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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Preisler et al. (US 2013/0278020) (Preisler).
In reference to claims 1, 4 and 14, Preisler teaches a sandwich-type structural member having an attachment feature ([0012]) (corresponding to a composite panel assembly). The structural member includes a first outer layer having an outer surface, a second outer layer and a core positioned between the outer layers ([0013]) (corresponding to a first core structure; including a first core structure first face and a first core second face, the first core structure second face opposite the first core structure first face). The outer layers can be fiber reinforced thermoplastic layers ([0054]) (corresponding to at least one composite sheet bonded to the first core structure first face or the first core structure second face).
A portion of the structural member is locally crushed to form a depression having a bottom and side surfaces formed by the first outer layer ([0013]). Fig. 5, provided below, shows the core 18 includes a groove defined by a side wall and a floor and extending from a first face of the core to a second face of the core, the floor parallel to and spaced from the second face (corresponding to an interlocking feature; the interlocking feature including a groove defined by a side wall and a floor and extending from the first core structure first face towards the first core structure second face, the floor parallel to and space from the first core structure second face; the interlocking feature is defined in the first core structure, the interlocking feature extending from the first core structure first face to the floor within the first core structure, the floor being spaced from the first core structure second face). The first outer layer extends along the side wall and the floor of the depression (Fig. 5) (corresponding to the at least one composite sheet extends along the side wall and the floor; the interlocking mechanical joint is one of a dado joint, a mortise and tenon joint, a dovetail joint, and a T-shaped joint).
Preisler further teaches a connector fixedly secured to the bottom surface of the depression to attach a second, generally planar member to the first outer layer of the structural member ([0013]); [0035]. A base portion of the connector is sized and shaped to correspond to the side and shape of the depression to locate the connector within the depression ([0015]) (corresponding to a component having a portion configured to extend into the interlocking feature such that an interlocking mechanical joint is formed between the first composite panel and the component). The connector is bonded to the outer layer by welding or an adhesive ([0060]) (corresponding to the interlocking mechanical joint is at least one of a sealed joint, a
PNG
media_image1.png
248
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
bonded joint, or a brazed joint).
In reference to claims 9 and 10, Preisler discloses the limitations of claim 1, s discussed above. Preisler further discloses the core is a cellular core having a honeycomb structure ([0055]) (corresponding to the first core structure comprises a plurality of hollow cells; at least one of the plurality of hollow cells comprises a hexagonal shape).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisler as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Thermoformable Composite Panels (Gardiner).
In reference to claims 5 and 6, Preisler teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Preisler teaches it is highly desirable to secure hardware and other components to composite components in automotive applications, such as rear load-bearing load floors ([0006]). The connector can include a resilient plastic structure such as a plastic foam block having a large number of cavities ([0049]) (corresponding to the component is a second composite panel having a second core structure; the second core structure defining a second core structure first face and a second core structure second face; the first composite panel is oriented orthogonally to the second composite panel). A second generally planar member is attached to the connector ([0046]) (corresponding to at least one second sheet; the at least one second sheet bonded to the second core structure first face or the second core structure face).
Preisler does not explicitly teach the generally planar member is a composite sheet, as presently claimed. However, Preisler teaches the outer layers are fiber-reinforced thermoplastic layers ([0054]).
Gardiner teaches reinforced thermoplastic composites offer short manufacturing cycles, increased toughness and impact resistance, post forming possibilities such as corrections and forming in multiple steps, unlimited shelf life and recyclability (p. 1). Fiberglass reinforced thermoplastic panels are used in trunk liners, floors and separators (p. 4, 6, 11).
In light of the motivation of Gardiner, 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 second generally planar member be a reinforced thermoplastic composite sheet, given that reinforced thermoplastic composites are used in trunk floor and in order to provide a member that has increased toughness and impact resistance, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisler as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 12,006,842) (Kim).
In reference to claim 11, Preisler teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Preisler does not explicitly teach the outer layers comprises a ceramic matrix composite, as presently claimed.
Kim teaches a sandwich composite having first and second ceramic matrix composite (CMC) skins each having at least on 2-D ceramic fiber ply and a cellular core disposed between the first and second CMC skin (col. 1, lines 30-35) (corresponding to the at least one composite sheet comprises a ceramic matrix composite). Kim further teaches CMC materials have high temperature resistance (col. 1, lines 20-21).
In light of the motivation of Kim, 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 outer layers of Preisler be CMC skins, in order to provide outer layers with high temperature resistance, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 113799447).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 113799447 with the Office Action mailed 07/24/2025. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 12 and 15, Preisler teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Preisler does not explicitly teach the core material comprises silicon, silicon carbide, alumina, aluminosilicates, or combinations thereof, as presently claimed.
Zhang teaches a honeycomb sandwich composite panel ([0001]). The sandwich composite panel include a first panel, a second panel and a honeycomb core layer between the first panel and the second panel ([0005]). The material of the honeycomb core layer is ceramic, such as silicon carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, mullite and cordierite ([0007]) (corresponding to the first core structure comprises silicon, silicon carbide, aluminum, carbon, aluminosilicates, or a combination thereof).
Zhang further teaches by using engineering ceramics with low density but high compressive strength and rigidity to manufacture the honeycomb core layer, the compressive strength, specific rigidity and service life of the sandwich composite panel can be improved ([0003]; [0004]; [0018]). The honeycomb core layer does not include fibers ([0008]-[0013]; [0029]) (corresponding to the first core structure comprises an unreinforced ceramic material).
In light of the motivation of Zhang, 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 core material of Preisler be made from ceramics such as silicon carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, mullite and cordierite, in order to improve the specific strength, specific stiffness and service life of the panel-shaped component, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisler.
In reference to claim 13, Preisler teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above
Although Preisler does not explicitly teach core is additively manufactured as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Preisler meets the requirements of the claimed product, Preisler clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2016/0258462) (Lewis) in view of 4 Reasons Why Composites Are Replacing Traditional Materials (3DForify).
In reference to claims 21-25, Lewis teaches a panel system including a tab panel and a slot panel joined at one or more joints ([0001]; [0005]; [0025]) (corresponding to a composite panel assembly). The slot panel has at least one slot receiving the corresponding tab of the tab panel therein ([0005]) (corresponding to a first composite panel including: a first core structure defining a groove; a component having a portion configured to extend into the groove such that an interlocking mechanical joint is formed between the first composite panel and the component; the component is a second composite panel). Each panel includes two opposite facesheets having a core sandwich therebetween, the facesheets being any suitable composite material ([0026]) (corresponding to a first core structure first face, and a first core structure second face, the first core structure second face opposite the first core structure first face; and at least one composite sheet bonded to the first core structure first face or the first core structure second face; a second core structure and at least one second composite sheet, the second core structure defining a second core structure first face and a second core structure second face, the at least one second composite sheet bonded to the second core structure first face or the second core structure second face).
Lewis further teaches the first panel is provided with a slot formed therein and the second panel is provided with a tab extending therefrom ([0028]). The slot is formed through the first facesheet and at least part way through the core ([0032]). FIG. 6, provided below, shows the slot 122 is defined in the core 114 and extends through the first facesheet 110 into the core terminating at a floor within the core (corresponding to the groove having a side wall and a floor; the groove extends from the first core structure first face to the floor within the first core structure, the floor being spaced from the first core structure second face).
Lewis further teaches a clip is configured to securely couple to the slot panel and the tab panel to securely join the tab panel to the slot panel ([0032]). The clip is designed to be entirely contained within the slot of the panel. In other words, the clip is contained entirely behind the facesheet of the slot panel ([0042]) (corresponding to a liner formed separately from the first composite panel disposed entirely within the groove and extending along the side wall and the floor, the liner bonded to the first composite panel). The clip is secured in the slot using adhesive ([0032]) (corresponding to the composite liner is bonded to the side wall and the floor with a bonding agent; the bonding agent is an adhesive). FIG. 6 shows the tab panel 124 has an end wall. The clip 106 may be secured to the tab panel 124 using an adhesive ([0032]) (corresponding to the component includes an end wall, and the end wall is bonded to the composite liner).
Lewis does not explicitly teach the clip is a composite, as presently claimed. However, Lewis teaches the clip may be manufactured from metal, plastic or other materials ([0034]).
3DFortify teaches that composite materials unite many of the best qualities that traditional materials have to offer (p. 1). Composite materials have high strength-to-weight ratios and can absorb more energy than traditional materials (p.2). Further, composite materials are durable (p. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
391
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of 3DFortify, 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 clip of Lewis be made of a composite material, in order to provide a clip made of a durable material with high strength-to-weight ratios, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires “a groove defined by a side wall and a floor and extending from the first core structure first face towards the first core structure second face, the floor parallel to and spaced from the first core structure second face”, it is noted that Metz et al. (US 2011/0223372) (Metz) no longer meets the presently claimed limitations. Rather Metz teaches a groove defined by a side wall and a floor extending from a first core structure first face towards the first core structure second face, the floor perpendicular to and spaced away from the first core structure second face (FIG. 3). Therefore, the previous 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections over Metz are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections, as set forth above.
In response to canceled claims 7 and 8, the previous 35 USC 112(a) rejections of record are withdrawn.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Independent claim 21 is amended to recite ‘a composite liner formed separately from the first composite panel disposed entirely within the groove and extending along the side wall and the floor, the composite liner bonded to the first composite panel.’ Lewis discloses a ‘clip 106 [] configured to be securely coupled to the slot panel 120 and the tab panel 124 ...’ Lewis, para. [0032], 11. 1-3. As discussed during the Interview, the clip 106 projects outwardly from a slot 122 formed in the slot panel 120. Id. at para. [0029], 11. 1-4. Lewis does not disclose a composite liner formed separately from the first composite panel disposed entirely within the groove, or a composite liner that is bonded to the first composite panel, as recited in independent claim 21 as amended.”
Remarks, p. 7-8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While Lewis teaches in some embodiment the clip includes at least one leg which project the base portion of the clip ([0034]; [0041]). However, Lewis further teaches a clip formed to be legless meaning it does not include any legs visible along the corresponding tab panel ([0042]). The clip 300 is designed to be entirely contained within the slot of the slot panel. In other words, the clip 300 is contained entirely behind the facesheet 110 of the slot panel 120 ([0042]). In light of the teachings of Lewis and as discussed in the rejection above, Lewis in view of 3DFortify meets the presently claimed invention.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights