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.
Claims 1 – 11 and 14 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droeger (US 2,720,276).
With respect to claims 1, 23 and 24, Droeger teaches an enclosure (Fig.1) for reducing noise emitted from an aircraft powerplant (Fig.1, Item 12) comprising an air inlet (Fig.1, Items 13 and 14); an air outlet (Fig.1, Items 16 and 17); and at least one sidewall forming the enclosure and fluidly connecting the air inlet and the air outlet (Fig.1), wherein the at least one sidewall forms a noise reduction chamber comprising a plurality of channels (Figs.1 and 2, Items 15 and 18) configured to permit air to pass through the noise reduction chamber (Col.2, Line 67 – Col.3, Line 19).
However, Droeger fails to particularly disclose wherein the enclosure is attachable to an aircraft.
The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the Droeger teachings to an enclosure attachable to an aircraft because it would provide the known and established benefits of an enclosure design to reduce noise emitted by an aircraft powerplant. Furthermore, it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952); additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to choose from the finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397); and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
With respect to claim 2, Droeger teaches further comprising a cavity (Fig.1, Item 11) configured to house at least one component of the aircraft powerplant (Fig.1, Item 12), wherein the cavity is within the enclosure and formed by the at least one sidewall.
With respect to claim 3, Droeger teaches wherein the noise reduction chamber (Fig.1, Item 18) is located in a fluid path between the cavity (Fig.1, Item 11) and the air outlet (Fig.1, Item 17).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Droeger teaches wherein exhaust air from the at least one component of the aircraft powerplant (Fig.1, Item 12) is configured to pass through the noise reduction chamber (Fig.1, Item 18) before exiting the enclosure via the air outlet (Fig.1, Item 17); and wherein the exhaust air passes through the plurality of channels (Fig.1, Item 18).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Droeger teaches wherein walls of the plurality of channels (Fig.1, Item 18) are configured to absorb noise or vibration present in the exhaust air (Col.3, Lines 12 – 19), and wherein the walls are formed from a noise attenuating material (Figs.4 – 7, Item 27; Col.3, Line 46 – Col.4, Line 2).
With respect to claim 8, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide a noise attenuating material comprising a noise attenuating foam because it would provide an acoustically efficient and lightweight material; furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 9, Droeger teaches wherein a noise reduction chamber (Fig.1, Item 15) is located in a fluid path between the cavity (Fig.1, Item 11) and the air inlet (Fig.1, Item 14).
With respect to claims 10 – 11 and 23, Droeger teaches wherein the plurality of channels (Fig.1, Item 15) in the noise reduction are formed by a plurality of walls within the noise reduction chamber (Figs.2 – 6, Item 26); and wherein the plurality of walls are substantially parallel to one another (Fig.3).
With respect to claim 14, Droeger teaches wherein the plurality of channels each has a constant cross-sectional area through which air is configured to pass through the noise reduction chamber (Figs.2 – 4).
With respect to claims 15, 16 and 20 – 22, the Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the plurality of channels and walls with any predetermined dimensions and/or dimension ratios because it would tune the system to provide a desired airflow profile and acoustic performance as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Droeger invention. Furthermore, 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.
With respect to claims 17 – 19, Droeger teaches wherein the noise reduction chamber (Fig.1, Item 18) comprises a first section adjacent to the cavity (Fig.1, Item 11) and a second section connected to the first section, wherein the second section is not immediately adjacent to the cavity (Fig.1), wherein the second section is located along a fluid path between the first section and the air outlet (Fig.1, Item 17), and wherein each of the plurality of channels (Fig.1, Item 18) extends from the first section to the second section of the noise reduction chamber, such that each of the plurality of channels comprises a first channel section in the first section of the noise reduction chamber and a second channel section in the second section of the noise reduction chamber (Fig.1).
Claims 1, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson et al. (US 2,270,825).
Parkinson et al. teach an enclosure for reducing noise emitted from an aircraft powerplant (Fig.1) comprising an air inlet (Fig.1, Item 15); an air outlet (Fig.1, Item 16); and at least one sidewall forming the enclosure and fluidly connecting the air inlet and the air outlet (Fig.1), wherein the at least one sidewall forms a noise reduction chamber comprising a plurality of channels (Fig.1, Items 14 or 16) configured to permit air to pass through the noise reduction chamber, wherein the plurality of channels in the noise reduction are formed by a plurality of walls within the noise reduction chamber, and wherein the plurality of walls are each substantially straight walls (Fig.1, Items 22).
However, Parkinson et al. fail to particularly disclose wherein the enclosure is attachable to an aircraft.
The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the Parkinson et al. teachings to an enclosure attachable to an aircraft because it would provide the known and established benefits of an enclosure design to reduce noise emitted by an aircraft powerplant. Furthermore, it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952); additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to choose from the finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397); and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Claims 1, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baruch (US 2,759,556).
Baruch teaches an enclosure for reducing noise emitted from an aircraft powerplant (Fig.2, Item 3) comprising an air inlet (Fig.2, Items 11 on the left); an air outlet (Fig.2, Items 11 on the right); and at least one sidewall forming the enclosure and fluidly connecting the air inlet and the air outlet (Fig.2), wherein the at least one sidewall forms a noise reduction chamber comprising a plurality of channels (Fig.2) configured to permit air to pass through the noise reduction chamber, wherein the plurality of channels in the noise reduction are formed by a plurality of walls within the noise reduction chamber; and wherein the plurality of walls are each curved (Fig.2, Items 11).
However, Baruch fails to particularly disclose wherein the enclosure is attachable to an aircraft.
The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the Baruch teachings to an enclosure attachable to an aircraft because it would provide the known and established benefits of an enclosure design to reduce noise emitted by an aircraft powerplant. Furthermore, it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952); additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to choose from the finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397); and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a rationale that was not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-39853985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights