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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the section bars define a honeycomb structure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, line 3, “barsto” is not a word, therefore it is suggested to change “barsto” to - -bars to- -. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maynard (US 3,368,314).
Regarding claim 1, Maynard discloses a method for the production of an object (10; Fig. 11) by providing a base element (30), providing a plurality of section bars (11); and fastening (col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 12) the section bars (11) to a surface (31) of the base element (30); defining a plurality of restraint elements (11’; Fig. 10), which are at least active along a vertical axis transverse perpendicular to the base element (30), by one or more of the section bars (11); and applying a filling material (34; col. 4, lines 13-20) onto the base element (30) at least in one engagement portion cooperatively defined between the surface (31) and at least one of the restraint elements (11’), the step of applying a filling material (34) being performed by an additive manufacturing process (i.e., trowelling into and over the cell structure; col. 4, lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 2, Maynard discloses wherein the step of defining the plurality of restraint elements (11’) is carried out by locally deforming (col. 4, lines 15-25; Fig. 4) one or more section bars (11).
Regarding claim 3, Maynard discloses wherein the local deformation of one or more section bars (11) is carried out by bending, or shaping using rollers (14, 15, 16; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Maynard discloses wherein the step of defining the plurality of restraint elements (11’) is carried out by arranging one or more section bars (11) at a predetermined tilt angle (see Fig. 10) with respect to the surface (31).
Regarding claim 6, Maynard discloses wherein the tilt angle is inherently comprised between 45° and 90°.
Regarding claim 8, Maynard discloses wherein the step of providing the section bars (11) is carried out in such a way that the section bars (11) define a grid element in which said section bars (11) are intertwined (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Maynard discloses wherein the step of providing the section bars (11) is carried out in such a way that the section bars (11) define a honeycomb structure (see Figs. 2, 3, and 5).
Regarding claim 10, Maynard discloses wherein the step of providing the section bars (11) defines a plurality of containment cells (not labeled, see Figs. 2, 3, and 5) and wherein the step of defining the plurality of restraint elements (11’) is carried out in such a way that each containment cell includes at least one restraint element (11’; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Maynard discloses wherein the step of fastening the section bars (11) to the base element (30) is carried out by welding (col. 4, lines 10-12) the section bars (11) to the base element (30).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maynard (US 3,368,314) in view of Holland (US 2,828,235).
Maynard as described in detail above discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for wherein the step of defining a plurality of restraint elements is carried out by defining one or more holes in at least one section bar.
Holland discloses defining a plurality of restraint elements is carried out by defining one or more holes (20; col. 3, lines 2-14; Fig. 4) in at least one section bar (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was made to define another plurality of restraint elements for Maynard carried out by defining one or more holes in at least one section bar of Maynard, in light of the teachings of Holland, in order to allow for the venting during curing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maynard (US 3,368,314) in view of Marsden (US 3,033,086).
Maynard as described in detail above discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for wherein the step of defining the plurality of restraint elements is carried out by crossing the section bars with a plurality of inserts, which are fastened or can be fastened in a top or middle portion of each section bar.
Marsden discloses the step of defining (col. 1, line 59 – col. 2, line 24) the plurality of restraint elements is carried out by crossing (see Fig. 1) the section bars (1) with a plurality of inserts (8a), which are fastened in a middle portion of each section bar (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define another plurality of restraint elements for Maynard being carried out by crossing the section bars with a plurality of inserts, which are fastened to the middle portion of each section bar of Maynard, in light of the teachings of Marsden, in order to form square cells.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maynard (US 3,368,314) in view of Nielsen (US 2,905,064).
Maynard as described in detail above discloses all of the claimed subject matter except for the following: a step of cutting out the base element so as to create a plurality of grooves in said base element, the fastening step being carried out by fitting the section bars into respective grooves; or a milling step for the making of an object.
Nielsen discloses the uppermost portion of base element (i.e., plate 3) being drilled. Nielsen also discloses providing the base element/plate (3) with grooves (14; Fig. 2) provided to a section bar formed of bristles (14) which in turn receive honeycomb material (M). Nielsen further states the base (1) upon which base element/plate (3) rests can be clamped to the bed of a milling machine (col. 2, lines 52-55). Nielsen states that after the honeycomb material (M) and section bar the honeycomb material is subjected to machining (col. 1, lines 47-52; col. 3, lines 71-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was made to cut out the base element of Maynard so as to create a plurality of grooves in the base element, and fastening step being carried out by fitting the section bars into respective grooves, and to mill the composite assembly of Maynard to make an object, in light of the teachings of Nielsen, in order to provide improved, rapid, and relatively inexpensive method for machining thin metal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/2025 with respect to the objection to the Drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“At pages 2 and 3, the Office Action objects to the Drawings. Particularly, the Office Action states that "the section bars define a honeycomb structure must be shown." With regard to the objection, Applicant submits that an example honeycomb structure is illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B. The application also describes, at lines 26-30 of page 7, that "section bars 3 may be arranged so as to define a honeycomb structure ... ." Thus, the structure illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B is described as an example of the honeycomb structure recited in claim 9. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to the Drawings be withdrawn.”
In response, the examiner refers to page 6, lines 23-28 of applicant’s specification which states, “The section bars 3 may be arranged so as to define a honeycomb structure having, according to the needs of the moment, any topology and/or spatial geometry: by way of non-limiting example, the honeycomb structure can have a plurality of spheroidal, i.e., spherical, semi-spherical, or essentially spherical cavities.” None of the figures depict a honeycomb structure. Figs. 2A and 2B depict a grid configuration. The drawing objection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10 of the response, filed 10/7/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 11 as being anticipated by Cremer have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 11 as being anticipated by Cremer has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Maynard does not describe "fastening said section bars to an upper surface of said base element" and "defining a plurality of restraint elements, which are at least active along a vertical axis perpendicular to said base element, by one or more of said section bars," as recited by claim 1. The Office Action refers to the base composite structure 30 of Maynard for the "base element" of claim 1. However, the cell structure 11 of Maynard is not fastened to the composite structure 30 when the cell structure 11 is deformed into the flange configuration 11'. Instead, the cell structure 11 is secured to the platen 13 when the cell structure 11 is deformed into the flange configuration 11'. See id. at 3:15-25.”
In response, the examiner maintains that Maynard does teach “fastening said section bars to an upper surface of said base element" and "defining a plurality of restraint elements, which are at least active along a vertical axis perpendicular to said base element, by one or more of said section bars.” It is acknowledged that Maynard performs deformation of the cell structure (11) prior to attachment to the base composite structure (30), however, the claims as written do not exclude deformation of the cell structure prior to attachment to the base structure (30). If the intent of the claim 1 is to describe the specific order of steps relating to fastening and defining then the claim should be amended to reflect the specific order of steps (e.g., I, II, III, …etc.). Claim 1 as written does not imply the order of steps is limited to the order of steps which applicant is arguing but has not claimed.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “At pages 11-13, the Office Action rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Maynard in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,828,235 ("Holland'); rejects claim 7 as allegedly being unpatentable over Maynard in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,033,086 ("Marsden"); and rejects claims 12 and 13 as allegedly being unpatentable over Maynard in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,905,064 ("Nielsen").
Claims 4, 7, and 12-13 depend from claim 1. Therefore, claims 4, 7, and 12-13 are distinguishable over each of Cremer and Maynard for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Further, Holland, Marsden, and Nielsen, which are additionally asserted against claims 4, 7, and 12-13, all fail to cure the above-discussed deficiencies of the rejections in view of Cremer and Maynard and are not asserted for the features of claim 1 that are discussed above as deficient in the rejections in view of Cremer and Maynard. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 4, 7, and 12-13, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), be withdrawn.”
In response, the examiner states that Cremer was not applied as a rejection under 35 USC 103 in the previous office action. In response, to applicant’s argument concerning the rejection of claims 4, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 USC 103 in view of Maynard and respective secondary references Holland, Marsden, and Nielsen are not found persuasive because the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Maynard is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
December 27, 2025