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 1-3, 7-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wirrick (US 2022/0371294).
In reference to claims 1 and 9-10, Wirrick discloses an insert installed in a sandwich panel, wherein the insert is configured to receive a secondary object ([0037]; [0041]) (corresponding to a composite panel assembly comprising: a first composite panel; a component). The sandwich panel includes a honeycomb core having a plurality of elongated cells having a hexagonal cross-section ([0038]) (corresponding to a first core structure; the first core structure further comprises a plurality of hollow cells; at least one of the plurality of hollow cells comprises a hexagonal shape). The sandwich panel includes at least two skins, first skin being positioned on one side of the core and a second skin positioned on the other side of the core ([0038]). Thus, it is clear the core has a first face and a second face opposite the first face, wherein the first skin is disposed on the first face and the second skin is disposed on the second face (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). The first skin and the second skin may be formed of a laminate composite materials ([0038]) (corresponding to a least one composite sheet bonded to the first core structure first face of the first core structure second face).
FIGS. 14 and 17, provided below, show the insert 50 is installed within the core 14. The insert is configured to receive a secondary object ([0041]) (corresponding to a first core structure defining an interlocking feature). The secondary object is a fastener inserted through the through hole of the insert ([0065]) (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 insert is sized such that the main body of the insert does not extend all the way through the core, from first skin to second skin ([0068]) (corresponding to the interlocking feature is defined in the first core structure, the interlocking feature extending from the first core structure first face to a floor within the first core structure, the floor being spaced from the first core structure second face).
Alternatively, FIGS. 14 and 17, show the core 14 includes a bore, the bore does not extend fully through the core (corresponding to a first core structure defining an interlocking feature; the interlocking feature is defined in the first core structure, the interlocking feature extending from the first core structure first face to a floor within the firs core structure, the floor being spaced from the first core structure second face). The insert 50 is inserted into the bore (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
PNG
media_image1.png
344
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
428
877
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the component).
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Wirrick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The insert includes a hole having threaded portions therewithin, the threaded portions are meant to engage with a fastener (i.e., secondary object) ([0065]) (corresponding to the interlocking feature is a groove defined in the first core structure, and wherein the portion comprises a complementary shape to be received in the groove).
Alternatively, FIG. 17, provided above, shows the bore is a long narrow cut in the core 14 having tapered side regions (corresponding to the interlocking feature is a groove defined in the first core structure). The insert having elongated flanges 60 fits flush within the bore 20 of the core 14 ([0070]) (corresponding to the portion comprises a complementary shape to be received in the groove). FIG. 17 further shows the second skin is bonded to the core within the tapered side region of the bore (corresponding to the first composite panel further comprises a composite liner bonded to the first core structure within the groove).
In reference to claims 7 and 8, Wirrick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Wirrick further discloses the insert receives a fastener, the fastener may be a pin or a bolt ([0041]; [0003]) (corresponding to the component is a pin, a bolt or a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) fastener, and wherein the interlocking feature is configured to receive the component therethrough). A donut pre-impregnated with thermoset resin is positioned to circumscribe and bond with the main body of the insert ([0070]; FIG. 17) (corresponding to a composite grommet is disposed in the interlocking feature and bonded to the first core structure, and wherein the component extends through the composite grommet to from the interlocking mechanical joint).
In reference to claim 14, Warrick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Warrick further discloses and adhesive pack in the bore of the core, the adhesive pack helps bond the inert in place with the bore ([0051]) (corresponding to the interlocking mechanical joint is at least one of a sealed joint, a bonded joint, or a brazed joint).
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 2016/0258462) (Lewis).
In reference to claims 1, 5-6 and 9-10, Lewis discloses 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 an interlocking feature; a component having a portion configured to extend into the interlocking features 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). The core is a honeycomb core ([0026]) (corresponding to the first core structure further comprises a plurality of hollow cells; at least one of the plurality of hollow cells comprises a hexagonal shape).
Lewis further discloses 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 interlocking feature is defined in the first core structure, the interlocking feature extending from the first core structure first face to a
PNG
media_image3.png
391
463
media_image3.png
Greyscale
floor within the first core structure, the floor being spaced from the first core structure second face).
In reference to claim 2, Lewis discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lewis teaches the slot is formed as a groove in the panel (FIG. 3; FIG. 6; FIG. 12) (corresponding to the interlocking feature is defined in the first core structure). The tab of the tab panel has a width that may be less than a thickness or depth of the slot panel allowing the tab to be received in the slot such that the main body of the tab panel rests generally flush with the facesheet of the slot panel ([0030]; FIG.3; FIG. 6) (corresponding to the portion comprises a complementary shape to be received in the groove).
In reference to claim 4, Lewis discloses the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. FIGS. 3, provided below, shows the joint includes a rectangular or square shaped slot in the slot panel and a tab protruding from the tab panel (corresponding to the interlocking mechanical joint is one of
PNG
media_image4.png
753
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a dado joint, a mortise and tenon joint, a dovetail joint, and a T-shaped joint).
In reference to claim 14, Lewis discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lewis further discloses using an adhesive to enhance mechanical integrity between the slot panel and the tab panel ([0032]) (corresponding to the interlocking mechanical joint is at least one of a sealed joint, a bonded joint, or a brazed joint).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Warrick.
In reference to claim 13, Wirrick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Although Warrick does not explicitly disclose the 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 Wirrick meets the requirements of the claimed product, Wirrick clearly meets the requirements of the present claim. Further, even if there might be slight differences in making the core, absent evidence to the contrary, the differences are expected to be obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lewis.
In reference to claim 13, Lewis disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Although Lewis does not explicitly disclose the 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 Lewis meets the requirements of the claimed product, Lewis clearly meets the requirements of the present claim. Further, even if there might be slight differences in making the core, absent evidence to the contrary, the differences are expected to be obvious.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of 4 Reasons Why Composites Are Replacing Traditional Materials (3DFortify).
In reference to claim 3, Lewis teaches the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. 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 includes one or more slot panel securing members and is held within the slot of the slot panel ([0033]; FIG.6) (corresponding to the first composite panel further comprises a liner bonded to the first core structure within the groove).
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).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 12,006,842) (Kim).
In reference to claim 11, Lewis teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lewis does not explicitly teach the first facesheet or the second facesheet 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 facesheets of Lewis be CMC skins, in order to provide facesheets with high temperature resistance, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirrick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim.
In reference to claim 11, Wirrick teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Wirrick does not explicitly teach the first skin or the second skin 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 skins of Wirrick be CMC skins, in order to provide cover layer 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 Lewis 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, Lewis teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lewis does not explicitly teach the core material comprises silicon, silicon carbide, alumina, carbon, 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 Lewis 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.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirrick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang.
In reference to claims 12 and 15, Wirrick teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Wirrick does not explicitly teach the core material comprises silicon, silicon carbide, alumina, carbon, 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 Wirrick 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.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claims 3 and 8, the previous Claim Objections of record are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires the interlocking feature extending from the first core structure first face to a floor within the first core structure, the floor being spaced from the first cire structure second face, it is noted that Henne (WO 2010/003842) no longer meets the claimed limitation. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections over Henne are withdrawn from record. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Parry-Williams (US 5,297,836), Gooch (US 8,973,241) and Savian (US 2018/0050801), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejections using these references would be cumulative to the rejections of record set forth above.
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