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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/28/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
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 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torrijos et al. (US 2011/0255205 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the “inner face is in facing relation to the first structure” is a broad limitation which allows any face that is pointed towards the first structure to in a facing relation to the first structure.
Torrijos teaches an assembly (Fig. 1) comprising first structure of a laminate comprising layers of fiber reinforced material (Fig. 1, Item 1; Paragraph 0018), a metal mesh lightning-strike protection layer (LSP) (Fig. 1, Item 2, 5; Paragraph 0018), where the LSP layer comprises an outer face and an inner face opposite to the outer face, where the inner face is in facing relation to the first structure, and a connector comprising an LSP connection which overlaps with and is electrically connected to the inner or outer face of the LSP layer, and a bore which passes through the LSP layer, the laminate and the connector. (Fig. 1). Torrijos teaches a second structure (Fig. 1; Abstract; Claim 1 of Torrijos), and a fastener (Fig. 1, Item 7) that secures the first and second structure, where the fastener is received in the bore and the connector electrically connects the LSP layer to the fastener. (Fig. 1; Claim 1 and 5 of Torrijos).
Regarding Claim 17, Torrijos teaches the connector comprises a washer with a hole bounded by an internal edge of the washer, an inner face, and an outer face, wherein the inner and outer faces of the washer meet at the internal edge of the washer, the LSP connection surface comprises part of one of the faces of the washer, and the internal edge of the washer is electrically connected to the fastener. (Fig. 1, Item 9; Paragraph 0021-0023)
Regarding Claim 18, Torrijos teaches this assembly is on an aircraft. (Abstract; Claim 1 of Torrijos).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torrijos in view of Iowa State University (NPL) and Haylock (US 2010/0272537 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Torrijos teaches the fastener comprises a fastener body (Fig. 1). Torrijos teaches the fastener body can comprise titanium. (Claim 4 of Torrijos). Iowa State University teaches titanium and titanium alloy have a range of 0.87-3.1% IACS (International Annealed Copper Standard).
Torrijos does not specifically teach a sleeve surrounding the fastener body, where the sleeve is formed from a more electrically conductive material than the fastener body and the connector connects the LSP layer to the sleeve.
Haylock teaches applying a conductive conformable sleeve to a fastener, where the conformable sleeve has an electric conductivity of higher than 20% IACS. Haylock teaches the sleeve ensures the fasteners fits well into the assembly and proper electrical flow when the aircraft is struck by lightning and ensures the plane assembly is not damaged from improper electrical flow. (Paragraph 0005-0006, 0444, 0051, 0110). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the sleeve taught by Haylock on the fastener of Torrijos to ensure proper electrical flow through the airplane assembly. This combination of Torrijos and Haylock would have the sleeve be formed of a more electrically conductive material than the fastener body and the connector electrically connected to the LSP layer to the sleeve to ensure proper electrical flow.
Claims 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amason et al. (US 3,989,984) in view of Airbus (NPL)
Regarding Claim 15, Amason teaches an assembly (Fig. 5) comprising a first structure including a composite laminate material (Fig. 5, Item 72), a lightning-strike protection (LSP) layer (Fig 5, Item 64), the LSP layer comprising an outer face and an inner face opposite to the outer face and in facing relation to the first structure, a connector comprising an LSP connection surface which connects to the inner face of the LSP layer (Fig. 5, Item 62), a bore that which passes through the LSP layer, the laminate and the connector (Fig. 5), and a second structure (Fig. 5, Item 58) and a fastener which secures together the first and second structure, wherein the fastener is received in the bore and connector electrically connects the LSP layer to the fastener. (Fig. 5, Item 66).
Amason does not teach the composite laminate is a fiber-reinforced composite material.
Airbus teaches aircraft structural are formed of layers fiber-reinforced composite material layers are used in planes for their light-weight, offering better fuel economy, while still offering strength sufficient for aircraft. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use a laminate using layers of fiber-reinforced composite material in Amason for the strength at a lower weight that is suitable for airplanes.
Regarding Claim 17, Amason teaches the connector is a plate/washer with a hole bounded by an internal edge of the washer, an inner face, and an outer face, wherein the inner and outer faces of the washer meet at the internal edge of the washer, the LSP connection surface comprises all or part of one of the faces of the washer, and the internal edge of the washer is electrically connected to the fastener. (Fig. 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Amason teaches an aircraft with the assembly. (Abstract)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amason and Airbus in view of Iowa State University and Haylock.
Regarding Claim 16, Amason teaches a fastener (Fig. 5, Item 66). Airbus teaches a fastener of titanium is preferable, as titanium avoid galvanic corrosion. (Page 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use a titanium fastener in Amason as taught by Airbus to avoid corrosion issues.
Amason does not specifically teach a sleeve surrounding the fastener body, where the sleeve is formed from a more electrically conductive material than the fastener body and the connector connects the LSP layer to the sleeve.
Haylock teaches applying a conductive conformable sleeve to a fastener, where the conformable sleeve has an electric conductivity of higher than 20% IACS. Haylock teaches the sleeve ensures the fasteners fits well into the assembly and proper electrical flow when the aircraft is struck by lightning and ensures the plane assembly is not damaged from improper electrical flow. (Paragraph 0005-0006, 0444, 0051, 0110). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the sleeve taught by Haylock on the fastener of Amason to ensure proper electrical flow through the airplane assembly. This combination of Amason and Haylock would have the sleeve be formed of a more electrically conductive material than the fastener body and the connector electrically connected to the LSP layer to the sleeve to ensure proper electrical flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues Torrijos does not teach where the inner face is in facing relation to the first structure. This argument is found unpersuasive. As discussed above, the “inner face is in facing relation to the first structure” is a broad limitation which allows any face that is pointed towards the first structure to in a facing relation to the first structure. Thus, the claim needs to be limited to reflect what is shown in the Figs of the instant Application to differentiate it from the teachings and Figs of Torrijos.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights