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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 7, claim 1, on which claim 7 depends, has been amended to recite the interlocking feature includes a groove defined by a side wall and a floor, the floor is spaced away from the first core structure second face (i.e., the groove does not extend fully through the core to create an aperture). While there is support in the originally filed disclosure for the component being a pin, a bolt or a CMC fastener and the interlocking feature configured to receive the component therethrough, wherein the interlocking feature is an aperture ([0069]-[0072]; [0091]). However, there is no support for the component being a pin, a bolt or a CMC fastener and the interlocking feature being a groove, as presently claimed.
Regarding dependent claim 8, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 7 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 1, the limitation “a floor within the first core structure” is recited in line 13. It is unclear if the floor recited in line 13 is the same floor of the interlocking feature or an addition different floor in the first core substrate. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the floor recited in line 13 will be interpreted as the floor of the interlocking feature. It is suggested to amend “a floor within the first core structure” in lines 13-14 to “the floor”, in order to ensure consistency, clarity and proper antecedent basis in the claim language.
Regarding dependent claims 4-15, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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, 4-6, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metz et al. (US 2011/0223372) (Metz).
In reference to claims 1 and 5, Metz teaches composite structural panel and joining systems ([0002]; [0008]) (corresponding to a composite panel assembly). The composite structural panel system includes a first panel ([0011]) (corresponding to a first composite panel). The composite structural panel includes a first sheet including a first outer surface and a first inner surface, a second sheet spaced apart from the first sheet and including a second outer surface and a second inner surface and a stiffening core element disposed between the first and second sheets and defining a plurality of cells ([0009]) (corresponding to a first core structure).
FIG. 3, provided below, shows two adjacent joined panels. The panel including a panel edge 31 configured to mate with the adjacent panel ([0040]) (corresponding to a first core structure defines an interlocking feature; 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 component is a second composite panel). The adjacent panel includes two outer layers and an intermediate core layer between the two outer layers ([0009]; [0040]) (corresponding to a second composite panel having 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 gave or the second core structure second face).
FIG. 3 shows a recess defined along the edge of the panel ([0041]; FIG. 2) (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 interlocking feature includes a groove defined by a side wall and a floor; 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). FIG. 3 shows the outer sheet 13 extends into the recess, wherein the sheet is made of a composite material ([0032]) (corresponding to at least one composite sheet bonded to the first core structure first face or the first core structure second face, the at least one composite sheet extending along the side wall and the floor).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
635
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 4, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Metz teaches the joint has a recess in the panel and a projection in the adjacent panel (FIG. 2) (corresponding to the interlocking mechanical joint is one of a mortise and tenon joint).
In reference to claim 6, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Metz further teaches the panels are oriented in any direction including horizontally or angled or sloped ([0013]) (corresponding to the first composite panel is oriented orthogonally to the second composite panel).
In reference to claim 9-10, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Metz further teaches the core has an open structure defining a plurality of open cells surrounded by cell walls ([0017]; [0029]) (corresponding to the first core structure further comprises a plurality of hollow cells). The plurality of walls defining at least one geometric shape, the geometric shape is a hexagon ([0017]) (corresponding to at least one of the plurality of hollow cells comprises a hexagonal shape).
In reference to claim 14, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Metz further teaches a seal is formed between the panels at the edge ([0011]; [0042]; [0044]) (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 § 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 12,006,842) (Kim).
In reference to claim 11, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Metz 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 Metz be CMC skins, in order to provide outer layers with high temperature resistance, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz.
In reference to claim 12, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Metz further teaches the core is made of a material selected from the group consisting of paper, resin or polymer impregnated paper, metal, plastic fiberglass graphite, and fiber-filled composites ([0017]).
Given that Metz teaches the core made of materials that overlaps the presently claimed first core structure, including graphite (i.e., carbon), it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to use the graphite, which is both taught by Metz and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 13, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Although Metz does not explicitly teach 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 Metz meets the requirements of the claimed product, Metz clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz 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, Metz teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Metz 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 Metz 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 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 includes one or more slot panel securing members and is held within the slot of the slot panel ([0033]; FIG.6) (corresponding to a liner formed separately from the first composite panel 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).
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
PNG
media_image3.png
391
463
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 at least one composite sheet bonded to the first core structure first face or the first core structure second face and extending along the side wall and the floor of the interlocking feature, it is noted that Wirrick (US 2022/0371294) and Lewis et al. (US 2016/0258462) (Lewis), alone no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections over Wirrick and 102(a)(1) rejections over Lewis are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/20/2026 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
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