DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47, in the reply filed on November 4th, 2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 52 & 67 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 4th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 6, 19, 21, 23, 28, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Rahamat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0257790 A1) (hereinafter “Rahamat”), OR, in the alternative, claims 1-3, 6, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rahamat in view of van Ooji (Corrosion Protection Properties of Organofunctional Silanes…) (hereinafter “van Ooji”) AND/OR Metroke et al. (Corrosion resistance properties of Ormosil coatings on 2024-73 aluminum alloy) (hereinafter “Metroke”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 19, 29, 32-33, 35, 44, and 47, Rahamat teaches a composite aerospace structure, such as an aircraft (vehicle) fuselage [0002, 0028, 0032], comprising a composite panel comprising a carbon (more noble) fiber ply reinforced composite (All Figs. [16]) [0032] having disposed directly thereon or via an optional isolation layer (All Figs. [17]) [0032] a metallic foil having a plurality of perforated holes of any shape but a surface area of about 0.5x10-3 to 5.0x10-3 square inches and an open area optimized relative to the total foil area [0012, 0034-0035, 0040-0044], the metallic foil being typically aluminum or copper and alloys thereof [0028], wherein the metal foil top and bottom surfaces may be passivated to create an inert surface resistant to tarnishing and oxidation and may be coated with silane (conformal organic coating), which helps to provide the material with improved adhesion characteristics [0008, 0010, 0039].
Regarding claims 21 and 34, although the prior art does not disclose a pore resistance or galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Rahamat (or Rahamat in view of Ooji and/or Metroke) teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 23 and 28, a particular application method of the silane coating is not taught. Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the event that the conformal organic coating is not taught as recited above and (further) regarding claims 16, 21, 23, and 28, and 34:
Ooji teaches an electrodeposited silane coating to passivate metal surfaces, specifically aluminum surfaces, in the aerospace industry improved over on a per weight basis and being equivalent in performance to typical chromate passivation treatment used for corrosion protection due to environmental concerns (pgs. 641-643), and while a film thickness of 200-300 nm are considered thin, methods of forming thicker coatings are desired and sought after [pgs. 652-653], wherein Metroke teaches thicker silane coatings to replace chromate coatings (pg. 231), wherein aluminum surfaces are sprayed with the silane coatings to thicknesses of 6 to 16 µm (pg. 233) providing pore resistances of at least 0.01 MΩcm2 (104 Ωcm2) with preferred embodiments exhibiting pore resistances of above 10 MΩcm2 (107 Ωcm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the silane coating as a passivation coating (that also enhances adhesion) within or near the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace prior art passivation techniques based on environmentally concerning substances (chromates) while still providing the desired corrosion protection [Ooji and/or Metroke].
Regarding claims 29 and 35, the metallic foil may be disposed under or embedded within a surfacing film (All Figs. [19]), such as an epoxy-based resin (polymer matrix) [0032].
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prandy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,225,265) (hereinafter “Prandy”) in view of Sulzbach (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037675 A1) (hereinafter “Sulzbach”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, and 47, Prandy teaches a composite structure having lightning strike protection and having corrosion resistance against salty air (col. 1, lines 50-57), comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers (All Figs. [5/6]) having carbon/graphite (more noble) fibers therein (col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 6; col. 4, lines 23-38) having disposed directly thereon (with no intervening/isolating layer) a metal screen (All Figs. [2]), such as woven gauze metal, expanded metal, or perforated metal, the metal preferably being aluminum or copper, wherein the metal screen may be anodized to increase corrosion resistance and also coated with a chromate-based or other corrosion resistant coating or primer (col. 4, lines 39-57), wherein the metal screen is embedded in an adhesive matrix resin (All Figs. [3]), which extends through the coated/primed mesh openings to bond it to the composite and optionally covered with a protective surface layer/film (All Figs. [8]) (col. 4, lines 58-61).
However, neither the chromate-based layer or the primer is taught to be an organic layer and in the event that the coating/film is not taught to only reduce the surface area of the aperture by less than 50%:
Sulzbach teaches a conductive metal screen for lightning strike protection, which incorporates the disclosure of 15/807,109 by reference [0022, 0026], wherein ‘109 teaches a non-chromate based solution forming a cured coating/film on an expanded foil mesh to inhibit corrosion and enhance adhesion of materials thereto [‘109; 0005, 0008], the non-chromate based solution being a cured layer butyl benzotriazole sodium salt (organic coating/film) [0022, 0026], the expanded foil mesh retaining its open structure following the application of the curable corrosion resistant coating solution, specifically one having opening lengths and widths that do not substantially change in dimension (reduced by about ~0%), exemplarily being about 0.075±0.006 inches to allow it to be tailored to the topography of the surface structure [0024, 0027].
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific corrosion resistant coatings/primers and improvements thereon, while still allowing adhesive bonding/embedding through the openings of the metal mesh.
Further regarding claims 21 and 34, although the prior art does not disclose a specific pore resistance or galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Prandy in view of Sulzbach teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prandy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,225,265) (hereinafter “Prandy”) in view of Yue et al. (Corrosion Prevention by Applied Coatings on Aluminum Alloys in Corrosive Environments) (hereinafter “Yue”), optionally further in view of Sulzbach (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037675 A1) (hereinafter “Sulzbach”) as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, and 47, Prandy teaches a composite structure having lightning strike protection and having corrosion resistance against salty air (col. 1, lines 50-57), comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers (All Figs. [5/6]) having carbon/graphite (more noble) fibers therein (col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 6; col. 4, lines 23-38) having disposed directly thereon (with no intervening/isolating layer) a metal screen (All Figs. [2]), such as woven gauze metal, expanded metal, or perforated metal having a thickness of 1 to 10 mil (0.025 to 0.25 mm/25 to 250 µm), the metal preferably being aluminum or copper, wherein the metal screen may be anodized to increase corrosion resistance and also coated with a chromate-based or other corrosion resistant coating or primer (col. 4, lines 39-57), wherein the metal screen is embedded in an adhesive matrix resin (All Figs. [3]), which extends through the coated/primed mesh openings to bond it to the composite and optionally covered with a protective surface layer/film (All Figs. [8]) (col. 4, lines 58-61),
However, neither the corrosion resistant chromate-based layer or primer is taught to be an organic layer, the thickness of the organic coating/film is not taught, and in the event that the coating/film is not taught to only reduce the surface area of the aperture by less than 50%:
Yue teaches both prior art and inventive corrosion preventive coatings for aluminum in salty water or watery environments, wherein both chromate coatings and improved alodine/ceramic coatings are better sealed and protected in both salty water and watery environments by the addition of an electrodeposited e-coating of cationic epoxy having a thickness range of about 0.0005 to 0.0009 inch (12.7 to 22.86 µm), and/or a sprayed epoxy-based primer having a thickness range of about 0.0015 to 0.003 inch (38.1 to 76.2 µm), and/or a sprayed acrylic-based polyurethane topcoat having a thickness range of about 0.0012 to 0.0014 inch (30.5 to 35.56 µm) a total possible calculated organic coating/film thickness being 12.7 to 134.6 µm, wherein although all exhibit excellent improvements in salt water conditions, the best pore resistance and reduced corrosion rates in both environments was exhibited by the alodine-based coating having the primer and topcoat thereon (pg. 5236) giving a preferred total organic coating/film thickness of about 68.6 to 111.8 µm.
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific corrosion resistant coatings/primers for salty water (and optionally just water) and improvements thereon, while still allowing adhesive bonding/embedding through the openings of the metal mesh.
Further regarding claims 21 and 34, although the prior art does not disclose a specific pore resistance or galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Prandy in view of Yue teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Further regarding claim 8, Sulzbach teaches a conductive metal screen for lightning strike protection, which incorporates the disclosure of 15/807,109 by reference [0022, 0026], wherein ‘109 teaches a non-chromate based solution forming a cured coating/film on an expanded foil mesh to inhibit corrosion and enhance adhesion of materials thereto [‘109; 0005, 0008], the non-chromate based solution being a cured layer butyl benzotriazole sodium salt (organic coating/film) [0022, 0026], the expanded foil mesh retaining its open structure following the application of the curable corrosion resistant coating solution, specifically one having opening lengths and widths that do not substantially change in dimension (reduced by about ~0%), exemplarily being about 0.075±0.006 inches to allow it to be tailored to the topography of the surface structure [0024, 0027], wherein a having each opening size reduced by the total possible organic coating thickness of Yue would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of 3% to 26% and a preferred organic coating thickness of Yue would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of about 14% to 22%.
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific conductive metal screens used for the same purpose and accounting for any coatings provided thereon such that it functions the same.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prandy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,225,265) (hereinafter “Prandy”) in view of Justus (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0032756 A1) (hereinafter “Justus”), optionally also in view of Metroke et al. (Corrosion resistance properties of Ormosil coatings on 2024-73 aluminum alloy) (hereinafter “Metroke”) OR Rossi et al. (Corrosion Protection of aluminum foams by cataphoretic deposition of organic coatings) (hereinafter “Rossi”) as applied to claims 8, 16, 21, and 34, and optionally further in view of Sulzbach (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037675 A1) (hereinafter “Sulzbach”) as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, and 47, Prandy teaches a composite structure having lightning strike protection and having corrosion resistance against salty air (col. 1, lines 50-57), comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers (All Figs. [5/6]) having carbon/graphite (more noble) fibers therein (col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 6; col. 4, lines 23-38) having disposed directly thereon (with no intervening/isolating layer) a metal screen (All Figs. [2]), such as woven gauze metal, expanded metal, or perforated metal having a thickness of 1 to 10 mil (0.025 to 0.25 mm/25 to 250 µm), the metal preferably being aluminum or copper, wherein the metal screen may be anodized to increase corrosion resistance and also coated with a chromate-based or other corrosion resistant coating or primer (col. 4, lines 39-57), wherein the metal screen is embedded in an adhesive matrix resin (All Figs. [3]), which extends through the coated/primed mesh openings to bond it to the composite and optionally covered with a protective surface layer/film (All Figs. [8]) (col. 4, lines 58-61),
However, neither the corrosion resistant chromate-based layer or primer is taught to be an organic layer, the thickness of the organic coating/film is not taught, and in the event that the coating/film is not taught to only reduce the surface area of the aperture by less than 50%:
Justus teaches an expanded metal foil, such as expanded aluminum foil, that assists in dissipating lightning strikes from aircraft/vehicle composite structures, wherein the expanded aluminum foil is typically coated with anticorrosion agents, treatments, coatings that also improve bonding adhesion to prevent microcracking [0002-0003], coating in the process of Justus being an organic material coating [abstract, claims, 0014, 0016] applied via immersion, roll-coating, electro-deposition, spraying [0028] and cured on the expanded aluminum foil [0029]
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific corrosion resistant coatings/primers and improvements thereon, while still allowing adhesive bonding/embedding through the openings of the metal mesh.
Metroke teaches silane (organic) coatings for aluminum surfaces in salt spray conditions to replace chromate coatings and sol-gel anti-corrosion coatings due to the environmental concerns of the former and have increased flexibility and thickness over the latter (pg. 231), wherein aluminum surfaces are sprayed with the silane coatings to thicknesses of 6 to 16 µm (pg. 233) providing pore resistances of at least 0.01 MΩcm2 (104 Ωcm2) with preferred embodiments exhibiting pore resistances of above 10 MΩcm2 (107 Ωcm2).
OR
Rossi teaches corrosion protection of structured/porous aluminum surfaces, wherein electrodeposition of organic coatings allows for a protective and homogeneous coating over complex geometry, wherein increased voltage during deposition leads to increased coating thickness, wherein average coating thicknesses ranged from about 18.6 µm to about 56.5 µm [Table 1, pg. 147], which achieved pore resistance values within the range of near or above 105 Ωcm2, with the thickest coating achieving a pore resistance in the range of near or above 106 Ωcm2 [Fig. 11, pg. 150].
Further regarding claim 8, Sulzbach teaches a conductive metal screen for lightning strike protection, which incorporates the disclosure of 15/807,109 by reference [0022, 0026], wherein ‘109 teaches a non-chromate based solution forming a cured coating/film on an expanded foil mesh to inhibit corrosion and enhance adhesion of materials thereto [‘109; 0005, 0008], the non-chromate based solution being a cured layer butyl benzotriazole sodium salt (organic coating/film) [0022, 0026], the expanded foil mesh retaining its open structure following the application of the curable corrosion resistant coating solution, specifically one having opening lengths and widths that do not substantially change in dimension (reduced by about ~0%), exemplarily being about 0.075±0.006 inches to allow it to be tailored to the topography of the surface structure [0024, 0027], wherein a having each opening size reduced by the organic coating thickness of Metroke would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of 1% to 3% OR reduced by the organic coating thickness of Rossi would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of about 4% to 12%.
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific conductive metal screens used for the same purpose and accounting for any coatings provided thereon such that it functions the same.
Further regarding claim 34, although the prior art does not disclose a specific galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Prandy in view of Justus and optionally Metroke or Rossi teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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 J 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 January 9th, 2026