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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Jun 19, 2026 has been entered.
Specification: Drawings
The objection to the drawings made in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed June 19, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 recites “wherein the reinforcement material comprising”, which should be “wherein the reinforcement material comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because lines 12-14 recite that the temporary core physically separates the first and second permanent cores “thereby rendering the first permanent core and the second permanent core discrete and non-continuous”. This limitation is indefinite because it does not state with respect to what the cores are “discrete and non-continuous”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted herein as meaning that the two permanent cores are not in direct contact with each other. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it depends from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobin (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0223794).
Regarding claim 1, Tobin teaches a composite fiber structure comprising a core (i.e. at least items 40, 42, and 56 enclosed by item 64) including a first sub-core (40, i.e. “first permanent core”), a second sub-core (42; i.e. “second permanent core”), and a third sub-core (62, as shown in Fig. 8, which is part of 56, as shown in Figs. 13-18 ; i.e. “temporary core”) disposed between and physically separating the first and second sub-cores such that the first and second sub-cores are not in direct contact with each other (i.e. “thereby rendering the first permanent core and the second permanent core discrete and non-continuous”), all of which are enclosed by an outer skin layer (65) (Figs. 8, 13-18). The first and second sub-cores (i.e. “first and second permanent cores”) and outer skin layer comprise a fiber-reinforcement material, which may be glass fibers, impregnated with a suitable resin, which may be a thermoset resin (par. 23, 71, 84-86). The third sub-core comprises a core material (i.e. which may also be considered a “temporary” core), such as a resin-based (e.g. polystyrene) foam (par. 81). Tobin’s product qualifies as a three-dimensional (3D) printed composite fiber structure because the first and second sub-cores are formed by 3D printing (par. 65).
As shown Figures 13-18, Tobin’s composite structure has the general shape of an airfoil (i.e. “to form an airfoil structure”) with a cross section having a thickness that varies along a chord of the structure such that the thickness decreases toward each of its first and second ends/edges (i.e. “toward a leading edge and a trailing edge”) (Figs. 13-18).
The claim requirement that the components of the recited composite are “to form an airfoil structure” is a statement of intended use. Tobin’s composite structure, including its components, meet the claim limitation because they are capable of being used as claimed.
The claim requirement that the temporary core is “configured to provide temporary structural support to the first and second permanent cores during formation of the layer and to be removable after curing of the composite fiber structure by dissolving in a solvent to leave behind the first and second permanent cores and the layer” is also a statement of intended use. Tobin’s third sub-core, which is a different material (e.g. a foamed polystyrene resin) with different solubilities from the composite first and second sub-cores (e.g. glass fiber-reinforced thermosetting resin), meets the claim requirement because it is capable of being dissolved with a solvent and used as claimed.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tobin.
Regarding claim 1, as discussed above, Tobin’s product is considered herein to meet the claim requirements, including the requirement that the claimed structure is a 3D printed structure, because Tobin teaches that his permanent, fiber and resin cores are 3D printed.
To the extent that Tobin’s product is not considered to be 3D printed because some of its components are not explicitly taught to be produced in this manner, it is noted that the limitation is a product-by-process limitation. The limitation requiring that the permanent cores comprises a reinforcement that is impregnated with a resin (i.e. rather than a composite wherein the fiber and resin are combined at the same time, e.g. by mixing) is also a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process limitations are not limited to the recited processing steps, but rather the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Tobin’s product and its components meet the claim requirements because they have the structure that is implied.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Teeter (US Pat. No. 6,713,008).
Regarding claim 1, Teeter teaches composite fiber structures (100) comprising a core (the combination of items 114, 116, 130, 132, 140, 142) comprising first sub-cores (112, 114, 116; i.e. "first and second” “permanent cores") comprising fiber-reinforced composite materials (i.e. a "reinforcement material impregnated with a resin"), which may comprise carbon, glass, or aramid fibers, second sub-cores (130, 132, 140, 142; i.e. “temporary cores”) comprising mold wax, and a composite layer (110, 120) enclosing the cores (Fig. 3; Abstract; col. 2, ln. 5-8; col. 2, ln. 40-52; col. 4, ln. 48-51).
As shown Figure 3, Teeter’s composite structure has the general shape of an airfoil (i.e. “to form an airfoil structure”) with a cross section having a thickness that varies along a chord of the structure such that the thickness decreases toward each of its first and second ends/edges (i.e. “toward a leading edge and a trailing edge”) (Fig. 3). Figure 3 further shows that Teeter’s second, temporary sub-cores (132, 140) physically separate the first, permanent sub-cores (114, 116) such that the first and second sub-cores are discrete from one another and not in direct contact with each other (i.e. “thereby rendering the first permanent core and the second permanent core discrete and non-continuous”) (Fig. 3).
The claim requirement that the components of the recited composite are “to form an airfoil structure” is a statement of intended use. Teeter’s composite structure, including its components, meet the claim limitation because they are capable of being used as claimed.
The claim requirement that the temporary core is “configured to provide temporary structural support to the first and second permanent cores during formation of the layer and to be removable after curing of the composite fiber structure by dissolving in a solvent to leave behind the first and second permanent cores and the layer” is also a statement of intended use. Teeter’s second sub-cores, which he teaches may be melted or rinsed way with a solvent to be removed from the composite structure (col. 3, ln. 34-40), meet the claim requirement because they are capable of being dissolved with a solvent and used as claimed.
The requirement that the recited structure is a 3D-printed structure is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process limitations are not limited to the recited processing steps, but rather the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Teeter’s product and its components meet the claim requirements because they have the structure that is implied.
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 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobin.
Regarding claims 1 and 29, as discussed above, Tobin teaches a composite fiber structure that is considered to anticipate or, alternatively, render obvious the requirements of claim 1 because it includes cores arranged as claimed and of dissimilar materials, which have dissimilar solubilities, and, therefore, are capable of being used as claimed (i.e. wherein the “temporary core” is dissolved away to leave behind the “permanent” cores). Tobin’s product also has the structure implied by the recited product-by-process limitations. See MPEP 2113.
To the extent that Tobin’s teachings might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly exemplify a product that includes a polystyrene “temporary” core (i.e. 65, which is inside of 56) and “permanent” first and second cores made from thermosetting resin, such as epoxy, and glass or carbon fiber reinforcements, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make such a product because Tobin explicitly teaches each component to be appropriate (par. 70, 71, 81). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the foamed, “temporary”, polystyrene core in Tobin’s product to include rubber, thereby making it a “high impact polystyrene”, because Tobin teaches that rubber/resin-based foams are appropriate (par. 81). Furthermore, as no level of impact resistance is claimed that would qualify a polystyrene material as “high impact”, Tobin’s polystyrene material, or the polystyrene/rubber material that would have been obvious in view of Tobin, qualifies as “impact resistant” for the purposes of the claim because it is not taught to be particularly impact-susceptible and because it more impact resistant than at least some other polystyrene materials, e.g. a polystyrene aerogel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot in view of the current rejections.
Applicant has argued that the claimed invention is distinguished over Teeter because Teeter’s temporary cores do no physically separate the permanent cores from each other. However, as shown in Teeter’s Figure 3, temporary cores 132 and 140 do create physical separation between permanent cores 114 and 116. The figure also shows that the permanent cores, 114 and 116, are discrete layers that are non-continuous with each other. Therefore, the depicted structure has the arrangement of cores currently required by claim 1. Applicant is encouraged to more specifically describe what shape/structure constitutes a “core” and how such cores are arranged if they wish to exclude structures such as Teeter’s.
Applicant has further argued that Teeter does not disclose an airfoil structure, but rather a shape with “carefully controlled outer contours”. However, as shown in Figure 3, Teeter’s contoured shape has a shape with a cross-section that decreases in thickness toward both of its ends. Teeter’s product meets the claim requirement of “to form an airfoil structure” because it is capable of being used as claimed. Applicant is encouraged to more specifically describe the shape of an “airfoil structure” in the claim if they wish to exclude structures such as Teeter’s.
Applicant has also argued that the claims are distinguished over Teeter because Teeter’s wax cores allegedly have a different purpose from that of the claimed cores and that, after the removal of the wax cores, no internal structure of pre-existing, discrete load-bearing cores is revealed. Applicant has also asserted that the structural integrity of Teeter’s structure comes from the bonded laminate stack, rather than the internal structure of cores. However, Teeter’s product meets the claim requirements because it is capable of functioning as claimed. Applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary and no evidence to demonstrate that Teeter’s formed inner cores are not load-bearing. Additionally, the fact that Teeter’s solid wax cores are used to shape the fibrous reinforcement materials rather than compressing or being deformed under the weight of the reinforcement materials means that the wax cores provide support to Teeter’s taught intermediate structure (col. 5, ln. 50-65; col. 6, ln. 57-61).
Applicant has further argued that the permanent cores of the claimed invention have a defined shape that independently exists absent the outer layer, which allegedly distinguishes the claims from Teeter. However, no core shapes or limitations about “independent existence” are recited in the claims. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Teeter’s cores, which exist, meet the claim requirements for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Teeter and Pham are moot in view of the current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights