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 .
This action is in response to the amendment and remarks received on March 16, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the teachings of DISSELBECK with the disclosure of HAESEMANN et al. for various reasons which are found to be commonly addressed below. Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.1
In this case, column 1 lines 44-56 of HAESEMANN et al. acknowledges the desire to shape various materials (e.g. metal, ceramic, other extrudable materials) into a honeycomb configuration. Similarly, column 1 lines 6-15 of DISSELBECK discloses shaping a metal (i.e. aluminum) or a composite material into a honeycomb configuration; thereby suggesting the similarities of an aluminum sheet of material or a composite material for the purpose of forming a honeycomb configuration. Considering column 5 lines 13-19 of HAESEMANN et al. specifically references the desire to utilize aluminum as a desired material, Examiner maintains that there is reasonable suggestion to modify the manufacturing method of HAESEMANN et al. in view of DISSELBECK as provided in the pending rejection.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 15-18 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.
Claims 15-18 recites the limitation "the blind-holes" in respective lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1- 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAESEMANN et al. (US 8,291,742) in view of DISSELBECK (US 5,714,226)
In reference to claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 14, HAESEMANN et al. discloses a method (figure 7) for manufacturing a sheet (column 4 lines 33-44) of material into a honeycomb structure/article (figure 4) comprising: providing 28 a sheet of material 1; perforating 29 the sheet 1 to form (figure 6A) one or more recesses (i.e. through hole) 10 in the sheet 1; pressing (figure 6c) the at least one sheet in a pressing tool 3 such that bending of the sheet occurs at the location of the one or more recesses 10; and stacking multiple sheets of material (figure 4; column 11 lines 23-28) after one or more recesses have been formed into each of the sheets (figure 4; column 11 lines 23-28). The sheet of material disclosed by HAESEMANN et al. is formed from metal, not a composite material as claimed.
DISSELBECK teaches a method of manufacturing a sheet of material for a honeycomb structure (abstract) comprising: providing a sheet of composite material comprising cellulosic fibers (column 2 lines 50-61 and a composite agent such as thermoset resins (column 1 lines 9-15) and press shaping the sheet of composite material (column 4 lines 30-54) utilized to form a composite article (figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a metal sheet or the composite material of DISSELBECK in the method of manufacturing a sheet of material as disclosed by HAESEMANN et al. since the column 1 lines 9-15 of DISSELBECK acknowledges the selection of any of these known materials to form a honeycomb structure to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram I
Regarding claim 3, the modified sheet of HAESEMANN et al. has at least two recesses 10, 11 formed into the sheet, wherein the recesses are located on opposite sides of the sheet (see Diagram I of figure 5 above).
In reference to claims 5 and 6, figure 5 of HAESEMANN et al. discloses the recesses as through-holes that are aligned in a direction (13) perpendicular to an extension of the sheet.
With respect to claim 8, figure 5 of HAESEMANN et al. discloses the recesses 10 as a U-shape.
Claims 9-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAESEMANN et al. (US 8,291,742) in view of DISSELBECK (US 5,714,226) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of BREITHOLTZ et al. (EP 21184323).
In reference to claims 9-12 and 19, the modified method of HAESEMANN et al. discloses the step of pressing a composite material , but does not disclose the pressure at which the composite material is pressed, nor specific compositions of the composite material.
BREITHOLTZ et al. teaches a manufacturing method comprising: providing a polyfurfuryl alcohol impregnated kraft paper (page 4 lines 9-20) composite material formed from thermoset resin cellulosic fibers having a cellulosic fiber weight of 60 to 90% (page 4 lines 12-15); a maximum length of 10 mm (i.e. <4 mm; page 5 lines 1-3); and pressing the composite material at a pressure of at least 20 kg/cm2 and a temperature of at least 120 °C (page 6 lines 9-20 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the pressing step in the method of HAESEMANN et al. to include pressing the composite material at the claimed pressure and temperature since page 6 lines 9-20 of BREITHOLZ et al. suggests such a pressure and temperature are known for the purpose of manufacturing a load bearing 3D article.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAESEMANN et al. (US 8,291,742) in view of DISSELBECK (US 5,714,226) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of HODGSON et al. (US 2005/0274012).
With respect to claim 13, the modified method of HAESMANN et al. discloses the step of providing a sheet of composite material, but does not disclose the thickness of the composite material sheet.
HODGSON et al. teaches a manufacturing method comprising: providing a sheet of composite material having a thickness of up to 2mm (i.e. < 2mm; paragraph [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have further modified the method of HAESMANN et al. to include the step of providing a composite sheet material having the claimed thickness since paragraphs [0009] and [0044-0046] of HODGSON et al. suggests such a configuration of the sheet material allows for gentle forming of the composite material into a favorable structured shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the previous attached PTO-892 for a notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations related to the claimed invention. In particular, consider the disclosure of MITSUKAWA et al. (US 9,259,775), MIRTSCH et al. (US 2010/0058589; paragraph [0023]), WILLIS et al. (US 2008/0001429) and MTANGI et al. (US 4,647,324).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-7pm EST.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit:
Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101
Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382
Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309
Fee Questions (571) 272-6400
Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199
Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282
Information Help line 1-800-786-9199
/GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
May 29, 2026
1 See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Prosecution Insights