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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in paragraph [0001] after “filed June 14, 2019,” insert - - now U.S. Patent No. 12,083,781, - - to update the status of the application.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 (lines 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15), claim 2 (line 2), claim 5 (line 1), claim 6 (line 1), claim 7 (line 3), and claim 13 (line 4) each recite the limitation “the cladding”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is suggested to delete in each instance “the cladding” and insert therein - - the at least one cladding - - to overcome this rejection. This is the impetration given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 7 (line 3), claim 10 (line 2), claim 11 (line 2), claim 12 (line 2), and claim 13 (line 2) each recite the limitation “the layer of material preimpregnated with resin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is suggested to delete in each instance “the layer of material preimpregnated with resin” and insert therein - - the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin - - to overcome this rejection. This is the impetration given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a thickness between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm”. The limitation “0.05 mm” is unclear as claim 7 recites the limitation “a thickness of a few tenths of a millimeter” so that the thickness is at least a tenth of a millimeter. It is suggested to delete “a thickness between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm” and insert therein - - a thickness between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm - - to overcome this rejection. This is the impetration given the limitation for purposes of examination.
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.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 12 are 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 Catherineau (FR 2962362 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12, Catherineau discloses a composite panel, in particular for aircraft or nautical furniture (it being noted the preamble including “in particular for aircraft or nautical furniture” interpreted as a preamble statement reciting purpose or intended use, see MPEP 2111.02, and not any distinct definition of any limitation other than the composite panel is capable of being used for aircraft or nautical furniture wherein the composite panel taught by Catherineau is capable of being used in particular for aircraft or nautical furniture including as expressly disclosed see page 1 of the machine translation), the composite panel comprising: a central core formed from a core of a low-density structured material type (honeycomb panel 1 and regarding claim 3 wherein the low-density structured material is of the honeycomb type) covered on its two faces with at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin (glass or carbon or hybrid fabric 2 preimpregnated with resin and regarding claim 10 wherein the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin is comprised of fabrics and regarding claim 12 wherein the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin is comprised of fibers of the type in the following group: glass, hybrids, carbon, aramid, linen, bamboo and hemp); and at least one cladding (wood veneer 301 of 0.6 mm thickness and regarding claim 5 wherein the at least one cladding is made of wood with a thickness of a few tenths of a millimeter wherein “a few tenths” is interpreted, including as is consistent with claim 6, as equal to or more than one tenth of a millimeter and less than one millimeter and regarding claim 6 wherein the at least one cladding made of wood is of a thickness between 0.4 mm and 1 mm) which is prebaked (prior step of the layers are subject to heat via heat pressing, i.e. baked/prebaked, to form the composite panel) with an adhesive film (adhesive layer 302) and an aluminum film (aluminum film 303 of 0.1 mm thickness and regarding claim 7 an aluminum film with a thickness of a few tenths of a millimeter disposed between the at least one cladding and the at least one layer of material preimpregnated material with resin wherein “a few tenths” is interpreted as equal to or more than one tenth of a millimeter and less than one millimeter and regarding claim 8 wherein the aluminum film is of a thickness between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm) and considered that the prebaked adhesive film and aluminum film forms an adhered aluminum film as a sealed barrier on one face of the at least one cladding so that the sealed barrier seals the at least one cladding from penetration of resin from the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin, into the at least one cladding; wherein each of the adhesive film and the aluminum film is disposed between the central core with the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin and the at least one cladding so that the sealed barrier seals the at least one cladding and prevents penetration of subsequent resin into the at least one cladding (Figure 1 and Pages 2-3 of the machine translation). In the event it is somehow considered Catherineau does not necessarily anticipate one or more of the limitations as set forth above the following rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the composite panel taught by Catherineau comprises: a central core formed from a core of a low-density structured material type (honeycomb panel 1) covered on its two faces with at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin (glass or carbon or hybrid fabric 2 preimpregnated with resin); and at least one cladding (wood veneer 301 of 0.6 mm thickness it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists) which is prebaked (prior step of the layers are subject to heat via heat pressing, i.e. baked/prebaked, to form the composite panel) with an adhesive film (adhesive layer 302) and an aluminum film (aluminum film 303 of 0.1 mm thickness, it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, disposed between the at least one cladding and the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin) that forms an adhered aluminum film as a sealed barrier (of baked adhesive and aluminum) on one face of the at least one cladding so that the sealed barrier seals the at least one cladding from penetration of resin from the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin, into the at least one cladding; wherein each of the adhesive film and the aluminum film is disposed between the central core with the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin and the at least one cladding so that the sealed barrier seals the at least one cladding and prevents penetration of subsequent resin into the at least one cladding as is the express direction in Catherineau to form the composite panel.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “prebaked” and in claim 2, as noted above Catherineau teaches a prior step of the layers are subject to heat via heat pressing, i.e. baked/prebaked, to form the composite panel so that Catherineau teaches the adhesive film is prebaked onto the one face of the at least one cladding via hot pressing. It is further noted the claims are directed to a product, i.e. a composite panel, wherein these limitations are directed to the process of forming the product. Even 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/if the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catherineau in view of Fukahori et al. (U.S. Patent 4,461,796).
Catherineau is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 4, Catherineau does not expressly teach the low-density structured material is of the foam type. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the honeycomb is filled with foam to improve sound absorbing property, sound insulation property and heat insulation property as taught by Fukahori (Column 5, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the low density structure taught by Catherineau is of the honeycomb and foam type to improve sound absorbing property, sound insulation property and heat insulation property as taught by Fukahori.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catherineau in view of Nolte et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0234632).
Catherineau is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 9, Catherineau does not expressly teach a flame retardant impregnating agent. It is known in the same art the cladding/veneer is made flame retardant by adding a flame retardant impregnating as taught by Nolte (Abstract and Paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the composite panel taught by Catherineau further comprises a flame retardant impregnating agent to make the at least one cladding flame retardant as taught by Nolte.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catherineau in view of Sewell (U.S. Patent 4,533,589).
Catherineau is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 11, Catherineau does not expressly teach the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin comprised of fabrics is comprised of unidirectional sheets wherein conventional fabrics for the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin is unidirectional sheets as evidenced by Sewell (Column 2, lines 9-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin taught by Catherineau is comprised of unidirectional sheets as are the conventional and predictable fabrics as evidenced by Sewell.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catherineau in view of Bower et al. (U.S. Patent 4,557,779).
Catherineau is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 13, Catherineau teaches the adhesive film as a second adhesive film is arranged between the aluminum film and the at least one cladding. Catherineau does not expressly teach a first adhesive film is arranged between the aluminum film and the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that while bonding between metal and prepreg sheet (i.e. the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin) may be obtained simply by curing the prepreg, one or more layers of adhesive may also be provided to enhance the strength of the bond between these dissimilar sheet materials as evidenced by Bower (Column 3, lines 39-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the composite panel taught by Catherineau further comprise a first adhesive film is arranged between the aluminum film and the at least one layer of material preimpregnated with resin to enhance the strength of the bond between these dissimilar sheet materials as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Bower.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746