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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 22, 2025 and July 7, 2025, have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-5 and 16-20, drawn to a thermoplastic part for an aircraft, classified in B32B 15/02.
II. Claims 6-15, drawn to a method for forming a thermoplastic part for an aircraft, classified in C08J 5/12.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product can be made by another and materially different process, specifically, by coextruding or casting the different layers of the composite.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Brian Scholsser on July 22, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-5 and 16-20 Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawlings et al. (US 2005/0181203) in view of WO 2012/046475 (hereinafter WO ‘475). Rawlings et al. teach an applique coating provided for a substrate. Regarding claims 1 and 16, the applique coating includes a metal foil and a first polymer film underlying the metal foil. A topcoat overlying the metal foil may be provided as a second polymer film (abstract). The appliques are useful for protection against lightning strike (0002) for use in commercial and military aerospace applications (0009). The appliques of the present invention could be well suited to aircraft and to many other areas, such as automobiles, boats, architectural coatings, and other commercial products (0017). Regarding claims 3 and 20, the metal foil (18, see Figure 2) includes aluminum foil but may also include copper. Regarding claims 4 and 5, 18 and 19, the first and second polymer films (12 and 20, Figure 2) can comprise poly ether ether ketone (PEEK) (0019). It should be noted that the examiner is equating Rawlings’ 1st polymer film to the thermoplastic skin material of the present invention and Rawlings’ 2nd polymer film to the thermoplastic resin film of the present invention. Rawlings also comprises an additional polymer film (reference point 16), as shown in Figure 2. The vapor barrier film 18 and the polymer film 20 cooperate to contribute to protection against lightning strike. Advantageously, laboratory testing has shown that the applique 10 provides superior lightning strike protection. In the event of a lightning strike, according to the present invention the vapor barrier film 18 and the polymer film 20 act in concert to keep energy from the lightning strike away from an underlying substrate 22, such as an aircraft skin (0052). Rawlings also disclose a topcoat that overlies the metal foil that may be provided as a layer of paint (0018). In addition, the applique may be painted over if desired for a particular application (0074).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rawlings et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching that the thermoplastic resin film is sulfonated. However, WO ‘475 disclose a polymer member for use in transport machines such as aircraft (page 1). The flame retardant member comprise a polymer layer, a flame retardant layer, and a thermal barrier layer (page 2). The thermally conductive layer comprise an aluminum or copper foil (page 9). The polymer layer includes polyether ether ketone (PEEK). By adopting a polar group-containing monomer, it becomes possible to improve the cohesive force of the polymer layer. Examples of the polar group-containing monomer include sulfonic acid group-containing monomers (page 5). It would have been obvious to have included the sulfonic acid group as shown by WO ‘475 in the resin film layer of Rawlings et al., motivated by the desire to create a composite with improved cohesive force.
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 17, the combination of Rawlings et al. and WO ‘475 disclose the claimed invention except for the specific teaching that the sulfonated region has a sulfur content with an infrared spectrum detectable amount of a sulfone group with a peak wavenumber between 1000-1098 cm-1 and more specifically, a peak wavenumber between 1025-1050 cm-1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the peak wavenumber of the applique taught by the combination of Rawlings et al. and WO ‘475 motivated by the desire to create an applique with increased adhesive and cohesive forces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: CA 3218328 teach a composite film comprising a PEEK polymer film and a metal foil for use in aircraft structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ULA CORINNA RUDDOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-1481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 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, Srilakshmi K Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights