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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the details of 10 shown in Figures 3-6 and claimed (for example, support structure, diverting structure, support strut of the support structure) are not labelled in 10 in Figure 2 (lightning arrester 10 shows an inner portion/structure and an outer portion/structure, but not labelled to relate to the details in Figures 3-6 to aid with a clear understanding of the invention, its operation, and effective prior art search). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dilligan et al. (US 2013/0087380, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 1, Dilligan discloses a lightning arrester for a low observable vehicle (Figures 1-4, Abstract), the lightning arrester comprising:
a support structure composed of a first metal alloy having high thermal stability (comprising 20, Figure 4, Paragraph 23, “The bushing 20 typically is formed of a material that is chemically compatible with the composite material and of a material that has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) that is close to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the composite structure…”), and
a diverting structure composed of a second metal alloy having high electrical conductivity, said diverting structure being accommodated at least sectionally in the support structure (comprising 36 accommodated in 20, Figure 4, Paragraph 24, “…The main portion 34 is sized to snugly fit within the cylindrical hole 28 to provide an interference fit. The flange portion 32 facilitates formation of a reliable electrical path between the fastener 36 and the composite structure 26 for EME protection”).
Regarding Claim 2, Dilligan discloses the lightning arrester as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the first metal alloy is formed from at least one refractory metal in a substantial proportion (Paragraph 23, “…… Examples of useful materials include, but are not limited to, tungsten, rhenium, nickel, iron, and the alloys of these materials”, listed metals including at least one refractory metal tungsten, Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Dilligan discloses the lightning arrester as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the first metal alloy contains tungsten in a predominant proportion by weight (Paragraph 23, Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Dilligan discloses a vehicle comprising: at least one lightning arrester as claimed in claim 1 (Figure 4, Paragraph 2, 22, 24, lightning arrester in Figure 4 part of an airplane).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilligan et al. (US 2013/0087380, IDS Document) in view of Kamal et al. (US 2016/0076575, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 4, Dilligan does not specifically disclose the lightning arrester as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the second metal alloy contains elements from the copper group, in a predominant proportion by weight.
Kamal discloses a lightning arrester for a low observable vehicle (Figures 1-7, Abstract), the lightning arrester comprising:
a support structure composed of first metals (comprising 24, Figures 2-3), and
a diverting structure composed of second metals having high electrical conductivity (comprising 12, Figures 1, 3), said diverting structure being accommodated at least sectionally in the support structure (12 accommodated in 24, Figure 3), wherein the second metal is an element from the copper group (Paragraph 27, “…the material coating 22 or texturing on the bearing surface 21 of the head 18 is used to both provide a low resistivity material at the contact interface and a soft conforming layer for better contact with the structure. Soft materials with high electrical conductivity, such as copper, silver or other metals/materials can be used to lower contact resistance…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select in the in the second metal alloy of the lightning arrester of Dilligan, copper as taught by Kamal, having the advantage very high electrical conductivity to provide safe, fast discharge path of static electricity.
Regarding Claim 7, Dilligan does not specifically disclose the lightning arrester as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the lightning arrester is provided at least sectionally with an anticorrosion coating.
Kamal discloses a lightning arrester for a low observable vehicle (Figures 1-7, Abstract), the lightning arrester comprising:
a support structure composed of a first metal (comprising 24, Figures 2-3), and
a diverting structure composed of a second metal having high electrical conductivity (comprising 12, Figures 1, 3), said diverting structure being accommodated at least sectionally in the support structure (12 accommodated in 24, Figure 3), wherein the lightning arrester is provided at least sectionally with an anticorrosion coating (comprising coating 22, Figure 1, Paragraph 22, “…the outer surface of the cylindrical shank portion 16 is coated with the coating 22…. the coating 22 includes a high electrical conductivity (higher than 20% IACS) and be galvanically compatible to a structure (e.g., anodic index less than 1.0 V) for corrosion resistance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lightning arrester of Dilligan with an anticorrosion coating as taught by Kamal, to reduce contact resistance and reduce probability for arc initiation/damage (see Kamal, Paragraph 22).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilligan et al. (US 2013/0087380, IDS Document) in view of Brick et al. (US 4,398,234).
Regarding Claim 5, Dilligan does not specifically disclose the lightning arrester as claimed in Claim 1, wherein at least one support strut of the support structure penetrates, at least partly, through the diverting structure.
Brick discloses a lightning arrester in an aircraft (Figures 1-24), the lightning arrester comprising a support structure (comprising 76, 78 in Figure 18 for example) and diverting structure (68, 70, Figure 18), wherein a support strut of the support structure penetrates, at least partly, through the diverting structure (78 penetrates through 68, Figure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide in the lightning arrester of Dilligan, a support strut as taught by Brick, to provide durable, stable support for the diverting structure to withstand turbulent atmospheric conditions.
Claims 6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilligan et al. (US 2013/0087380, IDS Document) in view of Karch et al. (US 2023/0150689 by the same Assignee, published prior to the effective filing date of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 6, Dilligan discloses the lightning arrester as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the lightning arrester reduces size/width from a first/diverting end for receiving a flash of lightning toward a second end for electrically conductively connecting the lightning arrester to an electrically conductive structure of the vehicle (lightning strikes received at 36 and electrically conductively connected 26 at the second end, Figure 4).
Dilligan does not specifically disclose, the lightning arrester tapers from the diverting end for electrically conductively connecting the lightning arrester to an electrically conductive structure of the vehicle toward a receiving end for receiving the flash of lightning.
Karch discloses a lightning arrester in a vehicle (comprising 18, 24, 26, Figures 1-4 in a vehicle shown in Figure 5), wherein the lightning arrester tapers from a diverting end for electrically conductively connecting the lightning arrester to an electrically conductive structure of the vehicle toward a receiving end for receiving a flash of lightning (24 arrester tapers from a diverting end for electrically conductively connecting the lightning arrester to an electrically conductive structure 14 of the aircraft 50 toward a receiving end at 16 for receiving a flash of lightning, Figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the lightning arrester of Dilligan, a tapered end as the receiving end and diverting end to electrically connect to the electrical structure as taught by Karch to have the advantage of increased intensity of lightning energy received/attracted by the tapered/pointed tip and based on the design conditions such the location and orientation of the area of the vehicle where the lightning arrester is provided.
Regarding Claim 9, Dilligan does not specifically disclose the lightning arrester as claimed in Claim 8, wherein the at least one lightning arrester penetrates, at least sectionally, through radar absorption layer attached to an exterior of the vehicle and is electrically conductively connected to an electrically conductive structure of the vehicle.
Karch discloses a lightning arrester in a vehicle (comprising 18, 24, 26, Figures 1-4 in a vehicle shown in Figure 5), wherein the lightning arrester penetrates, at least sectionally, through a radar absorption layer (comprising 20, 22, Figures 1-4) attached to an exterior of the vehicle and is electrically conductively connected to an electrically conductive structure of the vehicle (18, 24, 26 penetrate through 20, 22 to the exterior 16, Figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lightning arrester of Dilligan, positioned/penetrated to the exterior and electrically connected to a conductive structure as taught by Karch, to facilitate quick, safe accumulation/collection from the exterior of the vehicle where lightning strikes and discharge of the static electricity to the conductive structure to eliminate/minimize initiation of spark.
Regarding Claim 10, combination of Dilligan and Karch discloses the vehicle as claimed in Claim 8, wherein the at least one lightning arrester is surrounded at least sectionally by a magnetic radar absorber (comprising 28 surrounding 24, Figure 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bryan (US 4,698,723) discloses a lightning arrester aircraft (40 in aircraft 10, Figures 1-3, Abstract), the lightning arrester comprising a diverting end coupled to a support structure/part of the aircraft and a tapering end receiving a flash of lightning (40 with tapering end 41 and diverting end 42, Figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 5/29/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights