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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/26/26 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamp (2020/0248626).
With respect to claim 1, Hamp teaches an apparatus (Figures 1-3B and 5, #21) for an aircraft ([0004]), comprising: an acoustic panel (21) including a face skin (40/23), a back skin (42, when formed as layers 31/29/27 of Figure 5 – [0032]-[0033]) and a cellular core (44/25) disposed between and connected to the face skin 40/23) and the back skin (31/29/27); the back skin (31/29/27) laterally overlapping the face skin (23) and comprising an aerogel layer (29 – [0035]) and a fiber-reinforced layer (could be #31 or #27, [0019]-[0022] – note the skin layers can be formed from a fiber-reinforced composite material including a thermoset or thermoplastic matrix; [0036] – note layers 23/27/31 can be the same material)), the fiber-reinforced layer (31/27) bonded to and laterally overlapping the aerogel layer (29) ([0036]), and the back skin (31/29/27) configured as a monolithic member; and the cellular core (44/25, [0023]) comprising a plurality of cavities that extend through the cellular core from the face skin (40/23) to the back skin (31/29/27), and each of the plurality of cavities fluidly coupled with one or more perforations in the face skin (23 – clearly seen in Figures 1-2 and 3B-C). It is note that layers #23/25/27 of Figure 5 are equivalent to layers #40/44/42 in Figures 1-2 and 3B-C ([0025]-[0026], [0032]-[0033]). Further, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure (see Specification, [0041]) “a single monolithic layer” as layers #64/66/68 being bonded together, which is identical to the monolithic member formed in Hamp by bonding equivalent layers #31/29/27 together. Hamp fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the back skin decreases as the back skin extends away from an edge of the aerogel layer into an intermediate region of the aerogel layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a thickness of the back skin decreases as the back skin extends away from an edge of the aerogel layer into an intermediate region of the aerogel layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, because Hamp does teach that a thickness of the back skin can decrease in an unspecified direction relative to the aerogel layer (inherent to teaching of varying thickness, [0036]), specifying or rearranging which direction the varying thickness of the back skin decreases or increases relative to the aerogel layer edge and intermediate region would have been obvious to one or ordinary and involves routine skill. Further, Applicant has not shown the criticality of employing a specific region or direction in which the thickness changes, relative to the completely variable thickness teaching disclose by Hamp. Further, there is nothing in Hamp to preclude a thickness change as claimed.
With respect to claim 2, Hamp teaches wherein the aerogel layer (29) laterally overlaps each of the plurality of cavities (of layer 44/25).
With respect to claim 4, Hamp teaches wherein the fiber-reinforced layer (31/42 or #27) completely laterally overlaps the aerogel layer (29); and the aerogel layer (29) partially laterally overlaps the fiber-reinforced layer (31/42 or #27).
With respect to claim 5, Hamp teaches wherein the fiber-reinforced layer (31/42) is disposed between the cellular core (25/44) and the aerogel layer (29).
With respect to claim 6, Hamp teaches wherein the fiber-reinforced layer (31/42) is a first fiber-reinforced layer; the back skin further comprises a second fiber-reinforced layer (27) bonded to and laterally overlapping the aerogel layer (29); and the aerogel layer (29) is disposed between the first fiber-reinforced layer (31/42) and the second fiber-reinforced layer (29).
With respect to claim 7, Hamp teaches wherein the aerogel layer (29) is disposed between the fiber-reinforced layer (27) and the cellular core (25/44).
With respect to claim 8, Hamp teaches wherein the fiber-reinforced layer (31/42 or #27) comprises fiber reinforcement embedded within a polymer matrix (i.e., thermoset or thermoplastic matrix, [0019]-[0022] – note the skin layers can be formed from a fiber-reinforced composite material including a thermoset or thermoplastic matrix; [0036] – note layers 23/27/31 can be the same material).
With respect to claim 9, Hamp teaches wherein the fiber reinforcement comprises fiberglass ([0019]-[0022]).
With respect to claim 10, Hamp teaches wherein the fiber reinforcement comprises carbon fiber ([0019]-[0022].
With respect to claim 12, Hamp teaches wherein the face skin (23/40) comprises fiber reinforcement embedded within a polymer matrix ([0019]).
With respect to claim 13, Hamp teaches wherein the cellular core (25/44) comprises metal ([0023]).
With respect to claim 14, Hamp teaches wherein the cellular core (25/44) comprises a honeycomb core ([0023]).
With respect to claim 15, Hamp teaches wherein the acoustic panel (21) extends axially along and circumferentially about an axis (Figures 1 and 3A, note axis #11); and the back skin (42, 31/29/27) is disposed radially outboard of the face skin (23/40).
With respect to claim 22, Hamp teaches wherein the aerogel layer (29) partially overlaps the cellular core (25/44). It is noted that the aerogel layer completely covers the cellular core, which includes “partially” overlapping.
Claims 16-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamp (2020/0248626) in view of Higbie (2020/0318540).
With respect to claim 16, Hamp teaches an apparatus (Figures 1-3B and 5, #21) for an aircraft ([0004]), comprising: a first skin (40/23) comprising a first fiber-reinforced composite ([0019]); a second skin (42, when formed as layers 31/29/27 of Figure 5 – [0032]-[0033]) laterally overlapping the first skin (40/23), the second skin including a second fiber-reinforced composite (#42/31/27, [0019]-[0022] – note the skin layers can be formed from a fiber-reinforced composite material; [0036] – note layers 23/27/31 can be the same material) and a fire-resistant material (29 – [0035]) bonded to and laterally overlapping the second fiber-reinforced composite (42/31/29/27); and a metal core (44/25 – [0023]) disposed between and bonded to the first skin (40/23) and the second skin (42/31/29/27), the metal core (44/25 – [0023]) comprising a plurality of cavities that extend through the metal core from the first skin (40/23) to the second skin (42/31/29/27), a first of the plurality of cavities (of core #44/25) comprising an open volume cavity. It is note that layers #23/25/27 of Figure 5 are equivalent to layers #40/44/42 in Figures 1-2 and 3B-C ([0025]-[0026], [0032]-[0033]).
Hamp fails to teach second of the plurality of cavities comprising a completely filled plugged cavity.
Higbie teaches a similar apparatus for an aircraft (defined by panel #113 of Figures 4-8) having a similar core (broadly defined by core structure having cells #218) comprising a plurality of cavities (218) that extend through the core a first skin (one of 215/216) to a second skin (other of 215/216), a first of the plurality of cavities comprising an open volume cavity (defined cells without reinforcement material #455), and a second of the plurality of cavities comprising completely plugged cavities (defined cells reinforcement material #455) ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Hamp, with the apparatus of Higbie, such that a portion of the cells adjacent a first axial edge of the acoustic panel may be filled with a reinforcement material and shaped to form a lip having sufficient strength to support a portion of the acoustic panel. (see Higbie, [0044])
With respect to claim 17, Hamp teaches wherein each of the plurality of cavities is fluidly coupled with one or more apertures extending through the first skin (40/23 – clearly seen in Figure 2 and 3B-C).
With respect to claim 18, Hamp teaches wherein the fire-resistant material (29) comprises an aerogel material ([0035]).
With respect to claim 23, Hamp teaches wherein the fire-resistant material (29) partially overlaps the second of the plurality of cavities (defined by edge cavities of Hamp core #44/25, when combined with edge cavities that are completely plugged cavities with reinforcement material #455 of Higbie as combined above). It is noted that the aerogel layer completely covers the cellular core and second of the plurality of cavities, which includes “partially” overlapping.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The Examiner found Applicant's arguments, filed on 6/26/26, persuasive, and therefore considers that the references of the Prior Art of record fail to teach, or suggest any obvious combination of the limitations discussed in the previous Office Action, and further comprising the limitations of (With respect to claim 19) a second skin laterally overlapping the first skin and comprising an aerogel layer extending within a portion of the second skin, and wherein the exterior side structural layer, the first interior side structural layer and the second interior side structural layer laterally overlap and project laterally beyond the aerogel layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 1-2, 3-10, 12-18 and 22-23. The Examiner believes Hamp, and the combination with Higbie teach all of the limitations of claims 1-2, 3-10, 12-18 and 22-23.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “The Office Action does not provide any reason why based on this disclosure of Hamp, a skilled practitioner in the art would take the alleged back skin (elements 27 or 27) of Hamp and - then for some reason - modify the thickness such that the thickness would decrease as "the back skin extends away from an edge of the aerogel layer into an intermediate region of the aerogel layer" as recited in claim 1. The Office Action's proposed modification is not supported by the disclosure of Hamp without impermissible hindsight only gleaned from the disclosure of the present application.” The Examiner disagrees as Hamp does teach that a thickness of the back skin can decrease in an unspecified direction relative to the aerogel layer (inherent to teaching of varying thickness, [0036]), and specifying or rearranging which direction the varying thickness of the back skin decreases or increases relative to the aerogel layer edge and intermediate region would have been obvious to one or ordinary and involves routine skill. Further, Applicant has not shown the criticality of employing a specific region or direction in which the thickness changes, relative to the completely variable thickness teaching disclose by Hamp. There, there is nothing in Hamp to preclude a thickness change as claimed, and one of ordinary skill would recognize that varying thicknesses of any or all of the back skin layers would be done to vary the rigidity and or fire resistance in particular locations as needed or desired based on any particular usage of the apparatus.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, as discussed above, the Examiner has relied on teachings of the prior art and well-established case law, not improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claims 16-18, the Examiner considers the new grounds of rejection to be fully responsive to all arguments against the previous rejection of these claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights