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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 66-79, in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 66-79 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.
Regarding claim 66, it is unclear if the limitation “ each polygonal cell being bounded on two sides by covering-layer planes” requires an actual cover layer to be present or if just a flat/planar surface is necessary. The examiner will interpret that only a planar surface is required to meet the limitation.
Regarding claims 67-79, these claims are rejected as they fully depend on claim 66 and thus are rejected for the same reason.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 76-78 recites the broad recitation 5% to 20%, and the claim also recites 10 to 15% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination, the first range will be used.
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 66-75 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiong et al. (CN114055859A), herein Xiong.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN114055859A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation except for the Figures.
Regarding claim 66, Xiong teaches a honeycomb, formed from a plurality of polygonal cells arranged in an array [Fig. 2, lines 13-14], wherein: each polygonal cell has lateral cell walls extending between vertices of each polygonal cell, each polygonal cell being bounded on two sides by covering-layer planes [Fig. 2, lines 23-24, 48-57] the lateral cell walls of each polygonal cell forming a polygonal ring, and for each polygonal cell at least one lateral cell wall has a wavy shape [Figs. 8-9 reproduced below, lines 59-62], the wavy shape being defined by an offset from a straight line joining two neighbouring vertices of one polygonal cell, and a slope of the offset of the lateral cell wall with the wavy shape is zero where the lateral cell wall meets a connection to other lateral cell walls [Figs. 8-9, lines 59-62, 87-95, 225-227].
PNG
media_image1.png
546
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
550
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 (left) and Fig. 9 (right)
Regarding claim 67, Xiong further teaches the honeycomb, wherein the wavy shape of a lateral cell wall has four parts: two curved parts in the middle of the wavy shape, the two curved parts being offsets from the straight line joining two neighbouring vertices of one polygonal cell, said two curved parts having an inflection point between them, and wherein each curved part in the middle is connected to a tail or end part which has a low or zero slope [Figs. 8-9, lines 59-62, 87-95, 225-227].
Regarding claim 68, Xiong further teaches the honeycomb, wherein one of the two curved parts in the middle of the wavy shape is convex and the other of the two curved parts is concave such that a center of curvature of one curved part is on one side of the lateral cell wall and a center of curvature of the other curved part is on the other side of the lateral cell wall [Figs. 8-9, lines 59-62, 87-95, 225-227].
Regarding claim 69, Xiong further teaches the honeycomb wherein the wavy shape of a lateral cell wall has three parts: one curved part in the middle being offset from the straight line joining two neighbouring vertices of one polygonal cell, said middle part being connected to two tails or end parts of the lateral cell wall which have a low or zero slope [Fig. 1A -reproduced below, lines 169-170, 345-348].
PNG
media_image3.png
247
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 70, Xiong further teaches the honeycomb, wherein the two tails or end parts have a low or zero slope where the lateral cell wall having a wavy shape meets a connection to other lateral cell walls at a vertex of the polygonal cell where the offset of the lateral cell wall from the straight line is zero [Figs. 8-9, lines 59-62, 87-95, 225-227].
Regarding claim 71, Xiong further teaches the honeycomb, wherein the two tails or end parts have a low or zero slope where the lateral cell wall having a wavy shape meets a connection to other lateral cell walls at a vertex of the polygonal cell where the offset of the lateral cell wall from the straight line is zero [Fig. 1A, lines 169-170, 345-348].
Regarding claim 72, Xiong further teaches the honeycomb wherein lateral cell walls in an L-direction have a wavy shape and lateral cell walls in W- direction have a wavy shape [Figs. 8-9, lines 59-62, 87-95, 225-227].
Claims 73-75 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 73-75 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having the claimed wavy walls on a honeycomb cell made by combining two shaped parts. The reference suggests such a product.
Regarding claim 79, Xiong further teaches the honeycomb cells has double walled chords for the lateral walls [lines 91-94, 439-441, Fig. 7].
Claims 66-68, 70, 72 and 76-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Broadband and multiband vibration mitigation in lattice metamaterials with sinusoidally-shaped ligaments) , herein Chen.
Regarding claims 66-68, 70 and 72, Chen teaches honeycomb lattices with sinusoidally-shaped ligaments [Title, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3a, 7a, 8a, Sec. 5.2]. The hexagonal and square lattices set forth in Figs 7 and 8 at least meet the limitations.
PNG
media_image4.png
243
591
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7
Regarding claims 76 and 77, Chen teaches the length of the chord is 2.25 cm and the amplitude is 0.3 which is about 13.3% [Secs. 2-3, Figs. 1-3].
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.
Claims 76-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (CN114055859A), herein Xiong, as applied to claims 66-67 and 69 above.
Regarding claims 76-78, Xiong does not teach the amplitude of the wavy shape. However, Xiong teaches the chord length and the arc curvature angle which would relate to the amplitude ate designable based on the desired in plane stiffness required for the application [lines 408-424].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amplitude for the intended application, 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).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Ha et al. (Energy absorption of a bio-inspired honeycomb sandwich panel), Brun (US 20160052223 A1) and Sugiura et al. (US 20070065631 A1).
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
