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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the rejection of claim.
Applicant primarily argues about the combination of references.
Applicant notes that Hauping teaches a thermoplastic resin for the facesheets. The examiner admits this is true, but it is irrelevant to the rejection as Hauping is used to teach facesheets with varying fiber volume across the facesheet. It is noted that prior art is available for all it may teach or suggest, see MPEP 2123. The thermosetting resin is taught by Horikawa and Hoshina.
Applicant argues Hoshina does not teach the bonding of the facesheet directly to the core and the reason for using the lower vol% of fibers in the facesheet is different from the claimed. Hoshina is not used to teach the method or the direct bonding that is taught by Horikawa. As to the reason for use, it is noted as set forth in the rejection both Hauping and Hoshina teach the use of lower amounts of fiber in the immediate ply layer next to the core. Further, Hoshina does point to a good adhesive bond to the core [0040]. Thus, the rejections stand as set forth below.
Regarding claim 3, applicant argues that as claim 1 is allowable so is claim 3. As set forth above that is not percussive and the rejections remain as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the method claims 5 etc. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 20220017698 A1) [IDS dated:], herein Horikawa, in view of Hauping et al. (CN 111497357 A), herein Hauping and Hoshina (US 20200384724 A1) [IDS dated: 01/27/2025], herein Hoshina.
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (CN 11497357 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 1, Horikawa teaches a honeycomb sandwich panel comprising a honeycomb core sandwiched directly between prepreg sheets comprising carbon fiber, poly acrylonitrile (PAN) -based carbon fibers, and a resin comprising a thermosetting resin and a thermoplastic resin [Abstract, 0001, 0008, 0012, 0092, 0099, 0102, 0115, 0143, 0154-0156, claims 1-3, 13-15]. The resin directly bonds the prepreg sheets to the honeycomb core [0115-0116]. The thickness of the carbon fiber ply is 0.02 to 0.15 mm [0078, 0085]. This overlaps the claimed range for the ply.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Horikawa does not teach the fiber vol. percent of the first ply sheet and second or the third and fourth prepreg sheets.
Hauping teaches a honeycomb sandwich composite board [ lines 86-98]. Hauping teaches the upper and lower sandwich panels [lines 95-98]. The panels comprise three layers of fiber reinforced thermoplastic material including an interface and main [lines 100-103, claims 1, 9]. The interface layer of the panel, which is immediately bonded to the core, has a fiber content of 20-40 wt% [lines 679-683]. This overlaps the claimed range. The main layer has a fiber content of 30-80 wt% [lines 679-683]. The fiber content varies over the plies as low:high:low from the interface to the surface layers [lines 684-689].
Similarly, Hoshina teaches a carbon fiber reinforced plastic plate comprising three layers of carbon fiber reinforced plastic [Abstract]. The outer layers or interface layers have a fiber content of 20 to 40 vol% [0013]. The main layer has a fiber content of 50 to 60 vol% [0014]. The content in the main layer is such that the mechanical properties and physical properties are excellent [0031]. The content in the interface layer is such that there is some mechanical properties and physical properties but also the interface has enough of the resin/base material to form smooth interface and have good processability as well as a good adhesive bond to the core [0040]. The ranges of fiber volume are within or overlap the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the fiber volumes for the multilayer panels of Hoshina as the those of Horikawa. One would have been motivated to do so as Hoshina and Hauping all teach that the fiber volume varies from the immediate bonding ply to the structural plies and the surface ply. Hoshina teaches the ranges offer various processability and physical properties for each layer and thus would improve the skins of Horikawa in a similar manner. Additionally, as Hoshina teaches these are conventionally known ranges one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the fiber vol in the first and second prepreg sheets is 20-40 vol% in modified Horikawa.
In regards to claim 2, Horikawa further teaches the sandwich panel are for aircraft structural members [0002].
In regards to claim 3, Horikawa teaches a method of making honeycomb sandwich panel [0154]. The method comprising using uncured prepreg sheets comprising carbon fiber plies and thermosetting resin which further comprises a thermoplastic resin to sandwich a honeycomb core [0154]. The sandwich is then heated and cured, directly bonding the first and second prepreg sheets to each side of the core [0154, 0143]. The thickness of the carbon fiber ply is 0.02 to 0.15 mm [0078, 0085]. This overlaps the claimed range for the ply.
In regards to claim 8, Horikawa further teaches a third and fourth prepreg sheet are disposed adjacent to the first and second sheets that directly bond to the core and form a surface of the panel [0154, 0143]. Horikawa teaches the prepreg sheet is semi-cured under pressure with some tackiness remaining for bonding and thus includes uncured resin [0103-0104]. The sandwich is then heated and cured, directly bonding the first and second and third and fourth prepreg sheets to each side of the core [0154, 0143].
Horikawa does not teach the fiber vol. percent of the first ply sheet and second or the third and fourth prepreg sheets.
Hauping teaches a honeycomb sandwich composite board [ lines 86-98]. Hauping teaches the upper and lower sandwich panels [lines 95-98]. The panels comprise three layers of fiber reinforced thermoplastic material including an interface and main [lines 100-103, claims 1, 9]. The interface layer of the panel, which is immediately bonded to the core, has a fiber content of 20-40 wt% [lines 679-683]. This overlaps the claimed range. The main layer has a fiber content of 30-80 wt% [lines 679-683]. The fiber content varies over the plies as low:high:low from the interface to the surface layers [lines 684-689].
Similarly, Hoshina teaches a carbon fiber reinforced plastic plate comprising three layers of carbon fiber reinforced plastic [Abstract]. The outer layers or interface layers have a fiber content of 20 to 40 vol% [0013]. The main layer has a fiber content of 50 to 60 vol% [0014]. The content in the main layer is such that the mechanical properties and physical properties are excellent [0031]. The content in the interface layer is such that there is some mechanical properties and physical properties but also the interface has enough of the resin/base material to form smooth interface and have good processability as well as a good adhesive bond to the core [0040]. The ranges of fiber volume are within or overlap the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the fiber volumes for the multilayer panels of Hoshina as the those of Horikawa. One would have been motivated to do so as Hoshina and Hauping all teach that the fiber volume varies from the immediate bonding ply to the structural plies and the surface ply. Hoshina teaches the ranges offer various processability and physical properties for each layer and thus would improve the skins of Horikawa in a similar manner. Additionally, as Hoshina teaches these are conventionally known ranges one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the fiber vol in the third and fourth prepreg sheets is 40-60 vol% in modified Horikawa.
In regards to claim 14 Horikawa further teaches the sandwich panel are for aircraft structural members [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 10 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 9 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either in singularity or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest all the limitations of the independent claim 5. Namely, the art fails to teach or suggest a method in which a third prepreg sheet is cured or semi-cured when assembled with the honeycomb sandwich in which the directly connected plies are uncured.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: Mishra et al. (US 20180207899 A1) and Matsura et al. (US 20150151524 A1).
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 ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
