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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-10, as originally filed 05 MAR. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “Group 1, claims 1-9 without traverse, and withdraws claim 10” in the reply filed on 05 MAR. 26 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 MAR. 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Cl. 6 ln. 3: “mounting holes in areas corresponding to the preset position, and a positioning device of the external structure” has not been explicitly pointed out; the requirements of “preset position” and how a “positioning device” is included are not evident from the drawings
Cl. 8 ln. 5: “connected with an external device” has not been explicitly pointed out
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 1 ln. 7: the phrase “the metal frame is” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if this is referring to one or each of the previously introduced “metal frames” or if a new metal frame is required. Clarification is required.
Cl. 2 ln. 6: after “arranged between” the recitation of “a pair of longitudinal reinforcing ribs” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if this is referring to the previously introduced “longitudinal reinforcing ribs” (ln. 2) of if this adding separate longitudinal reinforcing ribs. Clarification is required.
Cl. 2 ln. 6: the phrase “the diagonal reinforcing rib” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if this is referring to the previously introduced “diagonal reinforcing ribs” (ln. 2) or if this identifying a unique diagonal reinforcing rib. Clarification is required.
Cl. 8 ln. 2: the phrase “shape of a long cube” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear because a cube has a defined shape but the limitations of a “long cube” is/are unclear. Clarification is required.
Claims 3-9 not particularly referenced in this section are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim 1, 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buzzi US 8844457 B2.
As per claim 1, the primary reference of Buzzi teaches a box frame structure composed of composite material plates (panels 11, 12 FIG. 1) and metal frame (fitting elements 20, FIG. 1; see “Preferably, such fitting elements 20... extruded... aluminum” 3:1-3), wherein a surface structure of the box frame structure is made up of composite material structure plates (panels 11, 12 FIG. 1),
a prismatic structure of the box frame structure is made up of metal frames (fitting elements 20, FIG. 1; see “Preferably, such fitting elements 20... extruded... aluminum” 3:1-3), and
a reinforcing rib structure (see vertical, left, right directions FIG. 1; these are recognized as a reinforcing arrangement, as broadly claimed) is arranged in the box frame structure, and
the reinforcing rib structure (see vertical, left, right directions FIG. 1; these are recognized as a reinforcing arrangement, as broadly claimed) is made up of the composite material structural plates (panels 11, 12 FIG. 1);
the metal frame (fitting elements 20, FIG. 1; see “Preferably, such fitting elements 20... extruded... aluminum” 3:1-3) is used to connect two adjacent composite material structural panels, and
a side of the metal frame (fitting elements 20, FIG. 1; see “Preferably, such fitting elements 20... extruded... aluminum” 3:1-3) protrudes with mounting grooves (see “groove” at 21 and 22 FIG. 1), and the mounting grooves (see “grooves” at 21 and 22 FIG. 1) clamp (see “to further hold... width... slightly smaller than the thickness of the relative panel 11, 12” 3:27) the two sides of the composite material structural plates (panels 11, 12 FIG. 1) respectively;
a glue storage groove (see central chamber 25 delimited by narrowed portions of 21 and 22, FIG. 1 and FIG. 4) and a glue injection hole (holes 30, FIG. 1) are arranged on a bonding area of the metal frame (fitting elements 20, FIG. 1; see “Preferably, such fitting elements 20... extruded... aluminum” 3:1-3) and the composite material structural plates (panels 11, 12 FIG. 1), and
a structural glue (see “glue panels respectively together” 3:16) is injected into the glue storage groove (see central chamber 25 delimited by narrowed portions of 21 and 22, FIG. 1 and FIG. 4) through the glue injection hole (holes 30, FIG. 1) to form a uniform glue layer.
As per claim 7, the primary reference of Buzzi teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the cross-section of the metal frame is L-shaped (see FIG. 1), and the mounting groove comprises a first mounting groove and a second mounting groove (see vertically and rightward extending openings); the first mounting groove is arranged so as to be perpendicular to the second mounting groove.
As per claim 8, the primary reference of Buzzi teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the metal frame comprises:
a main frame (FIG. 1), the main frame is in the shape of a long cube (see rectangular section, FIG. 1; this is recognized as “the shape of” a “long cube” as broadly claimed because a cube requires approximately the same “shape” and the element of Buzzi is longer than a normal cube), and
a first side and a second side of the main frame are provided with a first mounting groove and a second mounting groove respectively (see grooves, FIG. 1);
the side of the main frame is also connected with an external device (see “holes 30, 30' for passage and communication from the outside” 3:43).
As per claim 9, the primary reference of Buzzi teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the metal frame is arranged on the external corner formed by the adjacent two composite material structural plates (see FIG. 1; upon the addition of two plates/panels in the channels at 21-22 top and 21-22 right, the element 20 would be recognized as “arranged on the external corner” as broadly claimed).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzzi in view of Strange US 6389778 B1.
As per claim 2 Buzzi teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the reinforcing rib structure reinforcing (see vertical, left, right directions FIG. 1) comprises longitudinal reinforcing ribs (left and right panels, FIG. 4)
the longitudinal reinforcing ribs (left and right panels, FIG. 4) are distributed in the box frame structure along a direction of a long axis according to a first preset interval (left and right side, FIG. 4), and are perpendicularly connected and fixed with surface structure plates (vertical panel, FIG. 4) at the corresponding positions respectively;
but fails to explicitly disclose:
diagonal reinforcing ribs;
the diagonal reinforcing rib are arranged between a pair of longitudinal reinforcing ribs which are adjacent, and the diagonal reinforcing ribs are fixedly connected to an edge of the longitudinal reinforcing ribs diagonally respectively and are perpendicularly connected and fixed with the surface structural plates at the corresponding positions; and
the diagonal directions of the pair of diagonal reinforcing ribs which are adjacent are different.
Strange teaches diagonal members arranged as claimed, specifically:
and diagonal reinforcing ribs (diagonal braced 66, 68, FIG. 4);
the diagonal reinforcing rib (diagonal braced 66, 68, FIG. 4) are arranged between a pair of longitudinal reinforcing ribs (top and bottom 61, 67, FIG. 4) which are adjacent, and the diagonal reinforcing ribs are fixedly connected to an edge of the longitudinal reinforcing ribs diagonally respectively (see “diagonally respectively”, FIG. 4) and are perpendicularly connected and fixed with the surface structural plates at the corresponding positions; and
the diagonal directions of the pair of diagonal reinforcing ribs which are adjacent are different (see “different”, FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Buzzi by including the diagonal members as taught by Strange in order to reinforce the assembly against flexing because doing so would reduce the risk of shifting and flexing and thus damage.
Claim 3-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzzi in view of Chakrabarti US 8512853 B2.
As per claim 3 the primary reference of Buzzi teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and further discloses the composite material structure plate comprises a first panel (upper film 15, FIG. 4), an intermediate layer (“core, made from marine-grade plywood” 1:40), and a second panel (lower film 15, FIG. 4), the first panel and the second panel are made of fibrous material (“composite material as the films 15 of the panels 11, 12, i.e. fiberglass” 2:43),
a metal embedded part (bolt 55, FIG. 8) is arranged on a preset position of the intermediate layer;
the first panel, the second panel, and the intermediate layer are connected into one body by the structural glue (see “central chamber 25 intended firstly to receive the structural adhesive” 3:38).
Buzzi fails to explicitly disclose:
the intermediate layer is made of honeycomb material.
Chakrabarti teaches a composite panel with a core layer of honeycomb, specifically:
the intermediate layer is made of honeycomb material (“Common materials used in the core may include… honeycomb” 1:21).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Buzzi by substituting the honeycomb as taught by Chakrabarti in order to rigidify the panels by a known element which enhances the strength-to-weight ratio.
As per claim 4-5 Buzzi in view of Chakrabarti teaches the limitations according to claim 3, and Buzzi further discloses aluminum (“extruded profiles made from aluminum” 3:2) and thus the core can be made of aluminum, and further a hole can be provided perpendicular to the core (FIG. 8) but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
the fibrous material is carbon fiber-resin composite material; the carbon fiber-resin composite material comprises a plurality of layers of carbon fiber clothes and a resin material bonded between the plurality of layers of carbon fiber clothes;
the first panel and the second panel are reverse thermal expansion,
a thermal expansion rate of the composite material structural plate in the thickness direction is zero.
a reverse thermal expansion rate of the plurality of layers of carbon fiber clothes is the same as a thermal expansion rate of the resin material.
Chakrabarti teaches carbon fiber reinforced sheets, specifically:
the fibrous material is carbon fiber-resin composite material; the carbon fiber-resin composite material comprises a plurality of layers of carbon fiber clothes and a resin material bonded between the plurality of layers of carbon fiber clothes (“first and second facesheets includes laminated plies of carbon fiber reinforced resin” Cl. 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Buzzi in view of Chakrabarti by including fibrous material in the face sheets as taught by Chakrabarti in order to provide improved outer layers.
Regarding the limitations of the first panel and the second panel are reverse thermal expansion” and “a thermal expansion rate of the composite material structural plate in the thickness direction is zero/ reverse thermal expansion rate of the plurality of layers of carbon fiber clothes is the same as a thermal expansion rate of the resin material” it would have been obvious to attain these properties by choosing fiberglass which has these expansion rates in order to function as needed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzzi in view of Chakrabarti as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Strange.
As per claim 6 Buzzi in view of Chakrabarti teaches the limitations according to claim 3, Buzzi further discloses the preset position is the position where the composite material structural plate bears an external load (see “Once the designer has decided upon the thickness of such strips 50 of fiberglass, an important parameter from the point of view of the contribution that the panels 11, 12 provide to the torsional structural strength of the boat, according to the invention masks 51 are arranged on the transverse panels 11 at the deck 14 and the side walls 13' of the hull 13 so as to define a perimeter band of substantially constant thickness.” 4:35-42; clearly Buzzi has anticipated bearing an external load); the first panel and the second panel are provided with mounting holes (holes for bolt 55, FIG. 8) in areas corresponding to the preset position, and a positioning device (bolt 55, FIG. 8) of the external structure passes through the first panel and the second panel through the mounting holes and is fixedly connected with the metal embedded part, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
the external structure comprises the metal frame and an equipment guide rail.
Strange teaches such framing members, specifically:
the external structure comprises the metal frame (track 20, FIG. 1) and an equipment guide rail (track 21, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Buzzi in view of Chakrabarti by including the framing members as taught by Strange in order to employ the assembly in a reinforced wall.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bordener US 8984838 B2 teaches an assembly for compensation of thermal expansion, specifically:
FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a replaceable panel attachment system according to a first embodiment for compensating for thermal coefficients of expansion of wooden or like decorative panels and which depicts a vertically extending panel edge supporting and displacement permitting component mounted upon a like extending inner profile in turn anchored to a substrate wall surface via a reverse facing joist, a floor proximate extending profile abutting a bottom extending edge of the vertically extending panel supporting components
PNG
media_image1.png
570
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
336
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Heuschen et al. US 3928100 A teaches precisely trimming a corner member
PNG
media_image3.png
310
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights