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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species (a-i), drawn to both the node edges that from the honeycomb element are provided with concave-convex strips in the direction perpendicular to the cross section, and (b-i), drawn to the concave-convex strips are arranged on two edges of at least one honeycomb element node, a middle of the at least one honeycomb element node is a straight section, two edges are forward and reverse arc-shaped sections, and the welding spots are distributed in the middle of the straight section, in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-8, 10 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2 includes reference characters “1” and “2”, however, each of these reference characters are not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 3, 5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 3, in line 4, it is suggested to amend “the concave-convex strip on one of the one of the node edges fits with the concave-convex strip of the corresponding node edge welded together” to “the concave-convex strip of one of the node edges that form the honeycomb node element fits with the concave-convex strip of a corresponding node edge that form the honeycomb node element”, in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claims 5 and 11, it is suggested to (1) in line 2, amend “the middle” to “a middle of the at least on honeycomb element node” and (2) in line 4, amend “the middle” to “a middle”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 1, there is inconsistent use of singular and plurals throughout the claim. Specifically, line 2 recites the honeycomb core material includes “a plurality of honeycomb corrugated bands” and line 3 refers to “the honeycomb corrugated band”, it is unclear if the honeycomb corrugated band is meant to refer to each honeycomb corrugated band of the plurality of honeycomb corrugated bands, one of the honeycomb corrugated bands of the plurality of honeycomb corrugated bands or some of the honeycomb corrugated bands of the plurality of honeycomb corrugated bands. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “the honeycomb corrugated band” will be interpreted as each honeycomb corrugated band of the plurality of honeycomb corrugated bands.
Additionally, line 5 recites “a honeycomb element node” and “honeycomb element nodes”. From the inconsistent used of singulars and plurals, it is unclear how one honeycomb element node becomes multiple honeycomb elements nodes or if the honeycomb core material is meant to have a honeycomb element node or a plurality of honeycomb node elements. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the honeycomb material will be interpreted to include a plurality of honeycomb element nodes, each honeycomb element node of the plurality of honeycomb element nodes is formed from adjacent node edges of the honeycomb corrugated bands being welded together. However, clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 9 and 11, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
In reference to claim 2, the limitation “the node edge” is recited in line 1, it is unclear if the node edge is a node edge of the nodes edges, each node edge of the node edges or some of the node edges of the node edges. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “the node edge” will be interpreted as a node edge of the node edges that forms a honeycomb element node of the plurality of honeycomb element nodes. However, clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 anticipated by Hulsey (US 3,340,023).
In reference to claim 1, Hulsey discloses a honeycomb type cellular core (col. 1, lines 9-10) (corresponding to a honeycomb core material). The core is made from a plurality of component strips (col. 1, lines 62-65) (corresponding to a plurality of corrugated bands).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
1015
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4, provided below, shows the cellular core built up by mounting strips on each other in vertical stacked array so that the valley 2 of the upper component strip rests upon and is in alignment with the ridge 1 of the next lower component strip in the array (col. 2, lines 16-20) (corresponding to a plurality of honeycomb corrugated bands, and comprises a plurality of honeycomb elements; the honeycomb corrugated band comprises free edges and node edges that are continuously arranged). The corresponding ridges and valleys of adjacent component strips are bonded together at 5 by spot welding (col. 2, lines 20-22) (corresponding to the node edges that are correspondingly welded together form a honeycomb element node, and honeycomb element nodes are welded by resistance spot welding, wherein welding spots of spot welding are uniformly distributed). Fig. 4 shows a distance between welding spots is less than the side length of the strip at the valley or ridge (corresponding to a distance between two adjacent welding spots in a direction perpendicular to a cross section of the honeycomb element is d, a side length at the honeycomb element node is A, a value of d is less than or equal to a value of A).
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.
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammersley et al. (US 6,485,025) (Hammersley) in view of Minamida et al. (JP 2000-289131) (Minamida).
The Applicant provided a copy of JP 2000-289131 with the IDS filed 04/03/2025. The examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 200-289131. The citation of prior art refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claim 1, Hammersley teaches a honeycomb cellular structure fabricated from a plurality of corrugated strips of metal foil or sheet metal each having a three-sided shape consisting of a pair of flat slanted sides having an equal length interconnected by adjacent intermediary flat crests having a length m (col. 4, lines 49-54; col. 5, lines 27-32) (corresponding to a honeycomb core material). Adjacent strips are joined together at their abutting crest by resistance welding or laser spot welding (col. 5, lines 47-49) (corresponding to the honeycomb core material is formed by welding a plurality of corrugated bands; the honeycomb corrugated band comprises free edges and node edges that are continuously arranged, the node edges that are correspondingly welded together form a honeycomb element node, and honeycomb element nodes are welded by laser or resistance spot welding). FIG. 2, provided below, shows the cellular structure includes a plurality of honeycomb cells (corresponding to a plurality of honeycomb elements).
Hammersley does not explicitly teach welding spots of spot welding are uniformly distributed, a distance between two adjacent welding spots in a direction perpendicular to a cross section of the honeycomb element is d, a side length at the honeycomb node is A, and a value of d is less than or equal to a value of A, as presently claimed.
Minamida teaches a lightweight honeycomb panel consisting of a honeycomb core and face sheets (Abstract). Minamida further teaches forming a number of discontinuous spot joints along a single joint line to join the honeycomb core and the metal plate ([0006]). If the spacing between the spot joints is too large there will be insufficient joint strength between the joined parts, however, if the space between spot joints is too narrow thermal stress and thermal strain accumulate along the joint line, making wrinkles likely to occur ([0007]).
Minamida further teaches in FIG. 1 the side length of the top surface of the honeycomb core (i.e., crests/honeycomb node) is greater than a distance between spot bonds. In a working example the length of the honeycomb node element is 12.5 mm, the space between the discontinuous spot joints is 5 mm ([0025]) (corresponding to welding spots of spot welding are uniformly distributed, a distance between two adjacent welding spots in a direction perpendicular to a cross section of the honeycomb element is d, a side length at the honeycomb node is A, and a value of d is less than or equal to a value of A).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of Minamida, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the welding spots of Hammersley be spaced apart such that they are less than the length of the abutting crests, in order to provide welding spots that bond adjacent crests with sufficient bonding strength and that are free of thermal distortions due to thermal stress and strain, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 9, Hammersley in view of Minamida teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Hammersley further teaches the honeycomb cellular structure is made from MCrAlY, wherein M is selected from the group of Ni, Fe or Co or combinations thereof (col. 5, lines 45-47; col. 2, lines 62-64) (corresponding to a material of the honeycomb core material is metal, and the metal comprises non-ferrous metal and ferrous metal; and the non-ferrous metal comprises aluminum; and the ferrous metal comprises a superalloy).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammersley in view of Minamida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (JP H06-7866) (Ito).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of JP H06-7866. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 2-4, Hammersley in view of Minamida teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hammersley in view of Minamida does not explicitly teach a crest of the abutting crests is provided with a concave-convex strip in the direction perpendicular to the cross section, as presently claimed.
Ito teaches a lightweight, high-strength honeycomb panel ([0001]). The honeycomb panel includes a honeycomb core, wherein the honeycomb core is formed by combining a plurality of core material ([0016]-[0017]). FIG. 3 (a)-(b), provided below, shows each core material 2/2a includes a corrugated portion 7 having three waves provided at butt joints ([0017]) (corresponding to the node edge that forms the honeycomb element node is provided with a concave-convex strip in the direction perpendicular to the cross section; there are two or more concave-convex strips on the honeycomb element node). The portions of the corrugated portions formed on the opposing butt portions are fitted into each other and engage with each other ([0017]) (corresponding to both node edges that form the honeycomb element node are provided with concave-convex strips in the direction perpendicular to the cross section, and the concave-convex strip on one of the node edges fits with the concave-convex strip of the corresponding node edge welded together).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
238
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ito further teaches the honeycomb core including the corrugated portion has greater strength than that of conventional flat panels, can be made thinner and has the advantage of allowing the cell size to be increased ([0030]; [0031]).
In light of the motivation of Ito, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the corrugated strips of Hammersley in view of Minamida include the corrugated portions at abutting crests, in order to provide a honeycomb cellular structure having improved strength, a core that can be made thinner which not only allows a lighter weight but also allows for an increased cell size, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammersley in view of Minamida and Ito as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of McCarthy (US 5,431,980).
In reference to claims 5 and 11, Hammersley in view of Minamida and Ito teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 3, as discussed above.
Hammersley in view of Minamida and Ito does not explicitly teach the concave-convex streps are arranged on two edges of at least one abutting crest, a middle is a straight section, two edges are forward and reverse arc-shaped sections, as presently claimed.
McCarthy teaches a cellular material formed from a plurality of components strips (Abstract). The component strips are corrugated strips having furrowed surfaces at predetermined locations therealong (col. 1, lines 3-7). The shape of the furrowed step surface includes an upwardly-directed and downwardly-directed substantially semi-circular indentation formed there in with a straight section connecting the indentations (col. 8, lines 11-16; FIG. 8a, provided below) (corresponding to the middle is a straight section, two edges are forwards and reverse arc-shaped sections). The furrowed step surfaces impart synclastic behavior, allowing the cellular material to be highly formable without saddling (col. 8, lines 34-37; col. 2, lines 62-64).
In light of the motivation of McCarthy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the corrugated portions of Hammersley in view of Minamida and Ito have the furrowed step structure, in order to impart synclastic behavior in the honeycomb cellular structure and thereby allowing the honeycomb cellular structure to be formable without saddling.
PNG
media_image4.png
196
251
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Given that Hammersley in view of Minamida, Ito and McCarthy teaches spot joints at the abutting portion of includes a plurality of discontinuous spot-bonded rows, wherein the rows are evenly spaced, it is clear when there are three rows one will be in the middle of the abutting portion (Minamida, [0031]; Fig. 1) (corresponding to the welding spots are distributed in the middle of the straight section).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Tien (US 2014/0349082) and GB1390968 is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejections using these references would be cumulative to the rejections of record set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784