DETAILED ACTION
Specification: Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1B includes “104” with no accompanying line or arrow pointing to a part of the depicted structure and separately includes a wavy line, which is unaccompanied by a number, that appears to point to a part of the figure.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: each contains many instances of a number in parenthesis, which refer to the instant figures and are inappropriate because descriptors, such as “temporary” and “permanent”, are adequate in distinguishing the different cores and layers from each other. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is encouraged to correct the withdrawn claims in the same manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 1 now recites cores that are disposed in a “non-stacked configuration” (lines 5-6), which is a negative-limitation that excludes the cores from being stacked. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion See MPEP 2173.05(i). As such, any claim containing a negative limitation that does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. As the instant disclosure contains no teachings of a “non-stacked configuration” or any other language excluding the cores from being stacked, the limitation lacks support and constitutes new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is also unsupported by the instant disclosure because it recites “at least one temporary core (102) is disposed between gaps of the at least two discrete adjacent permanent cores”. Although the figures depict temporary cores (106) disposed within gaps between the permanent cores (104) (Fig. 1), there are no depictions of a temporary core located between gaps of the permanent cores. Additionally, it appears that “(102)” was intended to be “(106)”. For the sake of compact prosecution and because it is consistent with the original disclosure, the limitation is interpreted herein as requiring temporary cores to be disposed in gaps between, or “of” (as claimed), the permanent cores. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 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 it now recites “wherein, the at least one temporary core (106) is made up of a temporary material that is dissolved by a solvent in-situ to leave behind the at least two discrete permanent cores (104) and the layer (108) that forms the composite fiber structure (100)” (lines 13-16) . As the claim previously recites that the core comprises at least one temporary core and the new claim language positively recites that the temporary material is dissolved in situ, it is unclear if claim 1 is directed to an intermediate product that includes temporary cores or to a final product that does not have temporary cores. Given the format of the new limitation, it is also unclear if the new limitation is intended to be a product-by-process limitation or to actually recite a process. Additionally, it is not clear to what overall process (e.g. preparation of a final composite structure, preparation of the core, the dissolving of the temporary core(s), etc.) the “in situ” refers and its inclusion creates further ambiguity as to the meaning of the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution and because Applicant has not otherwise indicated they wish to change from having an intermediate examined to having a final product examined, the claim is interpreted herein as requiring a core that includes both temporary and permanent cores, wherein the temporary core(s) may be dissolved with a solvent to leave behind the permanent cores and outer layer.
Claims 2 and 5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from and require all the limitations of a claim that is indefinite for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed November 25, 2025.
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeter (US Pat. No. 6,713,008) alone or, optionally, in view of Pham (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0029443).
Regarding claim 1, Teeter teaches composite fiber structures (100) comprising a core (the combination of items 112, 114, 116, 130, 132, 140, 142) comprising first sub-cores (112, 114, 116; i.e. "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 core(s) (Fig. 3; Abstract; col. 2, ln. 5-8; col. 2, ln. 40-52; col. 4, ln. 48-51). Teeter’s composite fiber structure is three-dimensional because it has a length, width, and thickness.
As shown in Figure 3, the first (112, 114, 116; i.e. "permanent") sub-cores have shapes and dimensions (i.e. "sizes") that vary by way of variable thickness across their individual structures along the length of the composite structure and from one permanent sub-core to the next permanent sub-core (Fig. 3). For example, each of cores 114 and 116 forms a wavy structure that has a thickness that extends between the center layer 112 and an outer layer 112, 120 (Fig. 3). As the overall structure is narrower at the ends and wider in its center, the thickness of the cores 114 and 116 each vary in a corresponding manner (Fig. 3). Figure 3 also demonstrates that the waveforms of cores 114 and 116 do not perfectly align (Fig. 3). Therefore, the cores’ shapes and thicknesses also vary with respect to each other along the length of the composite structure.
Although Teeter does not explicitly refer to his cores as being arranged in a “non-stacked configuration”, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, the decision to orient one of such composite structures so that the cores are “stacked” or “side-by-side” is arbitrary and varies according to what direction is considered “vertical”. If the longest axis of Teeter’s structure in Figure 3 is considered the “length” and the structure is oriented/viewed with layer 112 extending long its vertical axis and “length”, then the first (112, 114, 116) and second (130, 132, 140, 142) sub-cores are disposed in a side-by-side manner (i.e. a “non-stacked configuration”), rather than a “stacked configuration”. As the composite structure of Figure 3 is a single structure, the one core configuration that is depicted is a “single” configuration. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the structure of Figure 3 so that the cores are arranged in a side-by-side configuration because the decision to orient or view the structure in this manner is an arbitrary decision and/or repositioning that does not define the claimed invention over the prior art, and/or in order situate the structure in an orientation according to the circumstances of its use or non-use, e.g. one might choose to orient the structure so that the layers are oriented vertically for ease of transport or storage.
The teachings of Teeter differ from the current invention in that the layer that encloses the core is not taught to have a variable thickness along the length of the structure. Teeter also does not explicitly teach that the layer of material forming each of the permanent cores has a variable thickness with respect to the other permanent cores (note: as discussed above, the thickness of the waveform, which can be considered the thickness of each of these cores, does vary as claimed). However, as no criticality has been established, the recited thickness variations are prima facie obvious selections of dimension or shape that do not define the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, as Teeter’s methods of making a panel involve pressing fibrous layers between sides of a mold, applying pressure over large areas, and flowing liquids within/out of the structure (col. 6, ln. 1-41), it is more likely than not that there is at least some variation in the thickness of the core layers and outer layer along the length of the composite structure (note: a layer with any variation in thickness at all meets the claim limitation). Pham further teaches that components of composite structures, particularly in areas subject to high load, may be reinforced by increasing the thickness of a web used to form that structure (par. 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the permanent core layers or outer layer of Teeter’s composite fiber structure to vary in thickness, including along the length of the structure, in order to provide reinforcement and/or enhanced protection to areas of increased load and in order to make the structure capable of withstanding increased/variable load in different areas across the composite structure’s length.
The teachings of Teeter might also be considered to differ from the current invention in that his core, including its component permanent and temporary cores, is not taught to be made by 3D printing. However, this requirement is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. As no details of the 3D printing operation are recited (e.g. whether or not a printing filament or other printing material is used, the details of a printing material, etc.), Teeter’s product meets the claim requirements because it has the limited structure that is implied by the claim limitation.
Teeter also demonstrates that he is open to various methods of making components of this structure, teaching that the fiber-reinforced permanent cores in his product may have various configurations of fibers, may be pre-formed, may be impregnated with resin after combining with temporary cores, and/or may be in the form of a prepreg prior to combining with the temporary cores (col. 3, ln. 1-32). Pham further teaches that additive manufacturing processes, such as 3D printing, can efficiently create structures with intricate designs that are tailored to specific engineering applications, including being tailored for more efficient load transfer while in use, to have high temperature resistance, and to have high strength (par. 20, 29, 33). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an additive manufacturing process, like 3D printing, to make some or all of the components of Teeter’s core because Teeter is clearly open to various methods of manufacture being used to make his product and because Pham discloses additive manufacturing processes, such as 3D printing, can be used to efficiently make structures with intricate (if desired) designs that are tailored to specific engineering applications, including being tailored for more efficient load transfer while in use, high temperature resistance, and high strength.
Given that no particular compositions or properties (e.g. solubilities in particular solvents) are claimed or defined that qualify the “temporary” cores as being “temporary” other than that the "temporary" cores may be dissolved by a solvent in such a way that the "permanent" cores and outer layer are left behind, the claim requirements that any of the cores are permanent or temporary are statements of intended use regarding whether or not the cores are left in place over time or not. The prior art cores and sub-cores qualify as “permanent” and as “temporary” as claimed because they are capable of being used as claimed. In particular, Teeter teaches that the wax second "temporary" sub-cores can be removed, including by being dissolved by a solvent (col. 3, ln. 34-39), while leaving the fiber-reinforced composite materials of first "permanent" cores and outer layer behind.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 3 demonstrates that the second sub-cores (130, 132, 140, 142) are disposed within gaps (i.e. the unlabeled recessed regions defined by and between the first sub-cores) of the first sub-cores (112, 114, 116) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, as also shown in Figure 3, even if viewed such that the longest axis of the depicted composite structure extends in the vertical direction, portions of the temporary cores (130, 132, 140, 142) are alternately placed with portions of the permanent cores (114, 116) along the length of the structure (Fig. 3). For example, there are portions of temporary core 130 positioned above permanent core 114 and portions of temporary core 130 positioned blow permanent core 114, and there are portions of temporary core 142 positioned above permanent core 116 and portions of temporary core 142 positioned below permanent core 116 (Fig. 3). As such, Teeter teaches a structure wherein at least two, discrete permanent cores are at least partially placed alternately with temporary cores along the length of the composite structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 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 core is allegedly made up of continuous sheets that do not qualify as “discrete permanent cores”. However, while each core in Teeter’s structure may extend continuously over a distance, Teeter does not disclose that the separate core layers are all made of the same sheet of material, or that a single sheet of material makes up more than one permanent core. Therefore, each of Teeter’s permanent cores, as discussed above, qualifies as a “discrete permanent core”.
Applicant has further argued that the claimed invention is distinguished over Teeter because Teeter does not teach forming his cores with 3D printing. However, this requirement is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Teeter’s product meets the claim requirements because it has the structure that is implied by the claim limitation. It also would have been obvious to utilize 3D printing to form layers in Teeter’s structure in view of Pham’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant has also argued that the claimed invention is distinguished over Teeter because Teeter’s cores are allegedly not arranged in a “single, non-stacked configuration”. However, as discussed above, whether or not the core layers are “stacked” depends on the orientation of the composite structure. If the structure of Teeter’s Figure 3 is rotated by 90 °, the core layers can be described as being arranged in a side-by-side relationship, rather than stacked. Similarly, if the structure of Figure 1 of the instant disclosure is rotated by 90 °, then its cores can be described as being in a “stacked” configuration, rather than a “non-stacked” configuration. Absent further claim language, the word “single” does not appear to distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Applicant has also argued that Teeter’s permanent cores do not vary in shape or size with respect to each other by way of varying in thickness because the he does not disclose that the sheets forming the cores vary in thickness. However, as discussed above, the thickness of the waveforms that are formed by the permanent cores do vary along the length of the structure. Additionally, as no criticality has been established, the recitations of such size, shape, or thickness variations are prima facie obvious selections of dimension or shape that do not define the claimed product over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configure the material layers forming the cores to vary in thickness according to Pham’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant has also argued that Teeter’s outer layer does not vary in thickness as claimed. However, similar to the cores, it is noted that as no criticality has been established, recitations of such selections of size, shape, or thickness variation are prima facie obvious selections of dimension or shape that do not define the claimed product over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04. Although Applicant has argued that the varying thickness of the outer layer provides varying strength as necessary for the production of the structure, it is not clear where such a disclosure appears in the instant specification. As such, it is not clear that such a benefit was envisaged, or considered to be an inventive concept at the time the claimed invention was filed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configure the layers forming the cores to vary in thickness according to Pham’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Swinford are moot in view of the current rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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