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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (US 2008/0044621).
Considering claims 1, 8, and 18, Strauss teaches an artificial honeycomb structure (abstract). The honeycomb comprised of porous or open cell walls (i.e. strengthening ribs) (Paragraph 15) and an embodiment is depicted in Figure 33 (reproduced below) of a honeycomb array of hexagonal cells attached to a base sheet (Paragraph 67) (e.g. open cells in a geometrical pattern). The cells are composed of joined ribbons to from walls where they may be joined as to be double thickness (e.g. the open cells comprise a plurality of strengthening ribs where the cells may be separated by two vertical walls connected via the horizontal base sheet) (Paragraph 148). The ribbons which form the cells may all be porous and the long axis of the pore may be aligned parallel or perpendicular to the height axis of the ribbon (Paragraph 103) and the longest axis diameter of the pore may be greater than 10 microns (Paragraph 105) (e.g. the height of the ribbon may be greater than 10 microns).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed plate structure this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Strauss as this is considered a conventionally known combination of cell structure and height known to afford artificial honeycomb and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the long axis diameter (e.g. height) disclosed by Strauss overlaps that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 2 and 9, Strauss teaches where the structure is a honeycomb (Paragraph 3).
Considering claims 3, 11-12, and 19, Strauss teaches where the honeycomb is formed of platinum, ceramic, etc. (Paragraph 18).
Considering claims 4-5 and 13-14, Strauss does not expressly teach the claimed thickness or lateral dimension. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Considering claims 7 and 16, Strauss teaches in Fig.33 above where the cell walls (i.e. ribs) extend vertically and where they are optionally double thickness (Paragraph 148).
Considering claim 10, Strauss teaches in Fig.33 above hexagonal cells with 6 sides. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 17, Fig.33 of Strauss above depicts where the base sheet (i.e. horizontal wall) is parallel to the first surface.
Considering claim 20, Fig.33 of Strauss above depicts where the cells are on the base sheet (i.e. deposited on the plate structure).
Response to Arguments
The outstanding nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-5, 8-14, and 18-20 is withdrawn per applicant’s amendment filed 23 February 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.6, section II, filed 23 February 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 6-7 and 15-17 has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims to remove indefiniteness.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks section III, filed 23 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 in view of Blair and Linford have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Strauss as outlined above.
Applicant’s request for an interview (remarks p.8, section V) is noted, but cannot be accommodated at this time as applicant has submitted amended claims which have been fully considered and examined in due course and found to not be patentable over Strauss as outlined above. No subject matter has been found allowable and any potential supplemental amendment is not entered as a matter of right per MPEP 714 (II)(F)(E). A request for an interview prior to formal submission of amendments may be considered at a future time if an interview would further prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784