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 .
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 1 and 3-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the honeycomb structure" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-12 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 states “at least one cap (9) produced integral with the unit cell (4) and located on only one of the lateral walls (6) extending outward from at least one of the lateral walls (6)” would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention since it states the cap is “located on only one of the lateral walls” but then states “extending outward from at least one of the lateral walls” which appears to be in conflict with the former statement, e.g., the cap could be located on more than one of the lateral walls.
Claims 3-12 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 1 states “such that the unit cell (4) takes the final shape desired by the manufacture” which is indefinite because it fails to define the shape of the unit cell; so, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have not understood what shape is required of the unit cell in order to distinctly define the metes and bounds of claim 1.
Claims 3-6 and 8-12 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 9 states “which is cut by the manufacturer to be produced” which would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, Xie teaches a honeycomb structure (10) consisting of a plurality of unit cells of hexagonal form thanks to lateral walls, at least one opening located on the surfaces of the unit cells, a plurality of lateral walls on the unit cell, which form the unit cell consecutive and adjacent extending along the honeycomb structure, and at least one cap (11) produced integral with the unit cell and extending outward from at least one of the lateral walls to at least partially cover the opening; wherein the cap is formed by folding/bending by the manufacturer to at least partially cover the opening (para 25-28; fig 1). Xie further teaches the honeycomb structure is bonded (e.g., glue) to an upper and lower panel (para 1-3).
Therefore, Xie would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a sandwich panel structure (1) comprising at least a first plate (2) and at least a second plate (3) opposite the first plate (2), which are suitable for use in sandwich panels; a plurality of unit cells (4) located between the first plate (2) and the second plate (3); at least one opening (5) located on the surfaces of the unit cell (4) facing the first plate (2) and the second plate (3); a plurality of lateral walls (6) on the unit cell (4), which form the unit cell (4) consecutive and adjacent extending along the honeycomb structure (7); at least one honeycomb structure (7) consisting of unit cells (4); at least one adhesive (8) between the honeycomb structure (7) and the first plate (2) and the second plate (3), which enables the adhesion of the honeycomb structure (7) to the first plate (2) and the second plate (3), wherein at least one cap (9) produced integral with the unit cell (4) extending outward from at least one of the lateral walls (6) to at least partially cover the opening (5) and allowing the unit cell (4) to be connected to the first plate (2) and/or the second plate (3) by means of the adhesive (8) such that the unit cell (4) takes the final shape desired by the manufacturer; wherein the cap (9) formed by folding/bending by the manufacturer to at least partially cover the opening (5); and wherein the unit cell (4) with a hexagonal form thanks to the lateral walls (6) thereof, wherein a cap (9) with a trapezoidal shape is provided on the lateral wall (6).
Regarding the limitations “and located on only one of the lateral walls (6);” and wherein at least a first sheet that enables the formation of the unit cell; at least a second sheet mirror symmetrical to the first sheet, which is adhered gradually to the first sheet so as to be opposite the first sheet with a distance therebetween; the unit cell (4) formed by the space between the adhered first sheet and the second sheet;” Xie teaches the structure of the instant claims but fails to expressly teach these embodiments. However, in arriving at these embodiments, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely making the structure through smaller separable components and adhering them together. Making separable is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VC). Furthermore, Xie teaches the honeycomb structures are glued together (para 3). Making the components separable also comes with the additional motivation of being able to more easily building the honeycomb structure to scale for in-situ applications.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 11, Xie teaches the purposes of its caps (e.g., plane blocks) are to greatly increase the bonding area to improve adhesion force, and the plane blocks effectively solve problem of the honeycomb core and panels separating caused by small contact area of the core with the panel (para 33); so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the number, size, and shape of the plane blocks on the honeycomb core and in the panel to optimize the bonding area and to improve adhesion force between the honeycomb and the outer panels of the sandwich board.
Furthermore, it is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the honeycomb core of Xie with the dimensions (i.e., size and shape of the panel blocks) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention. In addition, duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the limitation of the instant claims are a product by process limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claims 9 and 10 and the product of Xie.
Regarding claim 12, Xie teaches its embodiments are used for packaging materials and are light weight, small material consumption, low cost, has high strength, difficult deformation, impact resistance, good buffering performance, and further comprises sound absorbing and heat insulation (para 2-3); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use it in the packaging materials for products used in air and/or space vehicles or delivered by air vehicles where these properties would be desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gadsden Lopez et al (US 2018/0274222 A1 & US 2020/0291633 A1) teaches laminate cells wherein the laminate cells are capped (para 3, 19-23, 63, 64; figs 1-2). Bradford teaches sandwich-like products (e.g., honeycomb products) wherein the honeycomb product has a generally planar upper surface (i.e., caps or covers) (abstract, para 82).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
