DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 13-15 & 18-21 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.
Claims 13-15 are dependent on claim 12, yet are otherwise written as independent claims replete with antecedent basis errors, including but not limited to “A process of Claim 12” instead of “The process of claim 12” and “a composite structure” instead of “the composite structure”.
Regarding claims 18-21, the limitation of “said composite structure is ablated to yield a composite structure having at least one ablated surface area” is confusing as a composite structure comprising at least one ablated surface area is seemingly already present in claim 12, so it is unclear how these two composite structures differ.
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 12-16 & 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oliveira et al. (Surface treatment of CFRP composites using femtosecond laser radiation) (hereinafter “Oliveira”).
Regarding claims 12-15, 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 exposes the underlying fiber and forms laser induced periodic surface structures that do not result in any damage, destruction, or decrease in properties, wherein the femtosecond laser comprises a femtosecond pulse duration, specifically 550 fs (about 500 fs), which is improved over a nanosecond pulse length [Abstract; Experimental; pgs. 39 & 43], wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Further regarding claim 15, in the event that 550 fs does not anticipate 500 femtoseconds, that the laser is described a femtosecond laser makes the entire range of 1 to 999 fs obvious, wherein when claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 16-17, while an explicit disclosure of ablated surface area is not taught, the range of 0.1 to 100 percent would be obvious, almost inherent, as a given % range to any added feature is inherently greater than 0% to 100%. Furthermore, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize ablation amount since 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the percent ablated in order to optimize the amount of exposed fiber material on the surface of the composite.
Regarding claims 18-21, Oliveira demonstrate femtosecond laser ablated areas consisting essentially of exposed substantially undamaged/unablated/unmelted carbon fibers (~100%) (Figs. 5-7; pgs 39-41 & 43), and while total surface electrical conductivity is not attributed to the femtosecond laser ablated areas, since carbon fibers are inherently electrically conductive and the exposed carbon fibers are substantially undamaged, therefore understood as being unaltered in characteristic properties, with essentially no remaining resinous material, the total surface electrical conductivity should therefore directly correspond, if not otherwise match, the electrical conductivity of the exposed carbon fibers.
In the event that the claimed range(s) are not anticipated by depictions and description of Oliveira, it would have been obviously optimizable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention desiring laser ablation areas consisting of exposed substantially undamaged carbon fibers.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0288036 A1) (hereinafter “Schulze”) in view of Oliveira et al. (Surface treatment of CFRP composites using femtosecond laser radiation) (hereinafter “Oliveira”), wherein claim 17 is optionally further in view of Lichtenstein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,624,383 B1) (hereinafter “Lichtenstein”).
Regarding claims 12-15 and 18-21, Schultze teaches a method for forming an intermediate fiber composite product, 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 [0045], wherein the surface of the intermediate fiber composite is laser ablated in a manner such that the only the matrix material evaporates from the surface of the composite and the fibers remain undamaged (~100% exposed fibers) [0053-0054, 0115-0117] and such that the surface comprising the laser ablated areas is electrically conductive [0022, 0044, 0070].
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.
Further regarding claims 18-21, in the event that the surface electrical conductivity of the ablated areas and/or the exposed surface fiber area fraction is/are not anticipated by Schulze/Oliveira as recited above, it would have been obviously optimizable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention desiring laser ablation areas substantially consisting of exposed substantially undamaged carbon fibers for purpose(s) of electrical conductivity and/or strength of (adhesive) connection [0022].
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Almuhammadi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0169794 A1) (hereinafter “Almuhammadi”) OR, in the alternative, claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Almuhammadi.
Regarding claims 1-4, Almuhammadi teaches the preparation of a carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite for the attachment of electrodes thereon, 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 any electrodes attached thereon, 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 polymer left thereon, wherein but optical microscopy and Raman mapping differentiates between pure (exposed) carbon fiber, pure epoxy, and a mixture thereof, wherein a specific examples demonstrates that within a laser pretreated target area an extrapolated value of about 77.5% of the surface area comprises fully exposed carbon fibers [0004-0005, 0028, 0044, 0049-0050, 0066-0068, 0072, Fig. 4B], wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I. Also, wherein when the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Further regarding claims 1-4, the surface electrical conductivity of a target area is inversely proportional to the 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).
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almuhammadi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0169794 A1) (hereinafter “Almuhammadi”), 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 further in view of Mielke (Active Pulse Management Enables Femtosecond Athermal Ablation) (hereinafter “Mielke”).
Regarding claims 12-21, Almuhammadi teaches that a laser pulsed irradiation pretreatment comprises a pulse duration that can be greater than or equal to 10 nanoseconds [0007], wherein laser pulse irradiation is improved over sand papering [0027-0029, 0071]. Almuhammadi does not teach a laser pulse duration within the claimed range.
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].
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 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 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]. 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 12-21 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”), wherein claims 16-17 are optionally (even) further in view of Sabau.
Regarding claims 12-15 and 18-21, 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 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]. 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 12-21 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 and 18-21, 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 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]. 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
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 May 26th, 2025