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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections made in the previous Office Action under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed on January 6, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Resch (US Pat. No. 4,397,902).
Regarding claim 1, Resch teaches a core material (i.e. “core material for composite construction”) comprising a sheet member forming a group of connected open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures (unlabeled, i.e. the pyramid-shaped structures formed from the combination of intersecting/adjoining segments that extend perpendicular to each other) each comprising a flattened rectangular top component (1), which has four edges forming a rectangular shape, four rectangular side components (3) each comprising a top edge and a bottom edge and extending from the top component along a corresponding top edge, and four rectangular-shaped bottom components, which each have a set of four edges forming a rectangular shape, each extending from one of the rectangular-shaped side components along a corresponding bottom edge, wherein at least some of the rectangular shaped bottom components are shared by a directly adjacent one of the open-cornered pyramid-shaped structures (Fig. 1, col. 3, ln. 20-41; claims 1, 3, and 4). As shown in Figure 1, Resch’s core has the general shape of the core of instant Figures 1-3 and meets the requirements of claim 1.
The requirement that the open corners of the group of connected, pyramid-shaped structures are “configured to provide an egress path for moisture” is a statement of intended use. Resch’s core meets this claim requirement because it is capable of being used as claimed. For example, Resch’s Figure 1 shows that there are spaces between the various segments (3) of material, much like the instantly disclosed and claimed invention, which the instant disclosure teaches enable a core structure to provide an egress path for moisture (Resch, Fig. 1; Applicant’s Specification, Figs. 1-3; Applicant’s published application, par. 27). Therefore and as evidenced by the instant disclosure, the open corners of Resch’s core are capable of allowing the passage (or egress) of moisture, as claimed.
The requirement that the claimed product is a “core material for composite construction” is a statement of intended. Resch’s product meets this requirement because it is capable of being used as claimed.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, as shown in Figure 3, within each given pyramid structure, a corner of a first top side of a first rectangular side component (e.g. 3) contacts a corner of a second top side of a second rectangular side component (e.g.3), and a corner of a first bottom side of the first rectangular side component (e.g. 3) fails to contact a corner of a second bottom side of the second rectangular side component (e.g. 3) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, the requirement that the open corners of the group of connected, pyramid-shaped structure enables the core material to flex and conform to surfaces applied to the core during composite construction, such as a surface of a first material or a surface of a second material, is a statement of intended use. As no level of flexing or particular shape of a surface to which the core must conform or is required, a core that is capable of any level of flexing or any level conforming to any shape of surface meets the claim requirement.
Resch teaches that his core may be made from a thermoplastic material (col. 3, ln. 35-37), which necessarily has at least some flexibility. Resch also teaches that the core is flexible and can be applied to non-flat elements (col. 2, ln. 36-41; col. 3, ln. 24-27). Therefore, Resch’s core meets the claim requirement because it has at least some flexibility and capability conforming to at least some surfaces, including face plates having some kind of curvature. Furthermore, the instant disclosure teaches that the open corners of open pyramids in a core material allow the core to flex and conform to surfaces applied to the core during composite construction (Applicant’s published application, par. 27). Therefore and as evidenced by Applicant’s disclosure, the open corners in Resch’s core enable the core to flex and conform to surfaces applied to the core material during composite construction.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porter (US Pat. No. 5,162,143).
Regarding claim 1, Porter teaches a core material (30; i.e. “core material for composite construction”) comprising a sheet member including a group of connected open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures (unlabeled, i.e. the pyramid-shaped structures formed from the combination of intersecting segments 42, 44) each comprising a flattened rectangular top component (42p, 44p), which has top edges forming a rectangular shape, four rectangular side components (42r, 44r) each including a top edge and a bottom edge and extending from the top component along a corresponding top edge, and four rectangular-shaped bottom components (42v, 44v), which each have a set of four edges forming a rectangular shape, each extending from one of the rectangular-shaped side components along a corresponding bottom edge, wherein at least some of the rectangular shaped bottom components are shared by a directly adjacent one of the open-cornered pyramid-shaped structures (Fig. 3; Abstract, col. 4, ln. 27-47). As shown in Figure 3, Porter’s core has the general shape of the core of instant Figures 1-3 and meets the requirements of claim 1.
The requirement that the open corners of the group of connected, pyramid-shaped structures are “configured to provide an egress path for moisture” is a statement of intended use. Porter’s core meets this claim requirement because it is capable of being used as claimed. For example, Porter’s Figure 3 shows that there are spaces between the various segments (42, 44) of material, much like the instantly disclosed and claimed invention, which the instant disclosure teaches enable a core structure to provide an egress path for moisture (Porter, Fig. 3; Applicant’s Specification, Figs. 1-3; Applicant’s published application, par. 27). Therefore and as evidenced by the instant disclosure, the open corners of Porter’s core are capable of allowing the passage (or egress) of moisture.
The requirement that the claimed product is a “core material for composite construction” is a statement of intended. Porter’s product meets this requirement because it is capable of being used as claimed.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, as shown in Figure 3, within each given pyramid structure, a corner of a first top side of a first rectangular side component (e.g. 42r) contacts a corner of a second top side of a second rectangular side component (e.g. 44r), and a corner of a first bottom side of the first rectangular side component (e.g. 42r) fails to contact a corner of a second bottom side of the second rectangular side component (e.g. 44r) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, the requirement that the open corners of the group of connected, pyramid-shaped structure enables the core material to flex and conform to surfaces applied to the core during composite construction, such as a surface of a first material or a surface of a second material, is a statement of intended use. As no level of flexing or particular shape of a surface to which the core must conform or is required, a core that is capable of any level of flexing or any level conforming to any shape of surface meets the claim requirement. Porter’s core meets this claim requirement because it is flexible and capable conforming to curved surfaces, including face plates having complex curvatures (col. 2, ln. 35-40). Furthermore, the instant disclosure teaches that the open corners of open pyramids in a core material allow the core to flex and conform to surfaces applied to the core during composite construction (Applicant’s published application, par. 27). Therefore and as evidenced by Applicant’s disclosure, the open corners in Porter’s core enable the core to flex and conform to surfaces applied to the core material during composite construction.
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 7-9, 11, 13, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resch.
Regarding claims 7-9, 11, 14, and 22, as discussed above, Resch teaches a core meeting the limitations of claims 1-5 and 21, which are also repeated in claims 7-9, 11, and 22.
The teachings of Resch might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly exemplify a composite construction including the core discussed above bonded to a first material and a second material as claimed. However, Resch does teach placing core materials between plates and adhering the cores to the plates with an adhesive in order to create a strong panel (col. 3, ln. 66-col. 4, ln. 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesive to adhere plates (i.e. a “first material” and a “second material”) to each side of the core discussed above, wherein the first material plate is bonded to the flattened top components with the adhesive (i.e. wherein the adhesive is “on” the top components) and second material plate is bonded to the flattened bottom components with the adhesive, thereby forming a composite construction wherein the core material binds the first material plate to the second material plate, in order to create a strong panel, as taught by Resch, and because Resch explicitly teaches forming such composite sandwich structures to be appropriate.
Regarding claim 13, the requirement that the claimed product is “configured to form at least a portion of an aircraft structure” is a statement of intended use. The product of the prior art meets because it is capable of being used as or as forming at least a portion of an aircraft component.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resch, as applied above, and further in view of Narasaki (US Pat. No. 5,128,192) for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resch, as applied above, and further in view of Fell (US Pat. No. 5,139,596) for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Claims 7-9, 11, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter and, optionally, further in view of Zhao (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0019024). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter in view of Zhao, as applied to claim 7.
Regarding claims 7-9, 11, 14, and 22, as discussed above, Porter teaches a core material for a composite construction that meets the limitations of claims 1-5 and 21 and, therefore, also meets the portions of claims 7-11 and 22 that repeat these limitations. Porter also teaches forming sandwich structures (i.e. “composite constructions”) wherein his core is sandwiched between two face plates (i.e. a “first material” and a “second material”) (Abstract). As noted above, Porter’s core, including its open-cornered pyramid structures, is flexible and capable conforming to curved surfaces, including surfaces of first material and second material face plates having complex curvatures (col. 2, ln. 35-40), and therefore meets the requirements of claim 11.
Although Porter does not explicitly teach that his core bonds the first material to the second material in his sandwich structures, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Figure 1 clearly depicts such an arrangement and Porter teaches that his flexible core is capable of supporting curved implements without causing complex stress-related errors in the curvature of the implement (col. 1, ln. 14-19; col. 2, ln. 35-40). Such problems with stresses would not occur if the core was not attached on its upper and lower surfaces to the face plates because the core would be capable of moving as needed to accommodate those stresses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the sandwich structure of Porter, which includes a core with the structure discussed above sandwiched between a first material sheet and a second material sheet, such that the adjacent layers are attached to each other (i.e. wherein the core material attaches the first material to the second material) because Porter depicts and implies that his product has such a structure, in order to prevent the layers from detaching from one another, as would be understood to be beneficial by one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and because it is a prima facie obvious engineering choice to make integral (or bonded) that which is separable. See MPEP 2144.04. Porter does not teach using an adhesive for such bonds.
Zhao further teaches that composite panels including multiple layers are conventionally bonded together with an adhesive or applied heat (par. 22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bond the adjacent layers of Porter’s sandwich structure because Zhao teaches that it is conventional and, therefore, an effective and useful method for manufacturing composite panels. Zhao further teaches that making composite panels such that their different layers are cured and bonded together, including with the use of an adhesive, in a single step improves cost and structural integrity (par. 22). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cure and bond together the adjacent layers of Porter’s product with an adhesive in a single step in order to improve cost and structural integrity. As the top of Porter’s core (40) in a sandwich structure is attached to the adjacent material layer (14) along the flattened rectangular top components (Fig. 1), the adhesively-bonded product of Porter and Zhao is formed such that the first material layer is a bonded via the adhesive to the flattened rectangular top components. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bond the adjacent layers in this manner because Porter depicts such an arraignment.
Regarding claim 13, the requirement that the claimed product is “configured to form at least a portion of an aircraft structure” is a statement of intended use. The product of the prior art meets because it is capable of being used as or as forming at least a portion of an aircraft component.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter, as applied above, and further in view of Narasaki (US Pat. No. 5,128,192) for the reasons discussed in the Office Action of May 20, 2025.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter and, optionally Zhao, as applied above, and further in view of Narasaki for the reasons discussed in the Office Action of May 20, 2025.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter, as applied above, and further in view of Fell (US Pat. No. 5,139,596) for the reasons discussed in the Office Action of May 20, 2025.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter and, optionally Zhao, as applied above, and further in view of Fell for the reasons discussed in the Office Action of May 20, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the claimed invention is distinguished over Resch and Porter because neither reference discusses their products being configured for the egress of moisture and because the limitation is not merely a statement of intended use, but rather a recitation that the structural configuration of the open corners provide a path for moisture egress. In making this argument, Applicant has also argued that the mere presence of openings does not establish that the openings provide a path for moisture. However, given that the instant disclosure teaches that the open corners of pyramids in a core structure provide the path for moisture egress (Applicant’s published application par. 27), the instant disclosure indicates that the open corners are the “structural configuration” that provides moisture egress. In view of the instant disclosure, it is not clear what additional structure would be required to qualify a core made of open-cornered pyramids to be considered “configured for the egress of moisture”, if the prior art cores, which resemble the instantly disclosed core, do not meet this limitation.
Applicant's argument that the requirement of the open corners of the core being “configured to provide an egress path for moisture" is not a statement of intended use is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above and because the claims are directed to a core and composite construction comprising the core, rather than a method that involves moisture egress. As discussed above, the structures of the cited prior art include openings arranged as claimed and meet the claim requirement because they are capable of behaving as claimed. If the "configured to" language of the claims is intended to convey some additional structure, it is not clear what that additional structure is, and Applicant is encouraged to positively recite the intended structure in the claims.
Applicant has further argued that the claim requirement that the open corners enable the core material to flex and conform to surfaces during composite structure distinguishes the claims over Resch because Resch allegedly only teaches in-plane flexibility, rather than out-of-plane flexibility. However, as discussed above, the claims do not recite a particular level of core flexing or conforming, or a shape to which the core must conform. Resch’s core meets the claim requirement because it is capable of at least some flexing and conforming, including to a surface during composite construction.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Resch only teaches in-plane flexibility, it is noted that Resch teaches that his core is flexible and can be applied to “non-flat elements” (col. 2, ln. 36-41; col. 3, ln. 24-27). Such non-flat elements include ship hulls and radially-oriented heat exchanges (col. 2, ln. 36-41). Therefore, Resch does appear to convey that his core can flex in various manners. Regardless of this, the instant claims do not recite particular direction of flexing or conforming, let alone exclude cores that are only capable of a single type of flexing. As such, Resch’s core meets the claim requirements because it is capable of at least some flexing and conforming, including during composite construction. If Applicant wishes for the claims to require a particular type or level of flexing or conforming, Applicant is encouraged to amend accordingly.
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