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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nampy (US 9,704,467).
Nampy teaches an acoustic panel assembly for an aircraft propulsion system, the acoustic panel assembly comprising an acoustic panel including an acoustic core (Fig.11) arranged along a transverse direction and a longitudinal direction, wherein the acoustic core extends circumferentially about an axial centerline (Fig.11, Item 108) in the transverse direction, and extends between an inner core side and an outer core side (Fig.12, Items 22 and 24), the acoustic core includes a plurality of cell rows distributed transversely along the acoustic core (Fig.11), wherein each cell row of the plurality of cell rows extends axially in the longitudinal direction, and each cell row of the plurality of cell rows includes a plurality of cells distributed longitudinally along the respective cell row of the plurality of cell rows (Fig.11); wherein each cell of the plurality of cells includes a first transverse panel (Figs.11 and 12, Item 64), a second transverse panel (Figs.11 and 12, Item 64), a first longitudinal panel (Fig.11, Item 48), a second longitudinal panel (Fig.11, Item 48), and an oblique panel (Figs.11 and 12, Item 62) extending between the inner core side and the outer core side (Fig.12, Items 22 and 24), and each of the first transverse panel and the second transverse panel includes a plurality of apertures (Fig.12, Items 64), wherein the first longitudinal panel and the second longitudinal panel extend between the first transverse panel and the second transverse panel (Fig.11), and the oblique panel extends transversely between the first transverse panel at the outer core side and the second transverse panel at the inner core side (Figs.11 and 12); wherein the first longitudinal panel (Fig.11, Item 48) of each cell of the plurality of cells is attached to the oblique panel of that cell (Fig.11), and the second longitudinal panel (Fig.11, Item 48) of that cell is attached to the oblique panel of that cell (Fig.11); and wherein each cell row of the plurality of cell rows is attached to at least one other cell row of the plurality of cell rows (Figs.11 and 12).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 1, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/588,873 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they describe the same invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Claim 1 would be allowable when the Double Patenting rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The references of the prior art fail to disclose, or suggest any obvious combination of the limitations described in claim 1, particularly, forming a plurality of cell rows of an acoustic core by, for each cell row of the plurality of cell rows, cutting and folding a sheet to form each cell row with a plurality of cells, and each cell of the plurality of cells includes a first transverse panel, a first longitudinal panel, a second longitudinal panel, and an oblique panel extending between an inner core side of the acoustic core and an outer core side of the acoustic core, the first transverse panel includes a plurality of apertures; positioning the plurality of cell rows on an inner skin extending circumferentially about an axial centerline; attaching the first longitudinal panel of each cell of the plurality of cells to the oblique panel of that cell, and attaching the second longitudinal panel of that cell to the oblique panel of that cell, subsequent to positioning the plurality of cell rows on the inner skin, and attaching each cell row of the plurality of cell rows to at least one other cell row of the plurality of cell rows, subsequent to positioning the plurality of cell rows on the inner skin, to form the acoustic core.
Conclusion
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 571-272-3985. 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
March 5, 2026