Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/412,859

CONTINUOUS MANUFACTURING METHOD OF ACOUSTIC TRANSMISSION LOSS PANELS WITH RESONATOR NETWORK CORES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 15, 2024
Examiner
MUSSER, BARBARA J
Art Unit
1746
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
B/E Aerospace, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
591 granted / 834 resolved
+5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
862
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 834 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanfant et al.(WO 2022/157440A1) US Publication 2024/0042671 is considered an English language translation and all paragraph numbers refer thereto. Lanfant et al. discloses a method comprising feeding a first film into a pair of stacked cylindrical rollers rotating in opposite directions to continuously form a plurality of resonator chambers comprising a volume extending from the film, one roller having a plurality of protrusions and the other a plurality of dimples.(Figure 3) The reference discloses assembly with the second film can be done in a continuous process instead of the conditioning roll(5).[0014] The panels can be cut from the continuous supply at the exit.[0016] The reference does not disclose the film is supplied from a roll, though it does disclose a “film supply system”.[0018] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to supply the first film from a roll since it is extremely well-known and conventional to supply films on rolls and it would have been obvious for this reason. Regarding claim 11, Lafant et al. shows winding the formed first film rather than immediately joining it to a second film(Figure 3). While it does not explicitly disclose cutting the first film and then joining it to a second film, it does disclose that assembly can be done in the continuous line or separately.[0014] One in the art would appreciate that assembling them separately would require the first and second films to have been cut into sheets which are assembly as otherwise they would not be joined “separately” from the continuous process, and that joining pre-cut sheets is an obvious alternative to joining them in a continuous process. Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lanfant et al. discloses heating above the melting temperature, which would be above the glass transition temperature.[0012] As the rollers are not heated, contact with them would cool the films. Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lanfant et al. shows the resonator chambers can form a right n-agonal frustum(an n sided pyramid with the top cut off, Figure 1, [0065]) Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lanfant et al. the tips of the pyramids are missing, i.e. the film has holes in it at the tips of the pyramids.(Figure 2) Regarding claims 6 and 16, while Lanfant et al. discloses the holes can be pierced, which is considered a form of punching.[0046] Regarding claims 7 and 17, the resonator chambers and holes for a centered rectangular lattice.(Figure 1) Regarding claims 8 and 18, the holes are the at top of the pyramids(if the panel is flipped over) not the sides.(Figure 2) One in the art would appreciate the top and bottom are simply to differentiate from the sides as the core is not in any location that its relationship to gravity matters and that the top and bottom are functionally equivalent. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lanfant et al. discloses the two films can be joined together by welding.[0068] Claim(s) 4, 10, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanfant et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of JP S60244523. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lanfant et al. does not disclose using a vacuum to form the resonator core. JP S60244523 discloses it is known in the panel forming arts to use a vacuum to form pull the film into the dimples of a pair of rolls(machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use a vacuum to help pull the film into the dimples since JP S60244523 teaches this is known in the panel forming arts(machine translation) and since this would aid in getting the film into the crevasses of the roll. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Lanfant et al. does not show the panel has connections between the resonator chambers. JP S60244523 shows a formed panel with interconnected features between chambers formed by interconnections on the rolls.(Figure 2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing make a panel with the shape of JP S60244523 having interconnections between the chambers since JP S60244523 teaches this is a known alternative shape for panels(Figures 3 versus Figure 5). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays. 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. BARBARA J. MUSSER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1746 /BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599507
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING AN ELASTIC LAMINATE AND A DISPOSABLE ABSORBENT HYGIENE PRODUCT COMPRISING THE ELASTIC LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589559
AUTOMATED FIBER PLACEMENT ASSEMBLY WITH PRESSURE ROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575978
Method for Manufacturing Absorbent Sanitary Products
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565029
FUNCTIONAL FABRIC OBTAINED BY RECYCLING SEPARATOR FOR SECONDARY BATTERY, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558851
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A GATHERED MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+27.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 834 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month