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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues fails to teach “each vertex…is configured with a rounded corner” asserting every shape listed or shown in Nasibov lacks rounded corners and teaches away from “each vertex…is configured with a rounded corner”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion noting Nasibov recites “the conduits may have a cross-section of other triangles (isosceles or irregular, for example) or other polygonal or non-polygonal shapes. Examples include squares, circles, ovals, rectangles, pentagons, hexagons, to name a few. Circles may be preferred for ease of manufacture” [0067]. Thus, as previously asserted by Examiner, the shape of the voids is not particularly limited and can be any shape (polygonal or non-polygonal) including triangles, circles, or the like [0067] thus meeting the instant limitation of each vertex of the triangular shape is configured with a rounded corner.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further notes filleted corners in order to increase the strength of honeycomb structures are well known in the art (See [0051] Halder (PGPub 2020/0254433).
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.
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 21-22, 25-27, 29, 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasibov (PGPub 20190055731 cited in IDS) in view of Edwards (PGPub 2007/0256379 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 21, Nasibov teaches a method for forming a sheet (Abstract), the method comprising:
molding a thermoplastic material to form the sheet ([0088]-[0089]; [0094]-[0095]- discussing moulding the core, preferably from polyurethane (which is thermoplastic)),
wherein the sheet comprises a first side, a second side (Fig. 1a- first and second principal faces 110 and 112), and a series of voids disposed between the first side and the second side (Fig. 1a- openings 108),
wherein each void in the series of voids has a triangular shape, and wherein the series of voids is arranged in an alternatingly inverted pattern (Fig. 1a- triangular openings arranged in an alternatingly inverted pattern).
wherein the sheet has a length in an x-direction (Fig. 1a- length l), a width in a y-direction (Fig. 1a- width w), and a thickness in a z-direction (Fig. 1a- depth d).
Nasibov further teaches the shape of the voids is not particularly limited and can be any shape (polygonal or non-polygonal) including triangles, circles, or the like [0067] thus meeting the instant limitation of each vertex of the triangular shape is configured with a rounded corner.
Nasibov does not specify molding by extruding through an extrusion die wherein the x-direction of the sheet is the direction of extrusion.
Edwards teaches an alternative method of forming a composite (Abstract) wherein molding the core is performed by extruding through an extrusion die [0029] and the x-direction is the direction of extrusion (Figs. 4a-c- z-direction) to inexpensively produce the composite [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nasibov to include extrusion as taught by Edwards with reasonable expectation of success to inexpensively produce the composite [0029].
Regarding Claim 22, Nasibov further teaches the thermoplastic material is monolithic throughout the sheet (See Figs. showing a monolithic core). Edwards also teaches the thermoplastic material is monolithic throughout the sheet [0034].
Regarding Claim 25, Nasibov further teaches the core can comprise any combination of material recited in the specification such as a polyurethane material, and/or one or more of polyurethane foam, expanded polystyrene foam, phenolic foam, cellular glass and mineral wool [0094] thus meeting the instant limitation of the thermoplastic material comprises about 50 percent glass fiber and about 50 percent plastic.
Regarding Claim 26, Nasibov further teaches cutting the sheet to form a panel ([0029]; [0063]- the panel has a prescribed length based on the size of the building the panel will be applied, thus the panel is necessarily cut to the prescribed length)
Regarding Claim 27, Nasibov further teaches the panel has a width of 4 feet ([0063]- width of 1-1.2 m) and a standard construction length ([0029]- the size of the panel depends on the size of the building the panel will be applied).
Regarding Claim 29, Nasibov further teaches inserting, through the extrusion die and during the extruding, a pre-manufactured element such that the pre-manufactured element extends along one of the series of voids as the heated thermoplastic material exits the extrusion die ([0068]- openings 108 provided with a liner or insert 111).
Regarding Claim 31, Nasibov further teaches the sheet is a core sheet (Fig. 1a- core 106), and wherein the method further comprises: providing a top reinforcement sheet disposed above the extrusion die (Fig. 1a- top layer 102) and providing a bottom reinforcement sheet disposed below the extrusion die (Fig. 1a- bottom layer 102). Edwards also teaches the sheet is a core sheet (Fig. 1- core 13, and wherein the method further comprises: providing a top reinforcement sheet disposed above the extrusion die (Fig. 1- composite skin 11) and providing a bottom reinforcement sheet disposed below the extrusion die (Fig. 1- composite skin 12).
Edwards further teaches roll pressing, via a pair of rollers and after the heated thermoplastic material exits the extrusion die, the top reinforcement sheet and the bottom reinforcement sheet into the core sheet on opposing sides thereof to form a combined sheet [0029] in order to fuse the composite layers [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Nasibov and Edwards to include roll pressing as taught by Edwards with reasonable expectation of success to fuse the composite layers [0032].
Regarding Claim 32, Edwards further teaches the top reinforcement sheet comprises at least one of hemp, fiberglass, or carbon fiber [0037].
Regarding Claim 33, Nasibov further teaches the heated thermoplastic material is a first thermoplastic material [0094] wherein the sheet is a core sheet (Fig. 1a- core 106)
Edwards further teaches the extrusion die is a first extrusion die [0029] wherein the sheet is a core sheet (Fig. 1- core 13), and wherein the method further comprises: extruding, through a second extrusion die disposed on a first side of the first extrusion die, a second thermoplastic material to form a first cap layer ([0032]- a pultrusion process where continuous sheets of skin material are pulled through a die with discontinuous sheets of the anisotropic foam core fed between); extruding, through a third extrusion die disposed on a second side of the first extrusion die opposite the first side, a third thermoplastic material to form a second cap layer ([0032]- a pultrusion process where continuous sheets of skin material are pulled through a die with discontinuous sheets of the anisotropic foam core fed between); and
roll pressing the first cap layer, the core sheet, and the second cap layer together to form a combined sheet ([0032]- The entrance portion of the die is used to apply heat and pressure to the thermoplastic composite skins, causing them to be compressed against the foam core and heat it so that the skin and core melt fuse to each other. The exit portion of the die is used to cool and consolidate the panel).
Regarding Claim 34, Edwards further teaches the skin layers are more rigid than the core [0020] thus the materials are different thus meeting the instant limitation of the first thermoplastic material differs from the second thermoplastic material.
Regarding Claim 35, Edwards further teaches the skin layers are more rigid than the core [0020] and therefore denser thus meeting the instant limitation of the first thermoplastic material has a lower density than the second thermoplastic material.
Regarding Claim 36, Edwards further teaches the second thermoplastic material comprises plastic and fibers [0037].
Claims 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasibov (PGPub 20190055731 cited in IDS) in view of Edwards (PGPub 2007/0256379 cited in IDS) and Wang et al (PGPub 2017/0361521).
Regarding Claim 37, Edwards further teaches the roll pressing is performed using a first roller and a second roller [0032] but does not specify at least one of the first roller or the second roller is textured to cause a three-dimensional pattern to form in the first cap layer responsive to the roll pressing.
Wang teaches an alternative method of press rolling (Abstract) wherein at least one of the first roller or the second roller is textured to cause a three-dimensional pattern to form in the first cap layer responsive to the roll pressing [0011] in order to produce a low-cost composite that simulates natural material [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nasibov and Edwards to include roll press with a textured roller as taught by Wang with reasonable expectation of success to produce a low-cost composite that simulates natural material [0011].
Claims 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasibov (PGPub 20190055731 cited in IDS) in view of Edwards (PGPub 2007/0256379 cited in IDS) and Galle et al (WO2017220540).
Regarding Claim 38, Nasibov and Edwards do not specify the first thermoplastic material comprises 100% recycled plastic.
Galle teaches an alternative method of forming a plastic composite (Abstract) wherein the material comprises 100% recycled plastic [0003] in order to reduce costs associated with obtaining raw material [0003] while maintaining similar properties to raw plastic [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nasibov and Edwards to include recycled materials as taught by Galle with reasonable expectation of success to reduce costs associated with obtaining raw material [0003] while maintaining similar properties to raw plastic [0046].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 28 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 23 is Nasibov (PGPub 20190055731 cited in IDS) and Edwards (PGPub 2007/0256379 cited in IDS) as set forth in the previous action. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest forming a regular pattern of fastening slots extending along the panel in the x-direction, wherein each fastening slot is positioned atop a corresponding triangular void to create a self- aligning guide that facilitates accurate fastener installation and forming a series of raised anti-slip features extending along the panel in the x-direction. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the combination of Nasibov and Edwards to include forming a regular pattern of fastening slots extending along the panel in the x-direction, wherein each fastening slot is positioned atop a corresponding triangular void to create a self- aligning guide that facilitates accurate fastener installation and forming a series of raised anti-slip features extending along the panel in the x-direction. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 28 is Nasibov (PGPub 20190055731 cited in IDS) and Edwards (PGPub 2007/0256379 cited in IDS) as set forth in the previous action. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest injecting, into the extrusion die and during the extruding, a foam distinct from the thermoplastic material such that each void in the series of voids is at least partially filled with foam as the heated thermoplastic material exits the extrusion die. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the combination of Nasibov and Edwards to include injecting, into the extrusion die and during the extruding, a foam distinct from the thermoplastic material such that each void in the series of voids is at least partially filled with foam as the heated thermoplastic material exits the extrusion die. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 30 is Nasibov (PGPub 20190055731 cited in IDS) and Edwards (PGPub 2007/0256379 cited in IDS) as set forth in the previous action. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the pre-manufactured element comprises electrical wiring as Nasibov teaches the pipes or cables may be placed in the pre-manufactured liner (after molding) [0068] thus there is no reason to modify Nasibov to mold the cables into the panel. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the combination of Nasibov and Edwards to include the pre-manufactured element comprises electrical wiring. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Claim 39 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art to independent Claim 39 is Nasibov (PGPub 20190055731 cited in IDS) and Edwards (PGPub 2007/0256379 cited in IDS) as set forth in the previous action. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest pressing the sheet in a first location and in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the extruding to close a first end of each void of the series of voids; pressurizing each void in the series of voids above ambient pressure; and pressing the sheet in a second location and in the direction perpendicular to the direction of the extruding to close a second end of each void of the series of voids to form a pressurized sheet. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the combination of Nasibov and Edwards to include pressing the sheet in a first location and in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the extruding to close a first end of each void of the series of voids; pressurizing each void in the series of voids above ambient pressure; and pressing the sheet in a second location and in the direction perpendicular to the direction of the extruding to close a second end of each void of the series of voids to form a pressurized sheet. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Halder (PGPub 2020/0254433) teaches Examiner the use of filleted corners in the honeycomb structure in order to increase the strength of honeycomb structures (See [0051] Halder (PGPub 2020/0254433).
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 Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 12/1/25
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748