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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a portion of the polymer matrix migrates into open pores of the aerogel layer” of claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Apparatus claim 21 requires “wherein a portion of the polymer matrix migrates into open pores of the aerogel layer,” which is indefinite. The phrasing of this claim is confusing, as it implies that the polymer matrix actively migrates into open pores pf the aerogel layer within the apparatus. From the disclosure, it appears this claim is trying to capture a method of forming or adhering the fiber-reinforced layer and aerogel layer, such that during a forming process, uncured polymer of the polymer matrix migrates or seeps into the aerogel layer so as to form a bond between the two layers (See Applicant’s Specification, [0042]). The Examiner will believe that the claim is attempting to capture a scenario where bonding between the fiber-reinforced layer and the aerogel layer is formed by polymer matrix of the fiber-reinforced layer partially impregnating the aerogel layer, prior to curing, and then curing the polymer matrix after the partial impregnation. This language is not necessarily supported by the disclosure, but is nonetheless the Examiner interpretation of what Applicant is trying to capture with the current claim language. The Examiner will broadly interpret the language a method of bonding the fiber-reinforced layer and aerogel layer with polymer matrix from the fiber-reinforced layer.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 later (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.
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).
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 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamp (2020/0248626).
With respect to claim 11, Hamp teaches the apparatus of claim 1, including the back skin (42, when formed as layers 31/29/27 of Figure 5 – [0032]-[0033]) and the aerogel layer (29, [0035]). Hamp further teaches wherein a thickness of the back skin (31 or 27) decreases (i.e. varying thickness of layers #31/27, [0036]) as the back skin extends in an unspecified, but obvious direction, relative to an edge of the aerogel layer and intermediate region of the aerogel layer.
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.
With respect to claim 21, Hamp teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Hamp further teaches wherein the fiber-reinforced layer (31/42 or #27) and the aerogel layer (29) are bonded by an obvious, but unspecified method ([0036])
Hamp fails to teach wherein a portion of the polymer matrix migrates into open pores of the aerogel layer.
As discussed in the 112b rejection, this claim is being interpreted as a method of bonding the fiber-reinforced layer and aerogel layer with polymer matrix from the fiber-reinforced layer. The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has been given little patentable weight. Additionally, bonding a fiber-reinforced layer and an adjacent porous layer by partially impregnating the porous layer with uncured polymer matrix from the fiber-reinforced layer and then curing the polymer matrix to form said bond is well known and would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill, in addition to other well-known methods such as adhesive bonding.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamp (2020/0248626) in view of Gangloff, Jr. (2022/0349363).
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 plugged cavity.
Gangloff, Jr. teaches a similar apparatus for an aircraft (Figures 1-3 and 5C, #28) having a similar core (44/ 46) comprising a plurality of cavities (48) that extend through the core a first skin (32) to a second skin (34), a first of the plurality of cavities comprising an open volume cavity (defined cells without bulk absorber #54), and a second of the plurality of cavities comprising a plugged cavity (defined cells without bulk absorber #54). It is noted that bulk absorber #54 is formed in “at least one cell,” which inherently teaches that there will or can be a plurality of cells with and without the bulk absorber #54, satisfying the claim language (see [0042], [0051]).
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 Gangloff, Jr. so as to increase overall sound absorption in the panel by incorporating a bulk absorber #54 in at least one of the cells of Hamp (see Gangloff, Jr., [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]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamp (2020/0248626) in view of Roach (10,876,479).
With respect to claim 19, Hamp teaches an apparatus (Figures 1-3A and 5, #21) for an aircraft ([0004]), comprising: a first skin (40/23); a second skin (42, when formed as layers 31/29/27 of Figure 5 – [0032]-[0033]) laterally overlapping the first skin (40/23) and comprising an aerogel layer (29 – [0035]) an exterior side structural layer (27), and an interior side structural layer (31), the aerogel layer (29) arranged between the exterior side structural layer (27) and the interior side structural layer (31); and a cellular core (44/25, [0023]) disposed between and bonded to the first skin (40/23) and the second skin (42/31/29/27), the cellular core comprising a plurality of cavities that extend through the cellular core from the first skin (40/23) to the second skin (42/31/29/27); wherein a thickness of the second skin (42/31/29/27) changes as the aerogel layer (29) extends laterally along the plurality of cavities ([0036]). 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 wherein the second skin comprises a first interior side structural layer and a second interior side structural layer, the aerogel layer arranged between the exterior side structural layer and the first interior side structural layer, and the first interior side structural layer arranged between the aerogel layer and the second interior side structural layer
Roach teaches a similar apparatus for an aircraft (Figures 3-5, #100), comprising: a first skin (130); a second skin (150/164/160/162) laterally overlapping the first skin (130) and comprising an aerogel layer (160) an exterior side structural layer (162), a first interior side structural layer (164) and a second interior side structural layer (150), the aerogel layer (160) arranged between the exterior side structural layer (162) and the first interior side structural layer (164), and the first interior side structural layer (164) arranged between the aerogel layer (160) and the second interior side structural layer (150); and a cellular core (110) disposed between and bonded to the first skin (130) and the second skin (150/164/160/162), the cellular core (110) comprising a plurality of cavities (120) that extend through the cellular core (110) from the first skin (130) to the second skin (150/164/160/162).
It is noted that Hamp teaches a singular interior side structural layer, which is equivalent to the second interior side structural layer #150 of Roach, and Roach teaches an additional interior side structural layer in the form of first interior side structural layer #164, which functions to block fluids from entering the aerogel layer #164, while being acoustically transparent so as to allow sound to enter the aerogel layer #160 for additional noise attenuation (See Roach, Col. 4, Lines 15-22). Therefore, 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 Roach, so as to provide an acoustically transparent fluid blocking layer that functions to block fluids from entering the aerogel layer, while being acoustically transparent so as to allow sound to enter the aerogel layer for additional noise attenuation.
With respect to claim 20, Hamp teaches further comprising an acoustic panel (21) including the first skin (40/23), the second skin (42, when formed as layers 31/29/27 of Figure 5 – [0032]-[0033]) and the cellular core (44/25, [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner consider Hamp and the obvious combination with Gangloff, Jr. and Roach to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner believes the above rejection is fully responsive to Applicant’s arguments. Applicant argues that “Notably, Hamp does not disclose the outer skin 27 comprises "an aerogel layer and a fiber-reinforced layer, the fiber-reinforced later bonded to and laterally overlapping the aerogel layer, and the back skin configured as a monolithic member" as recited in claim 1. Rather, Hamp discloses the fire protector 29 is filled between the space between the outer skin 27 and the pressure resisting wall 31.” As discussed above, the back skin is formed by a combination of layers 27, 29 and 31, and they are bonded together to form a monolithic member as claimed, in the same way that Applicant’s layers are bonded together to form a monolithic member.
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.
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