DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 22nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed April 30th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12-15 have been amended.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Oliviera made in the Office action mailed December 23rd, 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Almuhammadi (as the primary reference) made in the Office action mailed December 23rd, 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Section 103 rejections over Schulze (as the primary reference) made in the Office action mailed December 23rd, 2025 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive. The rejections will be substantially repeated as set forth below with any modifications thereof due to Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner provided Applicant with arguments against the proposed amendments when amendments were first proposed in an after final response. That response will be substantially repeated below:
Applicant argues that Schulze teaches an adhesive with the use of pre-positioned conductive fibers that are coated by resin, which is somehow not required/barred by the current claims.
This is confusing to the Examiner because that is not how claims work. Just because a particular adhesive or claim element is not required by the claim does not mean the claim element is barred by the current claims. There is nothing requiring an “inherently” conductive adhesive layer or what exactly that might mean in terms of what is being claimed.
Furthermore, the only requirement for the connecting particles is that they are conductive such that they transform the insulating adhesive resin into a conductive layer [0021]. While a specific, preferred adhesive comprising positioned/oriented elements is disclosed and preferred due to the increased mechanical and conductive property enhancements, it is by no means required to perform the invention. Furthermore, “nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).
Finally, a conductive adhesive resin added to the recesses on both components having one or more ablated areas formed by removal of resin material exposing reinforcing fibers forming conductive pathways providing an electrically conductive connection is explicitly demonstrated in Fig. 5D. The conductive adhesive contains a plurality of conductive connecting carbon particles [0021-0022, 0040, 0116, 0124] and/or metallic particles [0029, 0046], wherein the connecting/carbon particles preferably are at least partially (≥15%) oriented, primarily for purposes of mechanical reinforcement [0056, 0075, 0124, 0141].
In conclusion, it is unclear how the invention of Shultze substantially differentiates in a non-obvious manner from one including an (inherently) electrically and thermally conductive adhesive layer.
Also, Almuhammadi does not teach laser bonding as alleged by Applicant but laser ablation of resin to expose conductive fibers in conductive fiber composites for the formation of electrodes thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, it is unclear how a composite structure or a process of making a composite structure comprises a plurality of composite structures and a final composite system. It seems like the claim should be directed to “a composite system, comprising” and “a process of making a composite system having at least two composite structures each having a surface, said process comprising” because any dependent claims are confusing as to whether they are directed to “the composite structure” of the preamble or “one of the [plurality of/at least two] of composite structures” of the body of the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the plurality of/at least two composite structures are actually bonded (i.e. “are joined” or “is adhered”) or it is merely functional (i.e. “when two or more composite structures are bonded or cured to form a single article”). This is only more confusing as applied to claims 5-11 as recited below.
Lastly, it is unclear how the plurality of composite structures can comprise at least one partially ablated upper side or lower side but then later in the same claim limitation as amended “each” are required to have partially ablated upper side or lower side. This entirely limitation is confusingly worded comprising both “a plurality of/at least two of” then referring to “a separate composite structure” which may or may not be part of the plurality of/at least two of composite structures.
Regarding claims 2-4, like claims 13-15 previously, comprise multiple antecedent basis errors and it is confusing now that it seems to improperly expand upon “a total surface electrical conductivity” by allowing exposed fibers as an alternative.
Regarding claims 5-11, it is unclear if “an article” is related to “a single article” in the final line of claim 1.
Furthermore, why are “at least two composite structures of Claim 1” required when a plurality of composite structures is already set forth? Then the claim requires “another composite structure of claim 1”. Claim 9 also exhibits this issue.
Regarding claims 7-9, it is unclear if the article’s surface electrical conductivity is related to the “total surface electrical conductivity” of the composite structure.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0288036 A1) (hereinafter “Schulze”), optionally in view of Almuhammadi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0169794 A1) (hereinafter “Almuhammadi”).
Regarding claims 1-11, Schultze teaches an intermediate fiber composite product and method of forming thereof, to be bonded to at least a second intermediate fiber composite product via conductive adhesive, wherein the intermediate fiber composite comprises a thermoset curable resin, such as epoxy resin [0103], wherein reinforcing fibers are electrically conductive such as carbon or metallic fibers [0028, 0045], wherein the surface of the intermediate fiber composite is laser pretreated in a manner such that the only the matrix material evaporates from the surface of the composite and the fibers remain undamaged [0053-0054, 0115-0117] and such that the composite surface comprising the laser pretreated areas is increased in adhesion and electrically conductivity [0022, 0044, 0070], such that a strong mechanical and electrical connection is achieved between laser pretreated areas of two composites when they are overlapped [Fig. 4b, 0051-0054] and bonded by an electrically conductive adhesive applied to the laser pretreated areas of one (Fig. 4b) or both (Fig. 5d) composites comprising a same/similar polymer matrix to the composite, such as the previously mentioned epoxy [0082, 0103, 0109], and conductive carbon or metallic particles [0021-0026, 0028, 0044, 0049, 0055, 0120-0124, 0126-0127, 0132, 0135], wherein due to the inherent thermal and electrical conductivity of carbon fibers, the exposed carbon fibers would inherently provide improved thermal and electrical pathways that can dissipate unwanted heat and electricity upon the bonding/curing of at least two structures at any mutual bonding surfaces. Since the adhesion and electrical conductivity are inherently directly related to the amount of fully exposed reinforcing fibers in the pretreated [0021, 0033-0035, 0040, 0116, 0132], it would have been obvious to optimize and thus maximize the areal concentration percentage thereof in the at least one pretreated area.
Alternatively, Almuhammadi teaches the preparation of a carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite for providing electrically conductive areas with a low contact resistance, wherein at least one target surface area of the composite is laser pretreated using laser pulsed irradiation to remove the polymer and expose the carbon fibers such that it increases lowers the surface electrical contact resistance and enhances adhesion, which is in part due to the at least 75% or more of the carbon fibers adjacent the surface of the composite being fully exposed with minimal to no damage and without any embedding polymer left thereon, wherein a surface electrical conductivity of a target area is inversely proportional to a contact resistance of the target area and thus is a result effective variable thereof, wherein the electrical conductivity of the target area is directly proportional to the areal density of the fully exposed conductive fibers and would be substantially corresponding, if not inherently equal, to the surface electrical conductivity of a non-polymer embedded (neat) fiber material.
Therefore, an effort to achieve a lowest possible contact resistance/maximum exposed fiber material and thus the highest surface electrical conductivity as a percentage of the surface conductivity non-polymer embedded fiber material would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art by the teachings of Almuhammadi, and would only be limited by the optimization of the laser pretreatment and the conductivity of the fiber material, wherein absent unexpected results, it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955), wherein the amount of exposed fiber should be at least 75% for a good electrical connection with a low contact resistance.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0288036 A1) (hereinafter “Schulze”), optionally in view of Almuhammadi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0169794 A1) (hereinafter “Almuhammadi”), (further) in view of Oliveira et al. (Surface treatment of CFRP composites using femtosecond laser radiation) (hereinafter “Oliveira”), wherein claim 17 is optionally (even) further in view of Lichtenstein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,624,383 B1) (hereinafter “Lichtenstein”).
Regarding claims 12-15, Schultze teaches an intermediate fiber composite product and method of forming thereof, to be bonded to a second intermediate fiber composite product via conductive adhesive, wherein the intermediate fiber composite comprises a thermoset curable resin, such as epoxy resin [0103], wherein reinforcing fibers are electrically conductive such as carbon or metallic fibers [0028, 0045], wherein the surface of the intermediate fiber composite is laser pretreated in a manner such that the only the matrix material evaporates from the surface of the composite and the fibers remain undamaged [0053-0054, 0115-0117] and such that the composite surface comprising the laser pretreated areas is increased in adhesion and electrically conductivity [0022, 0044, 0070], such that a strong mechanical and electrical connection is achieved between laser pretreated areas of two composites when they are overlapped [Fig. 4b, 0051-0054] and bonded by an electrically conductive adhesive applied to the laser pretreated area of one or both composites (Fig. 5d) comprising a same/similar polymer matrix to the composite, such as the previously mentioned epoxy [0082, 0103, 0109], and conductive carbon or metallic particles [0021-0026, 0028, 0044, 0049, 0055, 0120-0124, 0126-0127, 0132, 0135], wherein the exposed carbon fibers would inherently provide improved thermal and electrical pathways that can dissipate unwanted heat and electricity upon the bonding/curing of at least two structures at any mutual bonding surfaces. Since the adhesion and electrical conductivity are inherently directly related to the amount of fully exposed reinforcing fibers in the pretreated [0021, 0033-0035, 0040, 0116, 0132], it would have been obvious to optimize and thus maximize the areal concentration percentage thereof in the at least one pretreated area to within the claimed range(s).
Alternatively, Almuhammadi teaches the preparation of a carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite for providing electrically conductive areas with a low contact resistance, wherein at least one target surface area of the composite is laser pretreated using laser pulsed irradiation to remove the polymer and expose the carbon fibers such that it increases lowers the surface electrical contact resistance and enhances adhesion, which is in part due to the at least 75% or more of the carbon fibers adjacent the surface of the composite being fully exposed with minimal to no damage and without any embedding polymer left thereon, wherein a surface electrical conductivity of a target area is inversely proportional to a contact resistance of the target area and thus is a result effective variable thereof, wherein the electrical conductivity of the target area is directly proportional to the areal density of the fully exposed conductive fibers and would be substantially corresponding, if not inherently equal, to the surface electrical conductivity of a non-polymer embedded (neat) fiber material.
Therefore, an effort to achieve a lowest possible contact resistance/maximum exposed fiber material and thus the highest surface electrical conductivity as a percentage of the surface conductivity non-polymer embedded fiber material would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art by the teachings of Almuhammadi, and would only be limited by the optimization of the laser pretreatment and the conductivity of the fiber material, wherein absent unexpected results, it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955), wherein the amount of exposed fiber should be at least 75% for a good electrical connection with a low contact resistance.
However, a particular laser pulse length is not taught.
Oliveira teaches a method of making a carbon fiber/cured epoxy resin composite comprising a treated surface, wherein the surface is laser ablated via a femtosecond laser such that it removes the resin and sectionally exposes the underlying fiber and forms laser induced periodic surface structures that do not result in any damage, destruction, or decrease in properties such as mechanical strength, wherein the femtosecond laser comprises a femtosecond pulse duration (1-999 fs), specifically 550 fs (about 500 fs), which is improved over a nanosecond pulse length in part due to the formation of the laser induced periodic surface structures [Abstract; Experimental; pgs. 39-41 & 43].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a laser pulse duration within the claimed range(s). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to look to art for suitable laser ablation processes that expose underlying conductive reinforcement fibers and chosen an improved laser pulse duration that better achieves the intended invention.
Further regarding claims 16-17, the workable range for the sectionally ablated composite surface would inherently be greater than 0% to about 100%, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the range of ablated surface area for purpose(s) of electrical conductivity and/or strength of (adhesive) connection [0022].
Alternatively, further regarding claim 17, in the event that the narrower range of ablated surface area is not inherently obvious, Lichtenstein teaches a method for improving the line to line or point-to-point surface contact conductivity by laser evaporating (ablating) a portion of the overlying polymeric resin to expose the underlying conductive fiber material (col. 1, lines 9-11 & 51-65), wherein a specific example comprises a seven inch diameter sample comprising an ablation pattern of three or four 1cm x 1cm squares, which results in a calculated 1.21% or 1.61% ablation of the composite surface which provides a multiple fold decrease in surface resistivity/increase in surface conductivity (col. 4, Example 1, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for workable ranges when using laser ablation to increase surface conductivity of a fiber composite.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0288036 A1) (hereinafter “Schulze”) optionally in view of Almuhammadi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0169794 A1) (hereinafter “Almuhammadi”), (further) in view of Lechner (WO 2020/109130 A1) (hereinafter “Lechner”) and Sabau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0265570 A1) (hereinafter “Sabau”) as evidenced by or optionally in view of Mielke (Active Pulse Management Enables Femtosecond Athermal Ablation) (hereinafter “Mielke”).
Regarding claims 12-15, Schultze teaches an intermediate fiber composite product and method of forming thereof, to be bonded to a second intermediate fiber composite product via conductive adhesive, wherein the intermediate fiber composite comprises a thermoset curable resin, such as epoxy resin [0103], wherein reinforcing fibers are electrically conductive such as carbon or metallic fibers [0028, 0045], wherein the surface of the intermediate fiber composite is laser pretreated in a manner such that the only the matrix material evaporates from the surface of the composite and the fibers remain undamaged [0053-0054, 0115-0117] and such that the composite surface comprising the laser pretreated areas is increased in adhesion and electrically conductivity [0022, 0044, 0070], such that a strong mechanical and electrical connection is achieved between laser pretreated areas of two composites when they are overlapped [Fig. 4b, 0051-0054] and bonded by an electrically conductive adhesive applied to the laser pretreated area of one or both composites (Fig. 5d) comprising a same/similar polymer matrix to the composite, such as the previously mentioned epoxy [0082, 0103, 0109], and conductive carbon or metallic particles [0021-0026, 0028, 0044, 0049, 0055, 0120-0124, 0126-0127, 0132, 0135], wherein the exposed carbon fibers would inherently provide improved thermal and electrical pathways that can dissipate unwanted heat and electricity upon the bonding/curing of at least two structures at any mutual bonding surfaces. Since the adhesion and electrical conductivity are inherently directly related to the amount of fully exposed reinforcing fibers in the pretreated [0021, 0033-0035, 0040, 0116, 0132], it would have been obvious to optimize and thus maximize the areal concentration percentage thereof in the at least one pretreated area to within the claimed range(s).
Alternatively, Almuhammadi teaches the preparation of a carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite for providing electrically conductive areas with a low contact resistance, wherein at least one target surface area of the composite is laser pretreated using laser pulsed irradiation to remove the polymer and expose the carbon fibers such that it increases lowers the surface electrical contact resistance and enhances adhesion, which is in part due to the at least 75% or more of the carbon fibers adjacent the surface of the composite being fully exposed with minimal to no damage and without any embedding polymer left thereon, wherein a surface electrical conductivity of a target area is inversely proportional to a contact resistance of the target area and thus is a result effective variable thereof, wherein the electrical conductivity of the target area is directly proportional to the areal density of the fully exposed conductive fibers and would be substantially corresponding, if not inherently equal, to the surface electrical conductivity of a non-polymer embedded (neat) fiber material.
Therefore, an effort to achieve a lowest possible contact resistance/maximum exposed fiber material and thus the highest surface electrical conductivity as a percentage of the surface conductivity non-polymer embedded fiber material would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art by the teachings of Almuhammadi, and would only be limited by the optimization of the laser pretreatment and the conductivity of the fiber material, wherein absent unexpected results, it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955), wherein the amount of exposed fiber should be at least 75% for a good electrical connection with a low contact resistance.
However, a particular laser pulse length is not taught by Shultze.
Lechner teaches a process for laser processing the surface of a fiber reinforced polymer composite component to be bonded with another component, wherein the laser treatment forms a treated connecting section with completely non-destructively exposed fibers and only removing the polymer matrix [0040-0042, 0067-0070] via an ultrashort pulse laser having a pulse duration of less than 10 ps (picoseconds) [0057-0062], wherein Sabau teaches a similar type of surface preparation for joining composite materials, wherein the surface of a composite component comprises a laser treated surface portion that exposes the reinforcing carbon fibers without damaging them [0013, 0051-0052, 0059-0060], wherein the pulse duration can be between 10 fs – 10 ns [0048].
Furthermore, Mielke evidences/further teaches “athermal” ablation with little to no thermal damage to the ablated material is provided by a sub-picosecond/femtosecond pulse length, wherein while femtosecond pulse length is required for athermal ablation, the quality of the femtosecond region can be further optimized, wherein the femtosecond pulse length is generally several hundred femtoseconds and below 600 fs, such as 500 fs, maintaining a lower power and lengthening and recompressing the pulse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a laser pulse duration to a laser pulsed irradiation pretreatment within the claimed range comprising a length of about 10 fs to less than about 10 ps [Lechner/Sabau], preferably in the femtosecond region such as about several hundred fs [Mielke]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of laser pretreating fiber reinforced composites for specifics on workable ranges involving the already desired effect of increased adhesion and exposing reinforcing fibers by completely removing the surrounding polymer matrix with little to no damage to the fibers [Lechner/Sabau], wherein a non-damaging athermal femtosecond pulse length can be further optimized for even lower possible damage by providing improvement to the quality of the beam and process speed [Mielke].
Regarding claims 16-17, it would have been obvious to select and optimize the areal dimensions of a laser pretreated area in relation to the overall surface area of the composite to within the claimed range(s).
Alternatively, Sabau teaches a laser treated area of 25 mm x 25 mm for bonding a carbon fiber reinforced composite of 100 mm in width and 300 mm [0058, 0070], which results in about 2.1% of the composite’s surface being ablated.
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art providing a treated area for bonding a composite in order to increase shear-lap strength to look for values that would be proportionally similar/same in areal percentage of the overall composite surface and within the claimed range.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0288036 A1) (hereinafter “Schulze”), optionally in view of Almuhammadi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0169794 A1) (hereinafter “Almuhammadi”), (further) in view of Moreira et al. (Mode II fracture toughness of carbon-epoxy bonded joints with femtosecond laser treated surfaces) (hereinafter “Moreira”) as evidenced by or optionally in view of Mielke (Active Pulse Management Enables Femtosecond Athermal Ablation) (hereinafter “Mielke”),
wherein claims 16-17 are optionally (even) further in view of Sabau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0265570 A1) (hereinafter “Sabau”).
Regarding claims 12-15, Schultze teaches an intermediate fiber composite product and method of forming thereof, to be bonded to a second intermediate fiber composite product via conductive adhesive, wherein the intermediate fiber composite comprises a thermoset curable resin, such as epoxy resin [0103], wherein reinforcing fibers are electrically conductive such as carbon or metallic fibers [0028, 0045], wherein the surface of the intermediate fiber composite is laser pretreated in a manner such that the only the matrix material evaporates from the surface of the composite and the fibers remain undamaged [0053-0054, 0115-0117] and such that the composite surface comprising the laser pretreated areas is increased in adhesion and electrically conductivity [0022, 0044, 0070], such that a strong mechanical and electrical connection is achieved between laser pretreated areas of two composites when they are overlapped [Fig. 4b, 0051-0054] and bonded by an electrically conductive adhesive applied to the laser pretreated area of one or both composites (Fig. 5d) comprising a same/similar polymer matrix to the composite, such as the previously mentioned epoxy [0082, 0103, 0109], and conductive carbon or metallic particles [0021-0026, 0028, 0044, 0049, 0055, 0120-0124, 0126-0127, 0132, 0135], wherein the exposed carbon fibers would inherently provide improved thermal and electrical pathways that can dissipate unwanted heat and electricity upon the bonding/curing of at least two structures at any mutual bonding surfaces. Since the adhesion and electrical conductivity are inherently directly related to the amount of fully exposed reinforcing fibers in the pretreated [0021, 0033-0035, 0040, 0116, 0132], it would have been obvious to optimize and thus maximize the areal concentration percentage thereof in the at least one pretreated area to within the claimed range(s).
Alternatively, Almuhammadi teaches the preparation of a carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite for providing electrically conductive areas with a low contact resistance, wherein at least one target surface area of the composite is laser pretreated using laser pulsed irradiation to remove the polymer and expose the carbon fibers such that it increases lowers the surface electrical contact resistance and enhances adhesion, which is in part due to the at least 75% or more of the carbon fibers adjacent the surface of the composite being fully exposed with minimal to no damage and without any embedding polymer left thereon, wherein a surface electrical conductivity of a target area is inversely proportional to a contact resistance of the target area and thus is a result effective variable thereof, wherein the electrical conductivity of the target area is directly proportional to the areal density of the fully exposed conductive fibers and would be substantially corresponding, if not inherently equal, to the surface electrical conductivity of a non-polymer embedded (neat) fiber material.
Therefore, an effort to achieve a lowest possible contact resistance/maximum exposed fiber material and thus the highest surface electrical conductivity as a percentage of the surface conductivity non-polymer embedded fiber material would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art by the teachings of Almuhammadi, and would only be limited by the optimization of the laser pretreatment and the conductivity of the fiber material, wherein absent unexpected results, it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
However, a particular laser pulse length is not taught by Shultze.
Moreira teaches bonded joints in carbon fiber reinforced polymer (epoxy) composites after pretreatment with a laser comprising a femtosecond pulse duration, improved over sandpaper roughening [Introduction, pg. 707, left column) and improved over nanosecond pulse length laser treatment on fiber reinforced composites the removal/ablation being thermal in nature and thus leaving thermal damage in comparison with the non-thermal ablation set forth by laser pretreatment comprising a pulse duration in the femtosecond range, such as an example comprising a pulse length of 600 fs (pg. 707, right column – pg. 708, right column), wherein the “athermal” ablation is echoed/evidenced by the sub-picosecond/femtosecond pulse length in Mielke, wherein the laser pretreated surface of the fiber reinforced composite of Moreira comprises preferably ~100% completely exposed carbon fibers with little to no remaining polymer/epoxy for the best possible adhesion and little to no ablation debris (pg. 711), wherein Mielke teaches how to further optimize the quality of the femtosecond region, which is generally several hundred femtoseconds but below 600 fs, such as 500 fs, maintaining a lower power (as desired by Almuhammadi) and lengthening and recompressing the pulse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a laser pulse duration to a laser pulsed irradiation pretreatment within the range claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the complete removal of the polymer from the surface of the carbon fibers with little to no damage to the fibers and surrounding polymer matrix by providing non-thermal ablation of the polymer matrix [Moreira], wherein the athermal femtosecond region can be further optimized for even lower possible damage by providing improvement to the quality of the beam and process speed [Mielke].
Regarding claims 16-17, it would have been obvious to select and optimize the areal dimensions of a laser pretreated area in relation to the overall surface area of the composite to within the claimed range(s).
Alternatively, Sabau teaches a laser treated area of 25 mm x 25 mm for bonding a carbon fiber reinforced composite of 100 mm in width and 300 mm [0058, 0070], which results in about 2.1% of the composite’s surface being ablated.
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art providing a treated area for bonding a composite in order to increase shear-lap strength to look for values that would be proportionally similar/same in areal percentage of the overall composite surface and within the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Two cited references teach aircraft composites bonded with a conductive adhesive such that they can dissipate electrical and thermal energy, such as lightning strikes
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 June 5th, 2026
Prosecution Insights