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 § 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 12, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0044621 A1, cited in IDS submitted May 9, 2025) in view of Harper-Tervet et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,925,721).
Regarding claim 12, Strauss discloses a structural panel (Abstract of Strauss, honeycomb structure; FIGS. 33-34 of Strauss, honeycomb structure provided with facings to form a sheet or panel) that comprises a combined material honeycomb core ([0100] of Strauss, honeycomb can be made from different ribbons comprising different substances and is therefore a “combined material”) that comprises: a first face; (FIG. 34 of Strauss, one of the outer faces of the panel) a second face (FIG. 34 of Strauss, the other outer face of the panel); a plurality of cells formed of multiple materials ([0100] of Strauss, honeycomb can be made from different ribbons comprising different substances; cells of honeycomb would therefore also comprise multiple materials), wherein the multiple materials comprise a first metallic material and either a meta-aramid material or a second metallic material different from the first metallic material ([0099] of Strauss, ribbons can be metals such as aluminum, copper, stainless steel, titanium, nickel, etc.); a first facesheet attached to the first face of the combined material honeycomb core ([0189] of Strauss, face sheets attached to both open faces of core); and a second facesheet attached to the second face of the combined material honeycomb core ([0189] of Strauss, face sheets attached to both open faces of core).
Strauss does not specifically disclose that the first and second face sheets are adhered to the core. Harper, however, discloses a honeycomb core structure wherein the face sheets are attached to the core using an adhesive (Abstract of Harper). The resulting honeycomb structure is disclosed as a structural material (1:6-8 of Harper). Accordingly, the adhesive used to manufacture the panel could also be considered as a “structural adhesive”.
Regarding claim 13, Strauss does not specifically disclose that the first facesheet and the second facesheet are formed of different materials. Harper, however, discloses that the honeycomb core structure is formed from dissimilar face sheets (Abstract of Harper, honeycomb structure comprising one face sheet made of aluminum alloy and one face sheet made of titanium). According to Harper, the resulting panel is capable of extremely low temperature exposure on the aluminum facesheet side and extremely high temperatures on the titanium facesheet side without inducing unacceptable thermal stress (2:5-10 of Harper). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified honeycomb structure with facesheets of different materials. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the properties of each face of the sheet for a specific end use application as taught by Harper (2:5-10 of Harper).
Regarding claim 15, Harper discloses: a first layer of structural adhesive between the first facesheet and the first face of the combined material honeycomb core; and a second layer of structural adhesive between the second facesheet and the second face of the combined material honeycomb core, the first layer of structural adhesive and the second layer of structural adhesive formed of a same adhesive material (FIG. 1 of Harper, adhesive layers #18a #18b; 3:16-21 of Harper, same adhesive used for both facesheets).
Regarding claim 17, Strauss discloses that the combined material honeycomb core is expanded ([0098] of Strauss, honeycomb made by expanding bonded ribbons).
Regarding claim 18, Strauss discloses that the combined material honeycomb core comprise corrugated layers of the multiple materials ([0023] of Strauss, ribbons cane be corrugated).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss in view of Harper as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Yerbolat et al. “Composite Materials Property Determination by Rule of Mixture and Monte Carlo Simulation.” 2018 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Manufacturing, 2018, pp. 384-387, cited in IDS submitted May 9, 2025).
Regarding claim 16, Strauss does not specifically disclose that a ratio of the first metallic material and the meta-aramid material determines a value of at least one of: a weight, a strength to weight ratio, a volume density, a compressive strength, a shear strength, a heat transfer, an electrical shielding, an insulation, or a fatigue strength, of the combined material honeycomb core. Strauss, however, discloses that the basic materials used for the honeycomb can be varied to achieve desired macroscopic effects in the honeycomb manufactured ([0187] of Strauss). Yerbolat discloses that the proportion of the individual components of a hybrid or multi-component material can be used to estimate the properties of the material (Section II spanning pp. 384-385 of Yerbolat). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the ratio of the materials used to form the ribbons in the stack in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a honeycomb core with desired properties as taught by Yerbolat (Section II spanning pp. 384-385 of Yerbolat).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss in view of Harper as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Cheng et al. (“3D printed continuous fiber reinforced composite lightweight structures: A review and outlook”, Composites Part B, 250 110450, 30 November 2022).
Regarding claim 19, Strauss does not specifically disclose that the multiple materials comprise three dimensionally printed layers. Cheng, however, discloses 3-D printed honeycomb structure (Abstract, FIG. 4a of Cheng). According to Cheng, the ise of 3-D printing improves the mechanical performance of the structures (¶ spanning pp. 1-2 of Cheng). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 3-D printing to form the honeycomb core of the modified panel. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the mechanical performance of the structures as taught by Cheng (¶ spanning pp. 1-2 of Cheng).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 20 are allowed.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18, the closest prior art is to Strauss. Strauss discloses a structural panel (Abstract of Strauss, honeycomb structure; FIGS. 33-34 of Strauss, honeycomb structure provided with facings to form a sheet or panel) that comprises a combined material honeycomb core ([0100] of Strauss, honeycomb can be made from different ribbons comprising different substances and is therefore a “combined material”) that comprises: a first face; (FIG. 34 of Strauss, one of the outer faces of the panel) a second face (FIG. 34 of Strauss, the other outer face of the panel); a plurality of cells formed of multiple materials ([0100] of Strauss, honeycomb can be made from different ribbons comprising different substances; cells of honeycomb would therefore also comprise multiple materials), wherein the multiple materials comprise a first metallic material and either a meta-aramid material or a second metallic material different from the first metallic material ([0099] of Strauss, ribbons can be metals such as aluminum, copper, stainless steel, titanium, nickel, etc.); a first facesheet attached to the first face of the combined material honeycomb core ([0189] of Strauss, face sheets attached to both open faces of core); and a second facesheet attached to the second face of the combined material honeycomb core ([0189] of Strauss, face sheets attached to both open faces of core). Neither Strauss, however, nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest: a combined material honeycomb core as recited in claim 1 or a structural panel as recited in claim 20 wherein the plurality of cells are formed by alternating layers of multiple materials; or a structural panel as recited in claim 14 wherein the first facesheet comprises a metallic material and the second facesheet comprises a meta-aramid material. The prior art as a whole therefore fails to teach or reasonably suggest the totality of the invention as defined by claims 1, 14 and 20. In the absence of further prior art guidance, it would not have been obvious to arrive at the invention of these claims without impermissible hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, the invention of claims 1 and 20 is deemed non-obvious. Claims 2-11 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are therefore also deemed non-obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights