2024DETAILED 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 .
Applicant submission filed December 18, 2024, has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-12, 15-16, 19-24, 26-27, 29-31 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou et al (US 9,447,576 B2) in view of Wilson [REF A] (US 6,827,180 B2) and Wilson [REF B] (US 5,785,919).
In regards to claim 1, Liou teaches an acoustic panel for absorbing sound (DDoF acoustic panel [20; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 45), the acoustic panel comprising: a first sheet (a top skin [22; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 56) having spaced first perforations extending therethrough (perforations or pores in the top skin and septum are not shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 for ease of illustration, col 3 lines 46-48; first perforations [32; FIG 1-6], col 4 lines 55-61), a second sheet (a septum [23; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 56) having second perforations extending therethrough (col 3 lines 46-48; second perforations [34; FIG 1-6], col 4 lines 55-61), the second perforations being more widely spaced apart than the first microperforations of the first sheet (the first perforations [32; FIG 6] included in the top skin [22] may be greater than the quantity of the second perforations [34] included in the septum [23], col 5 lines 18-20); and a first cellular core sandwiched between the first sheet and the second sheet (two independent layers of core structure [25, 26; FIG 2], col 3 lines 65-67), wherein the first cellular core comprises a plurality of cells having a primary cell depth extending between the first sheet and the second sheet (cavities [44, 46; FIG 2], col 4 line 20); hereby providing an effective secondary cell depth extending beyond the primary cell depth ([44, 46; FIG 2], col 4 line 20).
Liou does not explicitly teach having spaced first micro perforations extending therethrough, the first microperforations providing an open area of the first sheet of less than 5% of an overall area of the first sheet; having second micro perforations extending therethrough; whereby approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core communicate directly with a one of the second microperforations extending through the second sheet, while a remainder of the plurality of cells do not communicate with one of the second microperforations extending through the second sheet providing an effective cell depth of the primary cell depth.
However, Liou teaches that the perforations [32, 34; FIG 1-6] can be any size or shape (e.g., round, oval, tear drop-shaped) as desired for the particular application, (col 4 lines 54-55), attenuating for target frequencies (col 1 lines 29-46), and that one or more of the cavities [44] may each fluidly couple one or more of the first perforations [32] with one or more of the second perforations [34]. One or more of the cavities [46] may each be fluidly coupled with one or [60] more of the second perforations [34] and, thus, one or more respective cavities [44], (col 4 lines 55-61).
Wilson [REF A], in the same field of endeavor, does teach micro perforations (Wilson [A], current noise attenuation panel constructions use perforate facing sheets with holes typically of diameter between 0.020" (0.508 mm) and 0.060" (1.524 mm) positioned in an equip-spaced triangular array such as to provide open areas within the limits of 3 and 20%, col 1 lines 50-53; A facing sheet considered to be suitable comprised holes with a hole diameter of 0.002 to 0.003", col 2 lines 10-15), and further teaches the first microperforations providing an open area of the first sheet of less than 5% of an overall area of the first sheet (Wilson [A], 3 to 6% of the total area of said plate, col 2 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the size of the perforations of Liou such that they were microperforations with a total open area of 3-6% as in Wilson [A] to meet specific and target flow resistances while providing effective noise absorption, as it is explicitly stated in Liou that the size, and shape may be modified, as well as the distribution and spacing (Liou, FIG 3-6).
Wilson [REF B], in the same field of endeavor, teaches a double degree of freedom apertured acoustic panel, where the number of apertures in the septum dividing the cells can vary to allow for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], it may be to advantage for other applications to arrange for the number of apertures within the cell dividing wall portions to vary throughout the wall structure with the aim of providing a structural component in which the acoustic absorbing characteristics vary from one region to another of the structural component being formed, col 12 lines 50-65), and that the wall structure can either be porous or non-porous, and porous or microporous (Wilson [B], col 19 lines 30-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide a septum such that only a portion of the septum had the second perforations, as it allows for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], col 12 lines 50-65), and target wave patterns for attenuation [Wilson [B], col 19 lines 45-50.
Liou does not teach approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to further modify Liou such that approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core communicate directly with a one of the second microperforations extending through the second sheet, as to tune the structure to a desired target frequency with varying regions of absorption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 2, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein the first microperforations provide a larger open area of the first sheet than a respective open area provided by the second microperforations of the second sheet (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 6), the open area of each said sheet determined by diameter and/or spacing of the respective microperforations (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 6).
In regards to claim 3, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 2, wherein the larger open area of the first sheet is substantially provided by closer spacing of the first microperforations of the first sheet compared to respectively wider spacing of the second microperforations of the second sheet (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 6).
In regards to claim 4, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 3.
Modified Liou does not teach wherein the first sheet includes at least some of the first microperforations of a different diameter compared to the diameter of at least some of the second microperforations of the second sheet.
However, Wilson [REF A], teaches acoustic cells with varying diameters of the first sheet (Wilson [A], FIG 4), and Wilson [REF B] teaches acoustic cells with varying diameters of the septum (Wilson [B], FIG 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine these teachings and modify the structure of the first sheet and septum of Liou such that some of the first microperforations were of a different diameter than the microperforations of the second sheet as having a hole size which varies over the first sheet allows for optimum attenuation performance over a predetermined range of gaseous flow conditions (Wilson [A], col 2 line 63 – col 3 line 5), and it allows for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], col 12 lines 50-65) to target wave patterns for attenuation [Wilson [B], col 19 lines 45-50.
In regards to claim 6, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein there are substantially half as many second microperforations per unit area through the second sheet than there are first microperforations per unit area through the first sheet (Liou, [32, 34; FIG 6], col 5 line 10-20).
In regards to claim 7, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 6, wherein there is at least one first micro perforation in the first sheet for each said cell in the first cellular core (Liou, one or more of the cavities [44; FIG 1-6] may each fluidly couple one or more of the first perforations [32], col 4 lines 55-57).
In regards to claim 8, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 6.
Modified Liou does not teach wherein there are approximately half as many second microperforations per unit area in the second sheet as the number of cells per unit area in the first cellular core, whatever the respective micro perforation diameters are in the first and second sheets.
However, Wilson [REF B], in the same field of endeavor, teaches a double degree of freedom apertured acoustic panel, where the number of apertures in the septum dividing the cells can vary to allow for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], it may be to advantage for other applications to arrange for the number of apertures within the cell dividing wall portions to vary throughout the wall structure with the aim of providing a structural component in which the acoustic absorbing characteristics vary from one region to another of the structural component being formed. col 12 lines 50-65), and that the wall structure can either be porous or non-porous, and porous or microporous (Wilson [B], col 19 lines 30-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide a septum such that only a portion of the septum had the second perforations, as it allows for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], col 12 lines 50-65), and target wave patterns for attenuation [Wilson [B], col 19 lines 45-50.
Liou does not teach approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to further modify Liou such that approximately there are approximately half as many second microperforations per unit area in the second sheet as the number of cells per unit area in the first cellular core, as to tune the structure to a desired target frequency with varying regions of absorption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 9, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, further including a third sheet (Liou, bottom skin [24; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 61) spaced from the first sheet and the second sheet (Liou, [22, 23, 24; FIG 2]) such that the second sheet is intermediate between the first sheet and the third sheet (Liou, [22, 23, 24; FIG 2]), and a second cellular core is between the second sheet and the third sheet (Liou, [26; FIG 2], col 3 lines 65-67).
In regards to claim 10, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein the cells of the first cellular core are the same or smaller in diameter (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 3-6) than cells of the second cellular core (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 3-6).
In regards to claim 11, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein the cells of the first cellular core are of smaller depth (Liou, [22, 23, 24; FIG 2]) to absorb relatively higher frequency acoustic waves in combination with the microperforated first sheet, than a total thickness of the panel in combination with the micro perforated second sheet (where the structure of the invention meets the claims, this is necessarily fulfilled).
In regards to claim 12, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core are closed at their bases (this follows from the modification of claim 1).
In regards to claim 15, Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein the respective microperforations are between 0.1mm and 2.0mm diameter, preferably between 0.1mm and 1.0mm diameter, more preferably between 0.3mm and 0.8mm diameter (Wilson [A], col 1 lines 50-53; col 2 lines 10-15).
In regards to claim 16, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein the cells of the respective first or second cellular core are bonded to a respective internal face of the respective sheet (Liou, the stacked acoustic panel components 22-26 are bonded together, col 5 lines 32-33).
In regards to claim 19, Liou teaches a method of absorbing multiple sound frequencies ([20; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 45 ) by employing a first perforated sheet ([22; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 56; [32; FIG 1-6], col 4 lines 55-61), in association with a primary cell depth ([44, 46; FIG 2], col 4 line 20) of a first cellular core ([25, 26; FIG 2], col 3 lines 65-67) and a second perforated sheet ([23; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 56; col 3 lines 46-48; [34; FIG 1-6], col 4 lines 55-61) having perforations more widely spaced than the perforations of the first sheet ([32,34; FIG 6], col 5 lines 18-20) in association with a secondary cell depth ([44, 46; FIG 2], col 4 line 20) provided by the first cellular core in combination with a second cellular core ([25, 26; FIG 2], col 3 lines 65-67), or the first cellular core and an airgap (this limitation is in the alternative and as such has not been considered).
Liou does not explicitly teach by employing a first micro perforated sheet, comprising micro perforations providing an open area of the first sheet of less than 5% of an overall area of the first sheet, to absorb a peak (high) frequency of sound, a second micro perforated sheet having micro perforations more widely spaced than the micro perforations of the first sheet, and to additionally absorb a second (low) peak frequency.
However, Liou teaches that the perforations [32, 34; FIG 1-6] can be any size or shape (e.g., round, oval, tear drop-shaped) as desired for the particular application, (col 4 lines 54-55), attenuating for target frequencies (col 1 lines 29-46), and that one or more of the cavities [44] may each fluidly couple one or more of the first perforations [32] with one or more of the second perforations [34]. One or more of the cavities [46] may each be fluidly coupled with one or [60] more of the second perforations [34] and, thus, one or more respective cavities [44], (col 4 lines 55-61).
Wilson [REF A], in the same field of endeavor, does teach micro perforations (Wilson [A], current noise attenuation panel constructions use perforate facing sheets with holes typically of diameter between 0.020" (0.508 mm) and 0.060" (1.524 mm) positioned in an equi-spaced triangular array such as to provide open areas within the limits of 3 and 20%, col 1 lines 50-53; A facing sheet considered to be suitable comprised holes with a hole diameter of 0.002 to 0.003", col 2 lines 10-15), and further teaches the first microperforations providing an open area of the first sheet of less than 5% of an overall area of the first sheet (Wilson [A], 3 to 6% of the total area of said plate, col 2 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the size of the perforations of Liou such that they were microperforations with a total open area of 3-6% as in Wilson [A] to meet specific and target flow resistances while providing effective noise absorption, as it is explicitly stated in Liou that the size, and shape may be modified, as well as the distribution and spacing (Liou, FIG 3-6).
Modified Liou does not explicitly teach an upper core attenuated for high frequencies, and a lower core attenuated to low frequencies.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the cores structures such that they were attenuated to high and low frequencies to tune towards a desired range of target frequencies, as Liou does teach attenuating towards target frequencies (col 1 lines 29-46) and that a DDoF acoustic panel is distinguished in that the two different core structures allow for two target frequency bands (col 1 lines 29-34), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 20, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19, including providing a larger open area of the microperforations of the first sheet than the microperforations of the second sheet (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 6).
In regards to claim 21, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19, including connecting a proportion of the cells of the first cellular core to cells of the second cellular core (Liou, col 4 lines 55-61) or by connecting a proportion of the cells of the first cellular core (Liou, col 4 lines 55-61) to a space between the second sheet (Liou, col 4 lines 55-61) and a rear surface (Liou, [24; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 61) to provide an increased resonance depth (this function necessarily follows from the structure of the prior art), the connection provided by the microperforations in the second sheet (Liou, col 4 lines 55-61).
In regards to claim 22, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 21, including connecting approximately or substantially 50% of the cells of the first cellular core to respective cells of the second cellular core or to the space between the second sheet and the rear surface.
However, Wilson [REF B], in the same field of endeavor, teaches a double degree of freedom apertured acoustic panel, where the number of apertures in the septum dividing the cells can vary to allow for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], it may be to advantage for other applications to arrange for the number of apertures within the cell dividing wall portions to vary throughout the wall structure with the aim of providing a structural component in which the acoustic absorbing characteristics vary from one region to another of the structural component being formed. col 12 lines 50-65), and that the wall structure can either be porous or non-porous, and porous or microporous (Wilson [B], col 19 lines 30-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide a septum such that only a portion of the septum had the second perforations, as it allows for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], col 12 lines 50-65), and target wave patterns for attenuation [Wilson [B], col 19 lines 45-50.
Liou does not teach approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to further modify Liou such that approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core communicate directly with a one of the second microperforations extending through the second sheet, as to tune the structure to a desired target frequency with varying regions of absorption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 23, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19, wherein at least twice as many said microperforations are provided per unit area in the first sheet than in the second sheet (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 6).
In regards to claim 24, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19.
Modified Liou does not teach including providing at least some of the microperforations in the first sheet of a different diameter compared to the diameter of at least some of the microperforations of the second sheet.
However, Wilson [REF A], teaches acoustic cells with varying diameters of the first sheet (Wilson [A], FIG 4), and Wilson [REF B] teaches acoustic cells with varying diameters of the septum (Wilson [B], FIG 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine these teachings and modify the structure of the first sheet and septum of Liou such that some of the first microperforations were of a different diameter than the microperforations of the second sheet as having a hole size which varies over the first sheet allows for optimum attenuation performance over a predetermined range of gaseous flow conditions (Wilson [A], col 2 line 63 – col 3 line 5), and it allows for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], col 12 lines 50-65) to target wave patterns for attenuation [Wilson [B], col 19 lines 45-50.
In regards to claim 26, Liou teaches the method of claim 19, including providing at least some of the microperforations in the first sheet of the same diameter (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 3-6) compared to the diameter of at least some of the microperforations of the second sheet (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 3-6).
In regards to claim 27, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19, including providing at least one micro perforation in the first sheet for each respective said cell in the first cellular core (Liou, 32, 34; FIG 6).
Modified Liou does not teach providing approximately half as many microperforations per unit area in the second sheet as the number of cells per unit area in the first cellular core, whatever the respective micro perforation diameters are in the first and second sheets.
In regards to claim 29, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19, including providing a third sheet (Liou, bottom skin [24; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 61) spaced from the first sheet and the second sheet such that the second sheet is intermediate between the first sheet and the third sheet (Liou, [22, 23, 24; FIG 2]), and a second cellular core is between the second sheet and the third sheet (Liou, [26; FIG 2], col 3 lines 65-67).
In regards to claim 30, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19, including providing the cells of the first cellular core of smaller depth (Liou, [22, 23, 24; FIG 2]) in combination with the first sheet to absorb relatively higher frequency acoustic waves than a total thickness of the panel in combination with the microperforated second sheet (where the structure of the invention meets the claims, this is necessarily fulfilled).
In regards to claim 31, modified Liou teaches the method of claim 19, including providing approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core closed at their bases, or providing approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core open at their bases corresponding to the microperforations of the second sheet.
However, Wilson [REF B], in the same field of endeavor, teaches a double degree of freedom apertured acoustic panel, where the number of apertures in the septum dividing the cells can vary to allow for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], it may be to advantage for other applications to arrange for the number of apertures within the cell dividing wall portions to vary throughout the wall structure with the aim of providing a structural component in which the acoustic absorbing characteristics vary from one region to another of the structural component being formed. col 12 lines 50-65), and that the wall structure can either be porous or non-porous, and porous or microporous (Wilson [B], col 19 lines 30-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide a septum such that only a portion of the septum had the second perforations, as it allows for a structure that has acoustic absorbing characteristics varying from one region to another (Wilson [B], col 12 lines 50-65), and target wave patterns for attenuation [Wilson [B], col 19 lines 45-50.
Liou does not teach approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to further modify Liou such that approximately 50% of the cells in the first cellular core communicate directly with a one of the second microperforations extending through the second sheet, as to tune the structure to a desired target frequency with varying regions of absorption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 34, Liou teaches a perforated panel absorber ([20; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 45) comprising: a first planar metal sheet (each of the skins [22, 24; FIG 1-6] and septum(s) [23] may be constructed from plastics or composites (such as fiber reinforced thermo sets or thermoplastic matrices), or metals such as aluminum, titanium, Inconel, copper, etc., col 4 lines 36-39); a second planar metal sheet (col 4 lines 36-39); and a first core structure between the first sheet and the second sheet ([25, 26; FIG 2], col 3 lines 65-67), the first core structure comprising primary cells having a primary cell depth ([44, 46; FIG 2], col 4 line 20); wherein: the first sheet having formed therein perforations ([22; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 56; [32; FIG 1-6], col 4 lines 55-61), and the second sheet having formed therein perforations ([23; FIG 1 & 2], col 3 line 56; col 3 lines 46-48; [34; FIG 1-6], col 4 lines 55-61), said perforations being more widely spaced than the microperforations of the first sheet (32, 34; FIG 6).
Liou does not teach microperforations in the first and second sheets, and that said microperforations providing an open area of the first sheet of less than 5% of the overall area of the first sheet;
However, Liou teaches that the perforations [32, 34; FIG 1-6] can be any size or shape (e.g., round, oval, tear drop-shaped) as desired for the particular application, (col 4 lines 54-55), attenuating for target frequencies (col 1 lines 29-46), and that one or more of the cavities [44] may each fluidly couple one or more of the first perforations [32] with one or more of the second perforations [34]. One or more of the cavities [46] may each be fluidly coupled with one or [60] more of the second perforations [34] and, thus, one or more respective cavities [44], (col 4 lines 55-61).
Wilson [REF A], in the same field of endeavor, does teach micro perforations (Wilson [A], current noise attenuation panel constructions use perforate facing sheets with holes typically of diameter between 0.020" (0.508 mm) and 0.060" (1.524 mm) positioned in an equi-spaced triangular array such as to provide open areas within the limits of 3 and 20%, col 1 lines 50-53; A facing sheet considered to be suitable comprised holes with a hole diameter of 0.002 to 0.003", col 2 lines 10-15), and further teaches the first microperforations providing an open area of the first sheet of less than 5% of an overall area of the first sheet (Wilson [A], 3 to 6% of the total area of said plate, col 2 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the size of the perforations of Liou such that they were microperforations with a total open area of 3-6% as in Wilson [A] to meet specific and target flow resistances while providing effective noise absorption, as it is explicitly stated in Liou that the size, and shape may be modified, as well as the distribution and spacing (Liou, FIG 3-6).
In regards to claim 35, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein the respective microperforations are between 0.1 mm and 1.0 mm diameter (Wilson [A], col 1 lines 50-53; col 2 lines 10-15).
In regards to claim 36, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein the respective microperforations are between 0.3 mm and 0.8 mm diameter (Wilson [A], col 1 lines 50-53; col 2 lines 10-15).
In regards to claim 37, modified Liou teaches the acoustic panel of claim 1.
Modified Liou does not teach wherein the acoustic panel is configured to attenuate low frequency sound below 1000Hz.
However, Liou teaches that the perforations [32, 34; FIG 1-6] can be any size or shape (e.g., round, oval, tear drop-shaped) as desired for the particular application, (col 4 lines 54-55), attenuating for target frequencies (col 1 lines 29-46), and that one or more of the cavities [44] may each fluidly couple one or more of the first perforations [32] with one or more of the second perforations [34]. One or more of the cavities [46] may each be fluidly coupled with one or [60] more of the second perforations [34] and, thus, one or more respective cavities [44], (col 4 lines 55-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to tune the acoustic panel of modified Liou such that it attenuated low frequency sound below 1000 Hz as acoustic panels are commonly used in duct work, around aircraft cabins, as well as other propagating structures where low frequency attenuation is prioritized, and it is clearly taught that the structure can be attenuated towards target frequency. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Particularly, in regards to applicants argument that the modified embodiment of Liou in view of Wilson [B] would not be obvious nor teach “a remainder of the plurality of first cells do not communicate with one of the second microperforations extending through the second sheet providing an effective cell depth of the primary cell depth.,” stating that “Wilson B teaches a panel arrangement in which each sub cell 151
communicates with an aperture 18 extending through the secondary wall structure 16 and thereby communicates with each corresponding sub cell 152.”
However, applicants very next argument cites col 19 lines 39-40 of Wilson [B] which reads “The new secondary wall structure can either be porous or non-porous. The structure 14 can also be porous or microporous,” clearly stating that each sub cell does not need to be communicating via an aperture through the secondary wall structure and further supporting the above rejection. This is further seen in col 10 lines 35-40, “The method of manufacturing the cell dividing portion 17 of the secondary wall structure 16 of the component 12 as shown in FIG. 1 can however readily be modified to produce apertured cell dividing portions 17 within each primary cell 15 which include apertures providing complex communication paths between the sub cells 151 and 152.” Also see col 21 lines 50-67 which teaches a combination of porous and non-porous septums. It is clear Wilson teaches both porous, and non-porous septums dividing the sub cells.
In regards to Applicants argument that Wilson [B] does not teach the secondary wall structure being microporous, ignoring that Wilson [B] was not relied on for micropores, this appears to be a misreading of the prior art as given context of the prior art as a whole, such as every figure where only the septums of the cell structure (not including face sheet and backing sheet) are porous, and the explicit statements such as col 17 lines 35-40 “The walls of the cells 15 of the cellular component 12 are preferably made from a non-porous impermeable sheet,” and, col 22 lines 14-23, “While the embodiments of the invention hereinbefore described with reference to the drawings have been directed primarily to the structural components in which the primary wall structure 14 includes primary cells 15 having walls which are imperforate and a secondary wall structure 16 including cell dividing septum portions 17 which are apertured, the method according to the invention can equally well be applied for the production of structural components in which the primary wall structure is apertured or of a porous material,” clearly direct the teachings, microporous, as an alternative using already known techniques. As such even given that it is not explicitly stated that the septums apertures, being porous or non-porous, can also be microporous, it is clearly implied by the prior art.
However, Wilson A was relied on for micropores in the rejection, and given the method of the prior art of Liou for creating the pores, would result in micropores in the septum or be an obvious modification given the combination as stated above in the rejection. As such this argument does not properly address the rejection above, and is considered unpersuasive.
Applicants argument that the combination of Liou and Wilson B would not result in the aforementioned structure, is Liou provides only fluidly connected sub cells, ignores the combination of the structures. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is clear that it is within the scope of the combined structure, and as given above in the rejection would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least the reasons given above the arguments are considered unpersuasive, and the rejection made final.
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 Joseph J Illicete whose telephone number is (703)756-4564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0730 - 1630 EST.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JOSEPH JAMES PETER ILLICETE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights