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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last two lines of the claim, the phrase “open area of the first wall greater than a…” appears to be missing the word “is” and should be changed to “open area of the first wall is greater than a…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 113958415 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 1, Li teaches an apparatus for an aircraft (see translation [n0001]), comprising: an acoustic panel (panel of Figures 2-3) including a face skin (3), a septum (4), a back skin (1), a face core (upper of honeycomb structures #2) and a back core (lower of honeycomb structures #2); the face core (upper of #2) disposed vertically between and connected to the face skin (3) and the septum (4), the face core (upper of #2) comprising a plurality of face core cavities (21) that extend vertically through the face core from the face skin (3) to the septum (4), and each of the plurality of face core cavities (21) fluidly coupled with one or more face skin perforations (31) in the face skin (3); and the back core (lower of #2) disposed vertically between and connected to the septum (4) and the back skin (1), the back core (lower of #2) comprising a plurality of back core walls (defined by walls of honeycomb cells) and a plurality of back core cavities (21), the plurality of back core walls including a first wall and a second wall (clearly seen), the plurality of back core cavities extending vertically through the back core from the septum (4) to the back skin (1), each of the plurality of back core cavities (21) fluidly coupled with a respective one of the plurality of face core cavities (21) through one or more septum perforations (41) in the septum (4), the plurality of back core cavities (21) including a first cavity, a second cavity and a third cavity (first, second third cavities all clearly seen), the first cavity fluidly coupled with the second cavity through one or more first wall perforations (22) in the first wall (wall between adjacent first/second cavities), and the first cavity fluidly coupled with the third cavity through one or more second wall perforations (22) in the second wall (wall between adjacent first/third cavities).
With respect to claim 2, Li teaches wherein the first cavity is laterally between the second cavity and the third cavity; the first wall is laterally between the first cavity and the second cavity; and the second wall is laterally between the first cavity and the third cavity (see Figure 3). The Examiner considers Figure 3 to clearly show this configuration.
With respect to claim 3, Li teaches wherein the first wall is laterally between the first cavity and the second cavity; the second wall is laterally between the first cavity and the third cavity; and the first wall meets the second wall at a corner between the first wall and the second wall (see Figure 3). The Examiner considers Figure 3 to clearly show this configuration.
With respect to claim 4, Li teaches wherein each of the plurality of back core walls extends vertically from the back skin (1) to the septum (4).
With respect to claim 5, Li teaches wherein each of the plurality of face core (upper of #2) cavities (21) has a first cross-sectional geometry (defined by size of the face core cavities); and each of the plurality of back core (lower of #2) cavities (21) has a second cross-sectional geometry (defined by size of the back cavities) that is different than the first cross-sectional geometry. Figures 2 and 3 clearly show that the honeycomb cavities in the upper honeycomb core are smaller than the cavities in the lower honeycomb core. It is further noted that Applicant’s disclosure repeatedly refers to geometry as meaning “shape, size, etc.” (see Specification, [0046], [0051], [0058])
With respect to claim 6, Li teaches wherein each of the plurality of face core (upper of #2) cavities (21) and the plurality of back core (lower of #2) cavities (21) has a uniform cross-sectional geometry (defined by geometric shape of each of the upper and lower honeycomb cores). It is further noted that Applicant’s disclosure repeatedly refers to geometry as meaning “shape, size, etc.” (see Specification, [0046], [0051], [0058])
With respect to claim 15, Li teaches wherein a first of the plurality of face core (upper of #2) cavities (21) laterally overlaps and is fluidly coupled with the first cavity and the second cavity (first/second cavities of back core) through the septum (4). It is noted that Figure 2 shows an upper cavity overlapping two adjacent lower cavities (first/second cavities) an are fluidly connected via hole #41 in the septum and connecting holes #22 between the first/second back core cavities.
With respect to claim 16, Li teaches wherein the first cavity (one of cavities #21 of back core) laterally overlaps and is fluidly coupled with multiple of the plurality of face core cavities (upper of #2) cavities (21). Figure 2 clearly shows this configuration.
With respect to claim 17, Li teaches wherein the acoustic panel (panel of Figures 2-3, when installed as in Figure 6) extends axially along and circumferentially about an axis (central axis of aircraft denoted by dotted line on the bottom of Figure 6); and the back skin (1) is disposed radially outboard of the face skin (3) (see translation, [n0081]-[n0086]). The back and face skins are inherently arranged as claimed so as to allow airflow to penetrate face skin openings #31, as is well known in the art.
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 10-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 113958415 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 10, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches “based on the multi-degree-of-freedom acoustic impedance model, the optimal acoustic impedance value obtained through optimization can be used to calculate structural parameters such as… depth and cross-sectional area of the honeycomb cavity” (which depth determines the claimed vertical thickness of the respective front and back cores) (see translation, [n0077]).
Li fails to teach wherein a vertical thickness of the face core is equal to or greater than a vertical thickness of the back core.
It would have been an obvious design choice to provide a vertical thickness of the face core is equal to or greater than a vertical thickness of the back core, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, altering the size of relative components would have been obvious to acoustically tune the honeycomb cores, as is well known in the art and discussed by Li as cited above.
With respect to claim 11, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the face skin is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the septum. Li further teaches “based on the multi-degree-of-freedom acoustic impedance model, the optimal acoustic impedance value obtained through optimization can be used to calculate structural parameters such as… the diameter and perforation rate of the first through hole 31, the second through hole 22 and the third through hole 41 (see translation, [n0077]).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein a percentage of open area of the face skin is equal to or greater than a percentage of open area of the septum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a percentage of open area of the face skin is equal to or greater than a percentage of open area of the septum, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely optimizing the acoustic performance, and Li specifically teaches designing a perforation rate of the face skin and septum based on acoustic optimization.
With respect to claim 12, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the face skin. Li further teaches “based on the multi-degree-of-freedom acoustic impedance model, the optimal acoustic impedance value obtained through optimization can be used to calculate structural parameters such as… the diameter and perforation rate of the first through hole 31, the second through hole 22 and the third through hole 41 (see translation, [n0077]).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is equal to or greater than a percentage of open area of the face skin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the face skin, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely optimizing the acoustic performance, and Li specifically teaches designing a perforation rate of the first wall and face skin based on acoustic optimization.
With respect to claim 13, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the septum. Li further teaches “based on the multi-degree-of-freedom acoustic impedance model, the optimal acoustic impedance value obtained through optimization can be used to calculate structural parameters such as… the diameter and perforation rate of the first through hole 31, the second through hole 22 and the third through hole 41 (see translation, [n0077]).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is equal to or greater than a percentage of open area of the septum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the septum, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely optimizing the acoustic performance, and Li specifically teaches designing a perforation rate of the first wall and septum based on acoustic optimization.
With respect to claim 14, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is of an obvious, but unspecified amount. Li further teaches “based on the multi-degree-of-freedom acoustic impedance model, the optimal acoustic impedance value obtained through optimization can be used to calculate structural parameters such as… the diameter and perforation rate of the first through hole 31, the second through hole 22 and the third through hole 41 (see translation, [n0077]).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is equal to or greater than three percent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is equal to or greater than three percent, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely optimizing the acoustic performance, and Li specifically teaches designing a perforation rate of the first wall based on acoustic optimization.
With respect to claim 19, Li teaches an apparatus for an aircraft (see translation [n0001]), comprising: an acoustic panel (panel of Figures 2-3) including a face skin (3), a septum (4), a back skin (1), a face core (upper of honeycomb structures #2) and a back core (lower of honeycomb structures #2); the face core (upper of #2) disposed vertically between and connected to the face skin (3) and the septum (4), the face core (upper of #2) comprising a plurality of face core cavities (21) that extend vertically through the face core from the face skin (3) to the septum (4), and each of the plurality of face core cavities (21) fluidly coupled with one or more face skin perforations (31) in the face skin (3); and the back core (lower of #2) disposed vertically between and connected to the septum (4) and the back skin (1), the back core (lower of #2) comprising a plurality of back core walls (defined by walls of honeycomb cells) and a plurality of back core cavities (21), the plurality of back core walls comprising a first wall (defined by one of walls of lower/back core honeycomb having perforations #22, between adjacent first and second cavities), the plurality of back core cavities (21) extending vertically through the back core from the septum (4) to the back skin (1), each of the plurality of back core cavities (21) fluidly coupled with a respective one of the plurality of face core cavities (21) through one or more septum perforations (41) in the septum (4), the plurality of back core cavities including a first cavity and a second cavity (defined by adjacent ones of back core cavities, clearly seen in Figures 2-3), the first cavity fluidly coupled with the second cavity through one or more first wall perforations (22) in the first wall (wall between adjacent first and second cavities), and a percentage of open area of the first wall is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the septum. Li further teaches “based on the multi-degree-of-freedom acoustic impedance model, the optimal acoustic impedance value obtained through optimization can be used to calculate structural parameters such as… the diameter and perforation rate of the first through hole 31, the second through hole 22 and the third through hole 41 (see translation, [n0077]).
Li fails to explicitly teach a percentage of open area of the first wall greater than a percentage of open area of the septum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall greater than a percentage of open area of the septum, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely optimizing the acoustic performance, and Li specifically teaches designing a perforation rate of the first wall and septum based on acoustic optimization.
With respect to claim 20, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the face skin. Li further teaches “based on the multi-degree-of-freedom acoustic impedance model, the optimal acoustic impedance value obtained through optimization can be used to calculate structural parameters such as… the diameter and perforation rate of the first through hole 31, the second through hole 22 and the third through hole 41 (see translation, [n0077]).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein the percentage of open area of the first wall is greater than a percentage of open area of the face skin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the percentage of open area of the first wall is greater than a percentage of open area of the face skin, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely optimizing the acoustic performance, and Li specifically teaches designing a perforation rate of the first wall and face skin based on acoustic optimization.
Claims 7-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 113958415 A – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Arcas (5,923,003)
With respect to claim 7, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein the plurality of back core cavities (21) further include a fourth cavity (defined by a back core cavity adjacent to the second cavity); the plurality of back core walls further includes a third wall (defined by a wall between the second and fourth cavities); and the third wall is laterally between and forms peripheral boundaries of the second cavity and the fourth cavity.
Li fails to teach the third wall fluidly decouples the second cavity from the fourth cavity.
Arcas teaches a similar honeycomb core (Figure 1, #16a) having similar openings (18) in walls (20) of the honeycomb core between adjacent cavities so allow fluid communication through said openings (18) in the same way as Li, wherein any number of walls (20) within the honeycomb may or may not have openings (18) so as to allow or to block fluid communication between adjacent cells, such that, when combined teaches wherein the third wall (of Li) fluidly decouples (via a wall lacking openings #18, as seen in Figure 1) the second cavity from the fourth cavity (second/fourth cavities of Li when combined). The inclusion or lack of openings in any cell wall is completely variable based on a desired acoustic resistance (see Arcas, Col. 2, Line 9-Col. 3, Line 3; Col. 3, Line 51-Col. 4, Line 12).
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 Li, with the apparatus of Arcas, so as to desirable acoustically tune the honeycomb core by providing some cells which are in fluid communication with each other, and other cells which are not in fluid communication with each other.
With respect to claim 8, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches
wherein the back core (lower of honeycomb cores #2) further comprises a plurality of back core chambers (21).
Li fails to teach wherein the back core further comprises a plurality of back core chambers that are fluidly discrete within the back core; and each of the plurality of back core chambers includes a respective array of the plurality of back core cavities.
Arcas teaches a similar honeycomb core (Figure 1, #16a) having similar openings (18) in walls (20) of the honeycomb core between adjacent cavities so allow fluid communication through said openings (18) in the same way as Li, wherein any number of walls (20) within the honeycomb may or may not have openings (18) so as to allow or to block fluid communication between adjacent cells, such that, when combined teaches wherein the back core (lower of honeycomb cores #2 of Li, when combined with Arcas, #16a) further comprises a plurality of back core chambers (22, when combined) that are fluidly discrete within the back core (defined by section of fluidly connected chambers that are isolated from other non-fluidly connected chambers in the same way as Applicant’s); and each of the plurality of back core chambers includes a respective array of the plurality of back core cavities. The inclusion or lack of openings in any cell wall is completely variable based on a desired acoustic resistance (see Arcas, Col. 2, Line 9-Col. 3, Line 3; Col. 3, Line 51-Col. 4, Line 12).
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 Li, with the apparatus of Arcas, so as to desirable acoustically tune the honeycomb core by providing some cells which are in fluid communication with each other, and other cells which are not in fluid communication with each other.
With respect to claim 9, Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches
wherein the plurality of face core cavities (cavities #21 within upper honeycomb #2) are fluidly connected within the face core.
Li fails to teach wherein the plurality of face core cavities are fluidly discrete within the face core.
Arcas teaches a similar honeycomb core (Figure 1, #16a) having similar openings (18) in walls (20) of the honeycomb core between adjacent cavities so allow fluid communication through said openings (18) in the same way as Li, wherein any number of walls (20) within the honeycomb may or may not have openings (18) so as to allow or to block fluid communication between adjacent cells, such that, when combined teaches wherein the plurality of face core cavities (Li, cavities #21 within upper honeycomb #2 when combined) are fluidly discrete within the face core (when formed with the fluid communication holes #18 therebetween). The inclusion or lack of openings in any cell wall is completely variable based on a desired acoustic resistance (see Arcas, Col. 2, Line 9-Col. 3, Line 3; Col. 3, Line 51-Col. 4, Line 12).
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 Li, with the apparatus of Arcas, so as to desirable acoustically tune the honeycomb core by providing wherein the plurality of face core cavities are fluidly discrete within the face core.
With respect to claim 18, Li teaches an apparatus for an aircraft (see translation [n0001]), comprising: an acoustic panel (panel of Figures 2-3) including a face skin (3), a septum (4), a back skin (1), a face core (upper of honeycomb structures #2) and a back core (lower of honeycomb structures #2); the face core (upper of #2) disposed vertically between and connected to the face skin (3) and the septum (4), the face core (upper of #2) comprising a plurality of face core cavities (21) that extend vertically through the face core from the face skin (3) to the septum (4), and each of the plurality of face core cavities (21) fluidly coupled with one or more face skin perforations (31) in the face skin (3); and the back core (lower of #2) disposed vertically between and connected to the septum (4) and the back skin (1), the back core (lower of #2) comprising a plurality of back core chambers (defined by group of connected back core cavities #21) comprising a respective set of a plurality of back core cavities that are fluidly coupled with one another (via openings #22) within the back core, and each of the plurality of back core cavities fluidly coupled with at least a respective one of the plurality of face core cavities (cavities #21 or face core) through one or more septum perforations (41) in the septum (4).
Li fails to teach a plurality of back core chambers that are fluidly separate from one another within the back core, each of the plurality of back core chambers comprising a respective set of a plurality of back core cavities that are fluidly coupled with one another within the back core.
Arcas teaches a similar honeycomb core (Figure 1, #16a) having similar openings (18) in walls (20) of the honeycomb core between adjacent cavities so allow fluid communication through said openings (18) in the same way as Li, wherein any number of walls (20) within the honeycomb may or may not have openings (18) so as to allow or to block fluid communication between adjacent cells, such that, when combined teaches a plurality of back core chambers that are fluidly separate from one another within the back core (defined by group of fluidly connected cells that are separated from other non-fluidly connected cells), each of the plurality of back core chambers comprising a respective set of a plurality of back core cavities that are fluidly coupled with one another within the back core (clearly seen in Figure 1, and similar to Applicant’s set of fluidly connected cells #92, which are fluidly separated from other cells within the core). The inclusion or lack of openings in any cell wall is completely variable based on a desired acoustic resistance (see Arcas, Col. 2, Line 9-Col. 3, Line 3; Col. 3, Line 51-Col. 4, Line 12).
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 Li, with the apparatus of Arcas, so as to desirable acoustically tune the honeycomb core by providing some cells which are in fluid communication with each other, and other cells which are not in fluid communication with each other.
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