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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (5,543,198).
With respect to claim 1, Wilson teaches an apparatus (defined by panel of Figure 3) for an aircraft (Figure 6; Col 1, Lines 5-8), comprising: an acoustic panel (Figure 3) including a face skin (13), a septum (24), a back skin (11), a face core (121) and a back core (122); the face core (121) disposed vertically between and connected to the face skin (13) and the septum (24), the face core (121) comprising a plurality of face core cavities (defined by cells #151) that extend vertically through the face core (121) from the face skin (13) to the septum (24), and each of the plurality of face core cavities (151) fluidly coupled with one or more face skin perforations (Col. 2 , Lines 32-43; Col. 3, Lines 23-31) in the face skin (13), and each of the plurality of face core cavities (151) fluidly discrete within the face core (121); and the back core (122) disposed vertically between and connected to the septum (24) and the back skin (11), the back core (122) comprising a plurality of back core walls (identical to hexagonal walls forming cells #15 in Figure 1) and a plurality of back core cavities (152), the plurality of back core walls including a first wall and a second wall (defined by opposing walls in a given cell having drainage slots #16), the plurality of back core cavities (152) extending vertically through the back core (122) from the septum (24) to the back skin (11), each of the plurality of back core cavities (152) fluidly coupled with a respective one of the plurality of face core cavities (151) through one or more septum perforations (Col. 5, Lines 29-35) in the septum (24), the plurality of back core cavities (152) including a first cavity (defined by the middle of three cavities connected by drainage slots #16), a second cavity (one end cavity of the three interconnected cavities) and a third cavity (other end cavity of the three interconnected cavities), the first cavity fluidly coupled with the second cavity through one or more first wall perforations (16) in the first wall, and the first cavity fluidly coupled with the third cavity through one or more second wall perforations (16) in the second wall.
With respect to claim 2, Wilson teaches wherein the first cavity (defined by the middle of three cavities connected by drainage slots #16) is laterally between the second cavity (one end cavity of the tree interconnected cavities) and the third cavity (other end cavity of the three interconnected cavities); 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 (configuration clearly seen in view of Figure 1, when applied to core #122 of Figure 3).
With respect to claim 4, Wilson teaches wherein each of the plurality of back core walls (vertical cell walls of back core #121) extends vertically from the back skin (11) to the septum (24).
With respect to claim 6, Wilson teaches wherein each of the plurality of face core cavities (151) and the plurality of back core cavities (152) has a uniform cross-sectional geometry.
With respect to claim 7, Wilson teaches wherein the plurality of back core cavities further include a fourth cavity (defined by an additional cavity located adjacent to and sharing a wall with the second cavity of the aforementioned three inter connected cavities, the fourth cavity not in line with the three cavities, and the shared wall lacking a drainage slot #16); the plurality of back core walls further includes a third wall (defined by wall lacking a drainage slot #16 formed between second and fourth cavities); and the third wall is laterally between and forms peripheral boundaries of the second cavity and the fourth cavity, and the third wall fluidly decouples the second cavity from the fourth cavity (configuration clearly seen in view of Figure 1, when applied to core #122 of Figure 3).
With respect to claim 10, Wilson teaches wherein a vertical thickness of the face core (121) is equal to or greater than a vertical thickness of the back core (122).
With respect to claim 15, Wilson teaches wherein a first of the plurality of face core cavities (defined by one of cavities #151 located over one of the aforementioned first or second cavities) laterally overlaps and is fluidly coupled with the first cavity and the second cavity through the septum (24). Note that first and second cavities are fluidly connected with one another through drainage slot #16 and will be fluidly connected to the first of the plurality of face core cavities via the porous septum.
With respect to claim 17, Wilson teaches wherein the acoustic panel extends axially along and circumferentially about an axis (when panel of Figure 3 is installed as panel #10 in Figure 6); and the back skin (11) is disposed radially outboard of the face skin (13). Note that face skin #13 skill be adjacent to and defining duct #31 of Figure 6, and back skin #11 will be arranged as claimed.
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 3, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (5,543,198) in view of Geertsema (11,286,859).
With respect to claim 3, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Wilson fails to teach 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.
Geertsema teaches a panel of identical drainage slot configuration (see Figure 2) to that of Wilson, and further, wherein the number of drainage slots is variable and “as desired and necessitated by the acoustic panel 21 configuration, more than two slots 262 may be provided in a cell 26 depending on the orientation of the acoustic panel 21 and the desired direction of the fluid flow from the acoustic panel (Col. 8, Lines 44-48)”, including a configuration (when drainage slots are configured as in any one of Figures 6-7 and 20-22) wherein the first wall (one of the walls of the left hand-side pair of walls with drainage slots that meet at a corner) is laterally between the first cavity and the second cavity (clearly seen when drain placement of Figures 6-7 and 20-22 is applied to the honeycomb array of Geertsema, Figure 2 and Wilson, Figure 3); the second wall (other one of the walls of the left hand-side pair of walls with drainage slots that meet at a corner) is laterally between the first cavity and the third cavity; and the first wall meets the second wall at a corner (clearly seen in Geertsema, Figures 6-7 and 20-22) between the first wall and the second wall.
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 Wilson, with the apparatus of Geertsema so as to provide more than two slots in a cell depending on the orientation of the acoustic panel and the desired direction of the fluid flow from the acoustic panel, as desired and necessitated by the acoustic panel.
With respect to claim 8, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Wilson 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.
Geertsema teaches a panel of identical drainage slot configuration (see Figure 2) to that of Wilson, and further, wherein the number of drainage slots is variable and “as desired and necessitated by the acoustic panel 21 configuration, more than two slots 262 may be provided in a cell 26 depending on the orientation of the acoustic panel 21 and the desired direction of the fluid flow from the acoustic panel (Col. 8, Lines 44-48)”, and further “wherein the acoustic panel 21 comprises covers 263, which cover or block the drainage slots 262. These covers 263, where provided, cover or block the drainage slots 262 due to, for example, pressure equalization and allow gravity assisted drainage, to be described hereinafter. Fluids and/or liquids, such as water and/or fuel or another such liquid, can move or push open the covers 263 with its weight or flow pressure to drain/escape through the drainage slots 262, in essence as a one-way check valving function (Col. 8, Lines 14-23)” including a configuration where some or all of all of the slots include a cover, such that when the covers close all of the openings in two or more adjacent slots, when combined with the multicore configuration of Wilson, the back core (Wilson, #122) further comprises a plurality of back core chambers (Wilson, #152) that are fluidly discrete (when the drainage slots are desirably/optionally covered by cover #263 of Geertsema) within the back core; and each of the plurality of back core chambers (Wilson, #152; Geertsema, #260) includes a respective array of the plurality of back core cavities.
Because the number of covers can be the same or different as the number of slots #262, and further function as a check-valve, which will be fluidly when the check-valve is in a closed position, and further, the number of covers may be dependent on the configuration of the acoustic panel, the needed acoustic or noise attenuation, and/or the required liquid drainage amounts and flow rates (Col. 8, Lines 14-23 and Line 62-Col. 9, Lines 11), 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 Wilson, with the apparatus of Geertsema so as to allow for the panel to desirably be configured based on needed acoustic or noise attenuation, and/or the required liquid drainage amounts and flow rates, by providing covers on some or all of the slots that allow some cells to be fluidly discrete when the covers are in a closed position.
With respect to claim 18, Wilson teaches apparatus (defined by panel of Figure 3) for an aircraft (Figure 6; Col 1, Lines 5-8), comprising: an acoustic panel (Figure 3) including a face skin (13), a septum (24), a back skin (11), a face core (121) and a back core (122); the face core (121) disposed vertically between and connected to the face skin (13) and the septum (24), the face core (121) comprising a plurality of face core cavities (defined by cells #151) that extend vertically through the face core (121) from the face skin (13) to the septum (24), the face core (121) configured as a solid-wall cellular core, and each of the plurality of face core cavities (151) fluidly coupled with one or more face skin perforations (Col. 2 , Lines 32-43; Col. 3, Lines 23-31) in the face skin (13); and the back core (122) disposed vertically between and connected to the septum (24) and the back skin (11), each of the plurality of back core chambers comprising a respective set of a plurality of back core cavities (152) that are fluidly coupled with one another (via slots #16) within the back core (122), and each of the plurality of back core cavities fluidly coupled with at least a respective one of the plurality of face core cavities (151) through one or more septum perforations (Col. 5, Lines 29-35) in the septum (24).
Wilson fails to teach the back core comprising a plurality of back core chambers that are fluidly separate from one another within the back core.
Geertsema teaches a panel of identical drainage slot configuration (see Figure 2) to that of Wilson, and further, wherein the number of drainage slots is variable and “as desired and necessitated by the acoustic panel 21 configuration, more than two slots 262 may be provided in a cell 26 depending on the orientation of the acoustic panel 21 and the desired direction of the fluid flow from the acoustic panel (Col. 8, Lines 44-48)”, and further “wherein the acoustic panel 21 comprises covers 263, which cover or block the drainage slots 262. These covers 263, where provided, cover or block the drainage slots 262 due to, for example, pressure equalization and allow gravity assisted drainage, to be described hereinafter. Fluids and/or liquids, such as water and/or fuel or another such liquid, can move or push open the covers 263 with its weight or flow pressure to drain/escape through the drainage slots 262, in essence as a one-way check valving function (Col. 8, Lines 14-23)” including a configuration where some or all of all of the slots include a cover, such that when the covers close all of the openings in two or more adjacent slots, when combined with the multicore configuration of Wilson, the back core (Wilson, #122) further comprises a plurality of back core chambers (Wilson, #152) that are fluidly separate from one another within the back core (when the drainage slots are desirably/optionally covered by cover #263 of Geertsema).
Because the number of covers can be the same or different as the number of slots #262, and further function as a check-valve, which will be fluidly when the check-valve is in a closed position, and further, the number of covers may be dependent on the configuration of the acoustic panel, the needed acoustic or noise attenuation, and/or the required liquid drainage amounts and flow rates (Col. 8, Lines 14-23 and Line 62-Col. 9, Lines 11), 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 Wilson, with the apparatus of Geertsema so as to allow for the panel to desirably be configured based on needed acoustic or noise attenuation, and/or the required liquid drainage amounts and flow rates, by providing covers on some or all of the slots that allow some cells to be fluidly discrete when the covers are in a closed position.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (5,543,198) in view of Lanfant (2026/0162641).
With respect to claim 5, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Wilson fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of face core cavities has a first cross-sectional geometry; and each of the plurality of back core cavities has a second cross-sectional geometry that is different than the first cross-sectional geometry.
Lanfant teaches a similar acoustic honeycomb panel (Figures 5-6, #300) including a face skin (301), a septum (150), a back skin (103), a face core (310) and a back core (130) arranged similar to that of Wilson, and the claimed layer arrangement, wherein each of the plurality of face core cavities has a first cross-sectional geometry; and each of the plurality of back core cavities has a second cross-sectional geometry that is different than the first cross-sectional geometry ([0077], [0160]).
Because Lanfant teaches that the face core and back core can have the same or different geometries, 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 Wilson, with the apparatus of Lanfant, so as to provide simple substitution of one known configuration of having a face core and back core with the same geometry, with the known configuration of having a face core and back core with different geometries, as the differing geometries function to tune the device as is well known in the art, and there would a reasonable expectation of success of the differing geometries having “no departure from the framework of the invention” when applied to Wilson in the same way as in Lanfant (See Lanfant, [0077], [0160]). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 16, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Wilson fails to teach wherein the first cavity laterally overlaps and is fluidly coupled with multiple of the plurality of face core cavities.
Lanfant teaches a similar acoustic honeycomb panel (Figures 5-6, #300) including a face skin (301), a septum (150), a back skin (103), a face core (310) and a back core (130) arranged similar to that of Wilson, and the claimed layer arrangement, wherein the first cavity (defined by one of cavities #132 within back core #130) laterally overlaps and is fluidly coupled with multiple of the plurality of face core cavities (defined by cavities #132 within face core # 301) ([0070]-[0076]), such that the.
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 Wilson, with the apparatus of Lanfant, so as to expand the range of absorbed frequencies by providing an upper/face core having a greater number of smaller cells, which functions absorb higher frequencies than the lower/back core ([0004]-[0005], [0008], [0070])
Claims 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (5,543,198)
With respect to claim 11, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the face skin (13) is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the septum (24).
Wilson 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 tuning the device, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall (defined by one of opposing walls in a given cell having drainage slots #16) is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the face skin (13).
Wilson 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 tuning the device, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 13, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall (defined by one of opposing walls in a given cell having drainage slots #16) is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the septum (24).
Wilson 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.
Wilson 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 tuning the device, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 14, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall (defined by one of opposing walls in a given cell having drainage slots #16) is of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Wilson 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 tuning the device, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 19, Wilson teaches an apparatus (defined by panel of Figure 3) for an aircraft (Figure 6; Col 1, Lines 5-8), comprising: an acoustic panel (Figure 3) including a face skin (13), a septum (24), a back skin (11), a face core (121) and a back core (122); the face core (121) disposed vertically between and connected to the face skin (13) and the septum (24), the face core (121) comprising a plurality of face core sidewalls (defined by walls defining each of cavities #151) and a plurality of face core cavities (defined by cells #151), the plurality of face core cavities extending vertically through the face core (121) from the face skin (13) to the septum (24), each of the plurality of face core cavities (151) extending between neighboring pairs of face core sidewalls (defined by walls defining each of cavities #151), each of the plurality of face core cavities (151) fluidly discrete within the face core (121), and each of the plurality of face core cavities (151) fluidly coupled with one or more face skin perforations (Col. 2 , Lines 32-43; Col. 3, Lines 23-31) in the face skin (13); and the back core (122) disposed vertically between and connected to the septum (24) and the back skin (11), the back core (122) comprising a plurality of back core walls (identical to hexagonal walls forming cells #15 in Figure 1) and a plurality of back core cavities (152), the plurality of back core walls comprising a first wall (defined by one of opposing walls in a given cell having drainage slots #16), the plurality of back core cavities (152) extending vertically through the back core (122) from the septum (24) to the back skin (11), each of the plurality of back core cavities (152) fluidly coupled with a respective one of the plurality of face core cavities (151) through one or more septum perforations (Col. 5, Lines 29-35) in the septum (24), the plurality of back core cavities (152) including a first cavity (defined by one of the cavities connected by drainage slots #16 to an adjacent cavity) and a second cavity (defined by the aforementioned adjacent connected cavity), the first cavity fluidly coupled with the second cavity through one or more first wall perforations (16) in the first wall.
Wilson fails to explicitly teach a percentage of open area of the first wall is 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 tuning the device, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 20, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches wherein a percentage of open area of the first wall (defined by one of opposing walls in a given cell having drainage slots #16) is obvious, but unspecified relative to a percentage of open area of the face skin.
Wilson 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 tuning the device, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers Wilson and the obvious combination with Geertsema and Lanfant to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
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
Prosecution Insights