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
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/04/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that no serious burden exists in examining all the pending claims and the Office Action mailed 03/04/2026 does not “show by appropriate explanation” why one of the reasons imposes an undue burden (Remarks, p. 5). This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the Examiner may be prima facie shown if the Examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement clearly meets this requirement. Specifically, the Office Action mailed 03/04/2026 shows at least, the inventions have a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications at p.2 and the inventions have divergent subject matter at p. 2-4. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the Applicant, an unsupported statement by Applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as an “appropriate showing” or “evidence”. See MPEP § 803.
Further, the Applicant argues that classification B32B 3/20 is not appropriate for any of the Groups. While the examiner agrees that Group II and III would not fall in this classification because as the Applicant notes the core is not a singular layer structure in Group II and Group III is drawn to a method and not the layered product. However, Group I requires a core structure including a second skin and a unit (i.e., at least two layers), wherein the unit includes a TPMS core (i.e., a discontinuous layer having cavities). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is the examiner's position that Group I would be properly classified in B32B 3/20, while Groups II and III would not. Classification B33Y 10/00 is only appropriate for method claims and therefore not the product claims of Groups I and II. Therefore, only Group III is classified in B33Y 10/00. Thus, there is a separate status in the art in view of the different classification.
As stated in the prior Office Action, the claims of the present application contain distinct inventions. A search of these inventions may overlap, but the search of one invention does not include all the areas required for the others. A serious burden does exist, as different searches are required for each invention. Therefore, in order to ensure the quality of the search and examination, these inventions should be searched separately to account for their differences.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 5, in line 2 after “both” and before “.”, it is suggested to insert “the first skin and the second skin”, in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 10, in line 3 after “TPMS” and before “has” insert “core”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenhouten et al. (US 2020/0114573) (Tenhouten) in view of Additively manufactured mechanical metamaterials based on triply periodic minimal surfaces: Performance, challenges, and application (Sharma).
In reference to claims 1-2 and 8-10, Tenhouten teaches a panel including a top face sheet, a bottom face sheet and a core disposed between the top and bottom face sheets ([0117]) (corresponding to a core structure panel comprising a first skin; a core; and a second skin). The core is an additively manufactured (AM) lattice core ([0117]; [0118]). The face sheets may be co-printed with the additively manufactured core or affixed to the additively manufactured core directly via an adhesive layer ([123]; [0124]; claim 16).
Given that Tenhouten teaches the face sheets and core can be built as one continuous AM build or the face sheets may be affixed to the core via an adhesive layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to build the bottom face sheet and AM core as one continuous AM build and affix the top sheet to the core via an adhesive layer, which is both disclosed by Tenhouten and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention (corresponding to a first skin and a core additively manufactured as a unit; and a second skin coupled to the core, wherein the core is positioned between the first skin and the second skin; the second skin is adhered to the core).
Alternatively, Tenhouten further teaches the core is printed such that density of material is increased across the core until a solid interface is formed, e.g., a gradual transition from a low-density core, to an intermediate density core to untimely a completely filled density core (i.e., solid interface part) ([0162]) (corresponding to a first skin and a core additively manufactured as a unit; the TPMS core has a density gradient between the first skin and the second skin; the TPMS core has a first density near the first skin that decreases to a second density near the second skin; the TPMS core has a first density near the first skin that decreases to a second density at a first position between the first skin and the second skin, and wherein the TPMS has a third density near the second skin that decreases to the second density at the first position). Outer skins are added to the core ([0162]) (corresponding to a second skin coupled to the core, wherein the core is positioned between the first skin and the second skin).
Tenhouten does not explicitly teach the core is a triply periodic minimal surface, as presently claimed. However, Tenhouten teaches the core is a lattice-type structure and may take a variety of shapes depending on the most ideal structural optimization for the panel application at issue ([0120]; [0124]).
Sharma teaches lattice structures with architecture base on triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) have mathematically controlled topologies which gives rise to predefined and fascinating mechanical properties (Abstract). TPMS-based metamaterials are suitable for energy absorbing and load-carrying applications and may have better mechanical properties than other lattice types (p. 5077, 5101).
In light of the motivation of Sharma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the lattice core of Tenhouten be a lattice core based on TPMS structure, in order to provide desirable bending performance and energy absorption capacity and further to provide a core that can be precisely represented through mathematical functions, directly influencing fundamental properties thereof, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 5, Tenhouten in view of Sharma teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tenhouten further teaches one or more additional plies deposited between the additively manufactured core or adhesive layer and the face sheet to optimize the core for the intended structural application ([0124]). The face sheet may be a composite layup, which includes plies ([0121]) (corresponding to further comprising one or more plies coupled to the first skin, the second skin, or both). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include additional plies on the adhesive layer and a face sheet of plies overlaying the additional plies, in order to optimize the core and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 6, Tenhouten in view of Sharma teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tenhouten further teaches two panel sections having custom cores are configured to fixably attach to one another via a slide-in feature ([0176]) (corresponding to the core structure panel comprises a plurality of units coupled together by interlocking features of corresponding TPMS cores of the plurality of units).
In reference to claim 7, Tenhouten in view of Sharma teaches the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Tenhouten further teaches two panel sections having custom cores are configured to attach to one another via a slide-in features using receiving sections at an interface of one panel and a protruding sections at the interface of the other panel ([0177]) (corresponding to a first particular unit of the plurality of units includes a plurality of protrusions, wherein a second particular unit of the plurality of units includes a corresponding plurality of openings, and wherein the interlocking features between the first particular unit and the second particular unit are press fit connections of the plurality of protrusions in the corresponding plurality of openings).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenhouten in view of Guo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 113103628) (Huang).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 113103628. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided translation.
In reference to claims 3 and 4, Tenhouten in view of Sharma teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Tenhouten in view of Sharma does not explicitly teach a seal around the core, wherein the seal couples the first skin and the second skin, as presently claimed.
Huang teaches a honeycomb composite sandwich structure with sealed edges ([0004]). The lower skin warps the edges of the honeycomb body and overlaps with the upper skin ([0012]; [0047]) (corresponding to a seal around the TPMS core, wherein the seal couples the first skin to the second skin). A foaming adhesive is applied to the edges of the honeycomb core material, wherein the foaming material supports the edges ([0027]; [0044]). Huang further teaches the configuration reduces repair work, ensures accurate product dimensions, seals the edges properly and enhances overall integrity and increases the strength ([0027]; [0028]; [0029]; [0047]).
In light of the motivation of Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include a foaming adhesive around the edge of the core of Tenhouten in view of Sharma and wrap the outer layer of Tenhouten in view of Sharma around the edge of the core, in order to enhance the overall integrity and increase the strength of the structure and provide a seal to the edge of the structure, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Winkler et al. (US 2022/0366886), Mendoza et al. (US 2023/0286639), Elford (US 2024/0256718), Elford (US 2024/0095423) and Novel triply periodic minimal surfaces sandwich structures: Mechanical performance and failure analysis, is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. However, the rejections using these references would be cumulative to the rejections of record set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights