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 .
Specification
Applicants’ amendments to the specification of July 13, 2026, are noted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0196891 to Le in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0227162 to Kruckenberg.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, and 8, Le teaches composite structure for mitigating edge glow resulting from lightning strikes on composite structures, such as aerospace structures, containing carbon fiber reinforced plastic components (Le, Abstract). Le teaches that carbon fiber reinforced plastic (“CFRP”) generally comprises one or more composite layers or plies laminated together to form a sheet, laminate or layup, wherein each layer or ply comprises a reinforcement material and a matrix material such as an epoxy resin (Id., paragraph 0003). Le teaches that the CFRP sheets, laminates, or layups are laid up, laminated and cured to form CFRP components (Id., paragraph 0004). Le teaches that the composite structure comprises at least one CFRP, laminate or layup trimmed to form a CFRP component with at least one cut edge, wherein a conductive coating material is applied to the cut edge (Id., paragraph 0027).
Le teaches that one or more thin layers of conductive material is applied over a cut edge or drop off of the carbon fiber reinforced plastic components to reduce interply voltage potential between composite layers of the CFRP component (Le, Abstract, paragraph 0018). Le teaches that the exposed fiber surfaces are sanded and wiped (Id., paragraph 0025). Le teaches that the conductive coating is a mixture of a conductive doping material dispersed in a carrier medium (Id., paragraph 0020). Le teaches that the carrier medium can be an epoxy coating (Id., paragraph 0021). Le teaches that examples of suitable conductive doping material are carbon nanotubes (Id., paragraph 0023). As shown at at least Fig. 3, the conductive coating covers the entirety of the surface of the edge.
Le does not appear to teach the claimed carbon nanofiber. However, Kruckenberg teaches a low density lightning strike protection for use in airplanes, comprising surface films, paints, or primers including a low-density electrically conductive materials and a polymer-containing carrier such as an epoxy (Kruckenberg, Abstract, paragraphs 0007-0008). Kruckenberg teaches that the low density conductive nanoparticles can include carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers (Id., paragraph 0009). Kruckenberg teaches that from an economic perspective, the use of carbon nanofibers is preferred over carbon nanotubes, but their conductivity is less (Id., paragraph 0085). Kruckenberg teaches applying one or more of a paint or a primer layer that includes the electrically conductive components (Id., paragraph 0154). Kruckenberg teaches that where the primer includes the low density conductive material, the paint overlying the primer may not also include a low density conductive material (Id.). Kruckenberg teaches that the composite material is suitable for use in preparing aircraft and aircraft components with acceptable lightning strike protection (Id., paragraph 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite structure of Le, wherein the one or more thin layers of conductive material over the edge substitutes the carbon nanotubes with carbon nanofibers in a primer layer and paint layer arrangement, as taught by Kruckenberg, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite structure comprising conductive materials known in the art as being predictably suitable and functionally equivalent, based on the desired cost and conductivity required.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches that the exposed fiber surfaces are sanded and wiped.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches that each layer or ply comprises a reinforcement material and a matrix material such as an epoxy resin, wherein the CFRP sheets, laminates, or layups are laid up, laminated and cured to form CFRP components.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the prior art combination teaches that the paint overlying the primer may not also include a low density conductive material. Additionally, Kruckenberg teaches that the thickness of the paints and primers are selected to provide suitable conductivity and density (Kruckenberg, paragraph 0144). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite structure of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the thicknesses and electrical conductivities, such as claimed, as taught by Kruckenberg, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite structure having the desired properties including conductivities and thicknesses, suitable for the intended application.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Kruckenberg, as applied to claims 1-3, 7, and 8 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0011414 (herein referred to as “Kruckenberg II”).
Regarding claims 4-6, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the dimensions of the carbon fiber. However, Kruckenberg II teaches similar nanoreinforced films and laminates for use on an external part of an aerospace vehicle, comprising a nanoreinforcement film, a support veil, and a composite layer (Kruckenberg II, Abstract). Kruckenberg II teaches that the nanoreinforcement film can comprise carbon nanomaterial and a polymer resin (Id.), wherein nanomaterials include carbon nanofibers having a diameter between about 60 to about 300 nm, and an average length of between about 30 µm and about 50 millimeters (Id., paragraph 0014). Kruckenberg II teaches that the polymer resin comprises resins such as epoxy, polyimides, polyamides, polyesters, and phenolics (Id., paragraph 0018). Kruckenberg II teaches that the support veil is a mat of carbon fibers and a binder (Id., paragraph 0020). Kruckenberg II teaches that the nanoreinforced film and support veil can be combined in such a way that no interface between the nanoreinforced film and support veil is observable (Id., paragraphs 0021, 0028). Kruckenberg II teaches that the composite laminate part can be used on various external components, such as the leading edge of the inlet lip and cowl of an engine nacelle (Id., paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite structure of the prior art combination, wherein the carbon fibers comprise dimensions, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Kruckenberg II, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite structure comprising conductive materials known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar applications.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches substantially similar layers as the claimed composite material, conductive primer and sealant. Therefore, the claimed difference in electrical conductivities would appear to naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights