DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-14, and 21-26 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 regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are indefinite because each now recites that flattened rectangular-shaped top and bottom components “provide bonding” for face sheets or materials. As the rectangular components are only recited as being part of a core in each of claims 1 and 7 and the core is not recited to comprise an adhesive or other bonding mechanism, it is unclear how the components “provide bonding” to any face sheets or material layers. As claim 1 only recites a core, but the “provide bonding” appears to positively recite that bonding is being “provided”, it is further unclear from the claim language if the “provide bonding” is a statement of intended use or is intended to describe a bonded structure, which includes more than a core. For the sake of compact prosecution, the recited “provide bonding” is interpreted herein as meaning “provide bonding surfaces” or “provide bonding sites”, and its use, particularly in claim 1, is interpreted herein as a statement of intended use. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 6, 11-14, 21, and 21-26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1 or 7.
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, 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, the open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures each have four corners, for each of which a corner of a first top side of a first one (3, e.g. a side component forming a “left” side of a pyramid) of the rectangular-shaped side components contacts a corner of a second top side of a second one (3, e.g. the side component on the same pyramid that is immediately to the right of the just-discussed side component forming the “left” side of a pyramid) of the rectangular-shaped side components, and a corner of a first bottom side of the first one (3, “left” side component) of the rectangular-shaped side components fails to contact a corner of a second bottom side of the second one (3, “right” side component) of the rectangular-shaped side components such that the open corner is defined between the first rectangular-shaped side and the second rectangular-shaped side component by the contact at top sides and the non-contact at bottom sides (Fig. 1). As also shown, at a first side of the core (i.e. “sheet member”), flattened rectangular-shaped top components (1) of the group of connected open-cornered pyramid-shaped structures together define a plane that lies along the top surface of the core, and on the opposite side of the sheet member, flattened rectangular-shaped bottom components correspond to the flattened rectangular-shaped top components and define a plane that lies along the bottom surface of the core (Fig. 1), including when the core material is viewed from the opposite side. 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. The requirements the rectangular-shaped top and bottom components respectively “provide bonding” (or provide bonding surfaces) for first and second face sheets and that the claimed product is a “core material for composite construction” are also statements of intended. Resch’s core and its components meet these claim requirements 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. As an adhesive or other bonding operation can be applied them, the flattened, rectangular top and bottom elements are capable of “providing bonding” as claimed. Resch’s product also meets the requirement of being “for composite construction” because it can be used as claimed.
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 and 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’s core meets this claim requirement because it is flexible and capable conforming to curved surfaces, including face plates having complex curvatures (col.1, ln. 58-62; claim 7). 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, 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, the open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures each have four corners, for each of which a corner of a first top side of a first one (42r) of the rectangular-shaped side components contacts a corner of a second top side of a second one (44r) of the rectangular-shaped side components, and a corner of a first bottom side of the first one (42r) of the rectangular-shaped side components fails to contact a corner of a second bottom side of the second one (44r) of the rectangular-shaped side components such that the open corner is defined between the first rectangular-shaped side and the second rectangular-shaped side component by the contact at top sides and the non-contact at bottom sides (Fig. 3). As also shown, at a first side of the core (i.e. “sheet member”), flattened rectangular-shaped top components (42p, 44p) of the group of connected open-cornered pyramid-shaped structures together define a plane that lies along the top surface of the core, and on the opposite side of the sheet member core, flattened rectangular-shaped bottom components (42v, 44v) correspond to the flattened rectangular-shaped top components and define a plane that lies along the bottom surface of the core (Fig. 3), including when the core material is viewed from the opposite side. 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. The requirements the rectangular-shaped top and bottom components respectively “provide bonding” (or provide bonding surfaces) for first and second material layers and that the claimed product is a “core material for composite construction” are also statements of intended. Porter’s core and its components meet these claim requirements 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. 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, as claimed. As an adhesive or other bonding operation can be applied them, the flattened, rectangular top and bottom elements are capable of “providing bonding” as claimed. Porter’s product also meets the requirement of being “for composite construction” because it can be used as claimed.
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 and 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, 11, 13, 14, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resch.
Regarding claims 7, 11, 14, and 22-25, as discussed above, Resch teaches a core meeting the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 21, which are also repeated in claims 7, 11, 22, and 23.
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, 12, and 26 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).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 26, the teachings of Resch differ from the current invention in that the group of connected open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures forming his core are not disclosed to comprise a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic. However, Resch does teach that his core may be made of thermoplastic (col. 1, ln. 39-43). Narasaki further teaches that new thermoplastic materials, such as cores made from pre-impregnated thermoplastic fiber material, provide excellent impact strength and damage tolerance, provide superior impact properties, and are strong and lightweight (col. 1, ln. 35-39; col. 1, ln. 57-67). Narasaki’s product includes a braided reinforcement that, when combined and heated, are fusion-bonded together with a thermoplastic material that is impregnated into the yarn (claim 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Resch’s core from braided yarn that is impregnated with thermoplastic, wherein the final, formed core comprises fiber-reinforced thermoplastic because Narasaki teaches that cores of such a material are lightweight and offer excellent impact strength, damage tolerance, and impact properties.
Claims 6, 12, and 26 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).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 26, the teachings of Resch differ from the current invention in that the group of connected open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures forming his core are not disclosed to comprise a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic. However, Resch does teach that his core may be made of thermoplastic (col. 1, ln. 39-43). Fell further teaches that it is beneficial to make the cores for composite panels from fiber-reinforced thermoplastic because the broad range of materials available for making such products allows the tensile strength, compressive strength, impact resistance, and electromagnetic properties to be tailored as needed and because thermoplastic-containing cores may be manufactured in a much shorter time period than thermosetting resin-containing cores (col. 7, ln. 45-50; col 17, ln. 46-52). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fabricate the prior art core from fiber-reinforced thermoplastic because of its easy of tailoring according to the requirements of a given application and because it can be used to create cores more expediently than other types of composite materials.
Claims 7, 11, 13, 14, 22, and 23 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). Claims 14, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter in view of Zhao, as applied to claim 7.
Regarding claims 7, 11, 14, and 22-25, 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, 22, and 23 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 claims 11, 22, and 23.
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). Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter and, optionally Zhao, as applied above, and further in view of Narasaki.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 26, the teachings of Porter differ from the current invention in that the group of connected open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures forming his core are not disclosed to comprise a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic. However, Porter does teach that his core may be made of any suitable composite or polymer (Abstract). Narasaki further teaches that new thermoplastic materials, such as cores made from pre-impregnated thermoplastic fiber material, provide excellent impact strength and damage tolerance, provide superior impact properties, and are strong and lightweight (col. 1, ln. 35-39; col. 1, ln. 57-67). Narasaki’s product includes a braided reinforcement that, when combined and heated, are fusion-bonded together with a thermoplastic material that is impregnated into the yarn (claim 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Porter and, optionally, Zhao’s core from braided yarn that is impregnated with thermoplastic, wherein the final, formed core comprises fiber-reinforced thermoplastic because Narasaki teaches that cores of such a material are lightweight and offer excellent impact strength, damage tolerance, and impact properties.
Claims 6, 12, and 26 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). Claims 14, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter and, optionally Zhao, as applied above, and further in view of Fell.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 26, the teachings of Porter differ from the current invention in that the group of connected open-cornered, pyramid-shaped structures forming his core are not disclosed to comprise a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic. However, Porter does teach that his core may be made of any suitable composite or polymer (Abstract). Fell further teaches that it is beneficial to make the cores for composite panels from fiber-reinforced thermoplastic because the broad range of materials available for making such products allows the tensile strength, compressive strength, impact resistance, and electromagnetic properties to be tailored as needed and because thermoplastic-containing cores may be manufactured in a much shorter time period than thermosetting resin-containing cores (col. 7, ln. 45-50; col 17, ln. 46-52). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fabricate the prior art core from fiber-reinforced thermoplastic because of its easy of tailoring according to the requirements of a given application and because it can be used to create cores more expediently than other types of composite materials.
Regarding claims 14, 24, and 25, the teachings of Porter differ from the current invention in that he does not teach bonding the flattened rectangular top and bottom components respectively to the first and second material layers with an adhesive. However, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to configure each of the two, adjacent layers to be bonded together, wherein the rectangular top components attach to the first material layer and wherein the rectangular bottom components attach to the second layer. Fell further teaches that the process of forming joints within a composite structure may be assisted by depositing a suitable film adhesive on the surfaces to be joined (col. 10, ln. 36-38). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art utilize an adhesive to bond the rectangular top and bottom components respectively to the first and second material layers in order to assist in forming bonds between the adjacent layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Resch and Porter should be withdrawn because neither explicitly describes their products as having the structure that is now described in claim 1. However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out each limitation. See MPEP 2131.02 (III). As discussed above, Resch and Porter provide depictions (with supporting descriptions) of cores that inherently have and, therefore, anticipate the recited structure and properties. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are proper. See MPEP 2131.
Applicant has argued that the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Resch and Porter should be withdrawn because neither explicitly describes their products as having or suggests including the structure that is now described in claim 7. Applicant has further asserted that Narasaki, Fell, and Zhao also do not cure the supposed deficiencies of Resch and Porter. However, as discussed above, Resch and Porter provide depictions (and supporting descriptions) of cores that inherently have and, therefore, anticipate the claimed core structure. It would have been obvious to bond first and second face sheets or material layers to the prior art cores for the reasons discussed above. It also would have been obvious to make the prior art cores from fiber-reinforced thermoplastic and to use adhesive bonding to adjoin adjacent layers in panels including the cores in view of the teachings of Narasaki, Fell, and Zhao for the reasons discussed above.
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
Prosecution Insights