal mesh of Hojjati from aluminum as taught by Huber which teaches an identical use of the screen for the application of a coating and the aluminum screen provides the largest practical surface area for the application of a coating.
Claims 5-10, 23-24, 29, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Cawthorne et al. (US 2019/0329906).
Regarding claim 5, Hojjati teaches a composite substrate comprising a mesh layer and a composite material layer, wherein said composite substrate can be coated in metal and then be used as an electro-thermal heating element (“a metallized polymer substrate”) (Paragraph [0001]). The composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymeric layer (“a carbon fiber polymer substrate having a surface”) (Paragraph [0105]). The mesh layer includes an adhesive layer and a mesh material wherein the adhesive layer adheres the mesh material to the composite material layer and the mesh material is a metal woven wire which protects the composite material layer during coating processes and helps anchor the metal coating to the composite substrate (“a bond layer disposed on the polymer substrate surface, the bond layer comprising a hybrid structure comprising a polymer component and a metal component”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). The mesh layer may also be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“the metal component is disposed over and in contact with the polymer film”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]; [0150]). A metal coating layer may further be provided on the composite substrate and may be formed from any suitable metal powder (“metal particles forming a metallized layer on the bond layer”) (Paragraphs [0119]-[0122]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal powder being niobium. Hojjati does teach the powders being used preferably have high electric resistivity, high mechanical strength, and high resistance to galvanic corrosion (Paragraph [0161]).
Cawthorne teaches erosion protection of airfoils (Paragraph [0001]). The method include providing, via cold spray methods over a fiber reinforced composite substrate, a bond layer including a first metal powder, and then providing, via cold spraying, a second layer of metal powders forming an abrasion coating (Paragraph [0004]). The second metal powder layer is niobium having a higher modulus providing the desired strength, ductility, damage tolerance, and durability for the coating (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metal layer of Hojjati, which is desired to have high mechanical strength, from the powders of Cawthorne which include niobium having a higher modulus providing the desired strength, ductility, damage tolerance, and durability for the layer.
Regarding claim 6, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. Cawthorne further teaches the bond layer including first particles, which may be aluminum, which mix with a composite resin in order to enhance the bond with further layers (Paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further provide first aluminum particles in the adhesive layer in order to enhance the bond with subsequent layers as taught by Cawthorne.
Regarding claim 7, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the mesh layer includes only the adhesive layer and the mesh material (“does not include aluminum filler particles”).
Regarding claim 8, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the mesh layer is provided to sufficiently allow adhesion to the composite material layer and anchor the metal coating layer, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being disposed over an entirety of the bond layer polymer film (Paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 9, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the mesh layer includes an adhesive layer which permeates the mesh material, which also may be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“wherein the metal mesh is disposed at a partial depth in to the polymer film layer such that a portion of the metal mesh is exposed at a distance above a surface of the polymer film layer”) (Paragraph [0107]-[0108]; [0150]).
Regarding claim 10, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the metal coating is a metal powder which is anchored to the mesh layer.
Regarding claim 23, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, the mesh material is metal.
Regarding claim 24, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 10. Hojjati teaches any known step may be used to deposit the metal coating which further includes cold spraying techniques (Paragraphs [0004]; [0164]).
Regarding claim 29, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the mesh material is metal woven wire.
Regarding claim 35, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the metal coating layer formed from a metal powder is provided on the mesh layer.
Claims 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Cawthorne et al. (US 2019/0329906).
Regarding claim 30, Hojjati teaches a composite substrate comprising a mesh layer and a composite material layer, wherein said composite substrate can be coated in metal and then be used as an electro-thermal heating element (“a metallized polymer substrate”) (Paragraph [0001]). The composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymeric layer (“a carbon fiber polymer substrate having a surface”) (Paragraph [0105]). The mesh layer includes an adhesive layer and a mesh material wherein the adhesive layer adheres the mesh material to the composite material layer and the mesh material is a metal woven wire which protects the composite material layer during coating processes and helps anchor the metal coating to the composite substrate (“a bond layer disposed on the polymer substrate surface, the bond layer comprising a hybrid structure comprising a polymer component and a metal component”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). The mesh layer may also be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“the metal component is disposed over and in contact with the polymer film”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]; [0150]). A metal coating layer may further be provided on the composite substrate and may be formed from any suitable metal powder (“metal particles forming a metallized layer on the bond layer”) (Paragraphs [0119]-[0122]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal powder being niobium. Hojjati does teach the powders being used preferably have high electric resistivity, high mechanical strength, and high resistance to galvanic corrosion (Paragraph [0161]).
Cawthorne teaches erosion protection of airfoils (Paragraph [0001]). The method include providing, via cold spray methods over a fiber reinforced composite substrate, a bond layer including a first metal powder, and then providing, via cold spraying, a second layer of metal powders forming an abrasion coating (Paragraph [0004]). The second metal powder layer is niobium having a higher modulus providing the desired strength, ductility, damage tolerance, and durability for the coating (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metal layer of Hojjati, which is desired to have high mechanical strength, from the powders of Cawthorne which include niobium having a higher modulus providing the desired strength, ductility, damage tolerance, and durability for the layer.
Hojjati is silent with respect to an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles.
However, Hojjati teaches the mesh size of the mesh material being sized in order to allow the adhesive layer to be able to penetrate and hold the metal mesh while also protecting the composite material layer from the metal coating during the anchoring of the metal coating (Paragraphs [0109]-[0111]). Additionally, the size of the metal powder for the metal coating layer is chosen based on porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency (Paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to optimize the mesh size and the size of the metal powders to have an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles such that the selection of the mesh size and the particle size optimizes various properties of the metal coat anchoring to the composite material substrate including porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see pages 7-8, filed 09/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112 rejections of claims 1, 5 and 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 05/05/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 09/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 8-13, applicant argues that the combination of Hojjati, Bruton and McCrea fail to teach the amendments to the claims now requiring the metal particles being niobium. Specifically, none of the cited references teach metal particles being niobium.
The examiner concedes that none of the cited references teach metal particles being niobium. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Cawthorne as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
