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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/20/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bracke (US 2009/0072441).
In regards to claim 1, Bracke teaches a lightweight honeycomb sandwich panel for an automobile [Abstract, 0001, 0055, Figs. 6-7]. The honeycomb is a paper honeycomb [Abstract, 0051, claim 14]. Reinforcing covering layers are added to the outer surfaces of the honeycomb core comprising fiber mats and thermoplastic binder [Abstract, 0015, 0027, 0053, Fig. 7]. Bracke further teaches a plurality of concave portions are formed in the lower surface of the honeycomb part via molding [0038, Figs. 5, 7].
In regards to claims 2-3, define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 2-3 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 a honeycomb panel having convex portions in the lower surface. The reference suggests such a product.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracke (US 2009/0072441), as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 4, Bracke teaches concave portions but does not teach their shape.
Bracke discloses the claimed invention except for the concave portions are smaller in a width direction of the vehicle than in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the concave portions are smaller in a width direction of the vehicle than in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, for example rectangular, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The examiner notes the claim is to a panel and not a vehicle thus it is unclear how on a panel the width direction of the vehicle is determined until installation. Thus, this would be considered a design consideration and any side could be considered the width and the opposite the length.
Claim 4, defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. 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 a honeycomb panel having convex portions in the lower surface in which the concave portions are smaller in a width direction of the vehicle than in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle. The reference suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 5, Bracke teaches concave portions but does not teach their shape or size.
Bracke discloses the claimed invention except for the concave portions have a difference in size in the width direction of the vehicle that is 1.8 to 2.2 times larger than a difference in size in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the concave portions have a difference in size in the width direction of the vehicle that is 1.8 to 2.2 times larger than a difference in size in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, for example rectangular, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The examiner notes the claim is to a panel and not a vehicle thus it is unclear how on a panel the width direction of the vehicle is determined until installation. Thus, this would be considered a design consideration and any side could be considered the width and the opposite the length.
Claim 5, defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. 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 a honeycomb panel having convex portions in the lower surface in which he concave portions have a difference in size in the width direction of the vehicle that is 1.8 to 2.2 times larger than a difference in size in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle. The reference suggests such a product.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracke (US 2009/0072441), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Devaguptapu (US 6372322 B1).
In regards to claims 6-7, Bracke does not expressly teach wherein the panel has an edge formed by being bent in a longitudinal direction or width direction of the vehicle along a perimeter of the honeycomb part or wherein the edge includes: a first edge bent in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle with respect to the width direction of the vehicle; and a second edge bent in the width direction of the vehicle with respect to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
The examiner notes the claim is to a panel and not a vehicle thus it is unclear how on a panel the width direction of the vehicle is determined until installation. Thus, this would be considered a design consideration and any side could be considered the width and the opposite the length.
Bracke teaches the thermoforming of the panel based on the mold used [Abstract].
Devaguptapu teaches shaped honeycomb sandwich structures including paper honeycombs [Abstract, Col 1 lines 25-34, Col 6 lines 7-19]. Devaguptapu teaches the shaping is done by bending or folding the panel and such shaping includes having the perimeter edges of the panel bent to form a U-shape [Figs. 5, 7b, Col 7 lines 45-62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have molded the panel of Bracke to have bent perimeter edges as taught by Devaguptapu. One would have been motivated to do so as Devaguptapu teaches this is a conventionally known shape for honeycomb sandwich panels and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 9, claim 9, defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, the claim is a product-by-process claim. 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 two bent edges. The references suggests such a product.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracke (US 2009/0072441) in view of Devaguptapu (US 6372322 B1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Preisler et al. (US 20170066229 A1), herein Preisler.
In regards to claim 8, modified Bracke through Devaguptapu does not teach that a fold at the edges is made by forming a V-shaped notch whose cross section is formed in a V shape on the paper honeycomb and bonding the paper honeycomb along the V-shaped notch during thermal molding.
Preisler teaches a method of making a hinge in a honeycomb panel to make a fold in the panel [Abstract]. The hinge forms a V-shaped notch in cross section across the panel during thermal molding [Figs. 6-9, 0013-0014, 0038-0039].
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 V-shaped notch to form the improve the fold in the panel of modified Bracke. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have3 been the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 8, defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, the claim is a product-by-process claim. 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 two bent edges formed at a V-shaped notch. The references suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 10, modified Bracke through Devaguptapu does not teach that a fold at the edges is made by forming a triangular notch is formed on a portion of the honeycomb part where the first and second edges are folded, and the first and second edges are in contact with each other by being bent at the triangular notch.
Preisler teaches a method of making a hinge in a honeycomb panel to make a fold in the panel [Abstract]. The hinge forms a triangular shaped notch in cross section across the panel during thermal molding [Figs. 6-9, 0013-0014, 0038-0039].
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 triangular shaped notch to form the improve the fold in the panel of modified Bracke. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 10, defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, the claim is a product-by-process claim. 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 two bent edges formed at a triangular notch. The references suggests such a product.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights