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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 10/8/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous objection. Claims 2, 3, and 12–15 have been cancelled. The previous indefinite rejections of claims 1, 7, 14, and 15 have been overcome by amendment or obviated due to claim cancellation. Claims 1 and 4–11 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Here, claim 1 recites “nanostructures in the nanostructure array comprise vertically aligned carbon-based nanostructures having a long axis, such as carbon nanotubes.” As such, it is not clear whether the claim limits the carbon nanostructures to carbon nanotubes.
The term “long” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 6–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wardle (US 2008/0075954 A1) in view of Kia (US 2013/0029089 A1), Mas, “Thermoset curing through Joule heating of nanocarbon for composite manufacture, repair and soldering,” and Tsotsis (US 2008/0286564 A1).
Wardle teaches a method of forming a composite through the addition of an array of aligned carbon nanotubes to provide mechanical reinforcement at an interface between two plies of carbon fiber prepreg and using the nanotubes to join the surfaces of the prepreg plies. Wardle abstract, ¶¶ 80, 89, 91, 97, 136, 180. The nanotube array may be grown on a substrate, filled with polymer resin matrix to support the array and form a film. Id. ¶¶ 94–95, Fig 9C. The nanotube array may also be grown directly on the surface of the carbon fiber fabric. See id. ¶ 94, 95, Figs. 9F, 9G. As shown in the figures, the nanotubes within the array are vertically aligned. The nanotubes have a length of at least one micron and an average diameter of 50 nm. Id. ¶¶ 81, 142. The prepreg plies and nanotube array may then be impregnated with additional epoxy resin and hardener that reacts and dissolves into the resin. Id. ¶¶ 96, 138, 161.
Wardle fails to teach that the nanostructure density of the array or that the resin matrix thickness deviates from a height of the nanostructure array between 1% and 1000%.
Kia teaches the application of a nanotube-resin composite to fiber-reinforced polymer prepreg composite, wherein a layer of closely-spaced, vertically-oriented, carbon nanotubes is applied to a surface of the prepreg. Kia abstract, ¶ 13, Fig. 2. The nanotubes are present at a density of about 1011 nanotubes/cm2. Id. ¶ 17. It is highly desirable to use a B-stage polymer resin when forming the nanotube-resin composite. Id. ¶ 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Kia for guidance as to a suitable nanotube density for making an aligned carbon nanotube array for application to a prepreg composite in order to successfully practice the invention of Wardle. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have used a B-stage polymer resin in making the filled nanotube array of Wardle to maintain its flexibility. See Kia ¶¶ 6, 18–19. Kia and Wardle each show aligned arrays of carbon nanotubes filled with a polymer resin matrix for the entire height of the array. See Kia Fig. 3C, Wardle Fig. 9C. It is reasonable to presume that the resin matrix has a thickness that deviates from a height of the nanostructure array between 1% and 1,000% because at its shortest, the matrix thickness would only have to deviate by 10 nm (a de minimis amount) to meet the limitation. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have the nanotubes extend beyond the height of the resin matrix as the nanotubes adhere to the surface of the prepreg composite to fix or anchor the array and alignment of the nanotubes. See Wardle ¶¶ 90–91.
Wardle and Kia fail to teach connecting the nanotube array to a power supply and using electrical resistance heating to assist in curing and adhering the impregnated polymeric resin and the nanotube array.
Mas teaches the use of Joule (i.e., electric resistance) heating in curing epoxy and carbon nanotube composites and that the process is intrinsically very efficient because heat is generated directly from within the composite. Mas abstract. The carbon nanotubes may be in the form of an array and the heating process involves connecting a power supply directly to the array. Id. at 526. Electrical current is passed through the nanotubes to heat and cure the epoxy in the surround matrix thereby assisting in adhering the nanotubes and epoxy. Id.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used electrical resistance heating through the carbon nanotube array of Wardle motivated by the desire to efficiently cure the composite.
Wardle, Kia, and Mas fail to teach placing the nanostructure array with the resin matrix in alternating layers with a sequence of fiber layers.
Tsotsis teaches incorporating carbon nanotube interlayer assemblies between layers of fibers. Tsotsis abstract, Figs. 7A, 7B. The interlayer assemblies may be stacked so that they form an alternating fiber layer, nanotube interlayer, fiber layer arrangement. Id. ¶¶ 33, 34, Fig. 6A, 6B. The interlayers may be formed on a fiber and/or polymeric substrate 312 that is not removed and incorporated into a composite that includes the array and fiber layers. Id. ¶¶ 27–30, Fig. 3B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have alternated the aligned carbon nanotube arrays and the carbon fiber plies of Wardle motivated by the desire to make a thicker composite. It also would have been obvious to have used the substrate-grown nanotube layers of Tsotsis and incorporated it into the composite of Wardle as the substrate further reinforces the nanotubes.
Claim 6 is rejected as obvious as the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use polyphenylene sulfide as the impregnating resin as it is used to make the prepreg layers and as such would be compatible with the other materials in the Wardle composite. See Wardle ¶ 154.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wardle, Kia, Mas, and Tsotsis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2008/0025906 A1).
Wardle and Kia fail to teach heating their composites at a high temperature to form a graphitic structure in a carbon-carbon composite.
Lin teaches the creation of a graphitic carbon-carbon composite, by heating a fiber-reinforced composite in a reducing environment via pyrolysis. Lin abstract, ¶¶ 6–43. The carbon-carbon composite is formed by pyrolyzing a fiber-reinforced composite, wherein the composite is made from layers of woven carbon fibers impregnated with polymers filled with graphitic precursors and nanoparticles, such as carbon black and nanotubes. Id. ¶¶ 6–43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have pyrolyzed the composite of Wardle to form a carbon-carbon composite motivated by the desire to form a material for use in a variety of highly specialized applications. Id. ¶ 191. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have added the graphitic precursors to reduce the wear rate of the carbon-carbon composite. Id. ¶ 184.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. In particular, Applicant contends that while Mas may mention “an array of CNTs,” Mas does not disclose vertically aligned carbon nanotubes, but is instead directed to carbon nanotubes randomly dispersed within an epoxy matrix and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have looked to apply the method disclosed in Mas to ordered nanostructure arrays as claimed. This argument is not persuasive as Applicant has too narrowly defined the field of endeavor for Mas. The prior art reference is more broadly directed to carbon nanotube composites, wherein carbon nanotubes are located within a polymeric matrix. Here, Mas teaches that a variety of different configurations of carbon nanotubes located within a polymeric matrix are applicable. See Mas at 525–526. As such, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to look to Mas and the use of electrical resistance heating to efficiently cure the carbon nanotube and polymer composite material of Wardle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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 D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786