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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain 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, each of claims 16 and 18 now recite a honeycomb core with a cell having one barrier that includes an opening extending through a middle of the cell from a first vertex to a second vertex and another barrier that includes an opening that extends along a single cell well. Although Figure 3 depicts structures with a barrier (204g, 204h) having an opening (302) that extends from one vertex to another across the middle of a cell and structures with a barrier (204a-204f) having an opening (302) that extends along a single cell wall, and Figure 6 depicts structures including two barriers respectively having openings extending along cell walls that are longitudinally misaligned with each other, the original disclosure does not appear to teach a structure that includes a combination of one barrier having an opening extending through a middle of the cell from a first vertex to a second vertex and another barrier having an opening that extends along a single cell well. Therefore, the recited combination of different barrier types within a single cell appears to be unsupported by the original disclosure and to constitute new matter. Appropriate correction and/or explanation are required. In particular, Applicant is requested to specifically identify how the combination of claim features are supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 17 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they depend from claims 16 and 18.
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed January 26, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed January 26, 2026.
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 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desjoyeaux (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0200084) in view of Ichihashi (US PG Pub. No. 2013/0341119).
Regarding claims 16-18 and 20, Desjoyeaux teaches honeycomb core (24) assemblies comprising a plurality of cells (28), each comprising cell walls (30) that surround and define a cell interior (unlabeled, cavity within cell) comprising an open top (34) and an open bottom (32) (Figs. 2, 3, 5a; par. 22, 38, 93). Inside of at least some of the cells of the cores are barriers (36, 38, 44; i.e. "first barrier", "second barrier", "third barrier") that each span a cell interior between its open top and bottom and that each define an opening (42; i.e. "first opening", "second opening", "third opening") extending along a portion of the respective barriers (Figs. 2, 3, 6; par. 99). As shown in Figure 2, the second opening (lower item 42) of the second barrier (36) is positioned below a portion of the perimeter of the first barrier (38), and the two openings (42), or "gaps", are positioned at different locations (i.e. the openings are "different") such that the first opening is longitudinally offset along the cell length/depth with the second opening (Figs. 2). As shown in Figure 6, the cells may be four-sided, wherein the openings of the barriers each extend along a single cell wall of the cell interior (Fig. 6).
The teachings of Desjoyeaux differ from the current invention in that he does not teach a honeycomb core assembly with cells having a combination of barriers wherein at least one of the barriers includes an opening that extends along a single cell wall and another barrier includes an opening that extends through a center of the cell between from one vertex to another. However, Desjoyeaux does disclose that his product is an acoustic panel and that the barriers are intended to affect how sound travels through the panel (Abstract). Ichihashi further teaches an acoustic panel including septa (i.e. “barriers”) with openings and that affect how sound travels through the panel (Abstract). As shown in Figures 6, 7, 10, and 11, Ichihashi teaches septa with openings (52, 82, unlabeled in Fig. 11) that extend through a middle, from a first vertex to other (i.e. “second”) vertexes, within their respective cells (Figs. 6, 10, 11). Ichihashi also teaches that septa with such a structure are a simple and efficient substitute for septa with fixed openings, and are beneficial because their shape allows them to include flapper portions that provide an automatic increase in the size of the acoustic openings in response to increases in flow velocity or rate of the noise-containing media, thereby providing a substantial reduction in non-linearity factor (“NLF”), which should be as close to 1 as possible to achieve a constant sound dampening capability, as compared to fixed-opening septa (par. 7, 48, 49). Ichihashi also teaches that his septa (or “barriers”) may be included in a cell that has two or more septa (30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure one of more of the barriers within the cells in Desjoyeaux’s honeycomb core assemblies to have a shape disclosed by Ichihashi, wherein an opening extends through a middle of a cell from a first cell vertex to other (i.e. “second”) cell vertexes, because Ichihashi establishes that such a structure is a simple and efficient (and known) substitute for fixed-opening septa, and in order to reduce the NFL within the cell, thereby achieving a more constant sound dampening capability. The openings of the barriers in one or more cells of the combined product of Desjoyeaux and Ichihashi are necessarily at least partially longitudinally offset with respect to each other because the openings in Desjoyeaux’s barriers extend along cell walls (i.e. along the edge of the barriers) and the opening in the barrier taught by Ichihashi extends through the middle of a cell (and barrier).
Desjoyeaux teaches that his panels, which include the barriers discussed above, attenuate noise and that the barriers in core cells are opaque to acoustic waves and are arranged to increase the length of the path traveled by sound waves that enter the cells, thereby allowing the structure to attenuate selected acoustic frequencies (i.e. noise) (par. 88, 97, 114, 118). Ichihashi also teaches that panels including barriers of his taught construction are used for acoustic dampening (par. 13). Therefore, the barriers in Desjoyeaux and Ichihashi’s honeycomb core assembly are noise insulation barriers. Additionally, the claim requirement that at least one of the first or second barriers is a noise insulation barrier is a statement of intended use regarding the barriers being used to insulate something from noise. The prior art barriers meet the claim limitation because they are capable of blocking or insulating other structures or areas from at least some noise and because they are part of a noise insulator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the current rejections.
Applicant has argued that Desjoyeaux does not teach openings that extend along a single edge of a cell. However, Desjoyeaux’s Figure 6 depicts barriers with openings that extend along a single edge of a cell. Additionally, the claims do not exclude the barriers from extending along two “single” cell walls.
Applicant has also argued that Desjoyeaux does not teach barriers with an opening extending through the middle of a cell between vertexes. However, it would have been obvious to configure at least one of the barriers in a cell in Desjoyeaux’s to have a such a structure in view of Ichihashi’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant’s argument with respect to Biswas is 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