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, 3-4, 7-8, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howarth (2018/0016987).
With respect to claim 1, Howarth teaches an aerodynamic component (Figures 5A-5B, #24), comprising: an aerodynamic surface having a first side (defined by upper surface of #24 facing airflow #18)facing a fluid flow in a flow direction (flow/flow direction denoted by arrow #18), and a second side (side facing resonant cells #28) opposed to the first side; at least one resonant cavity (28- [0014]) on the second side of the surface; at least one rib (404 – [0018] – note that riblets can be formed by protrusions #404 and can be continuous so as to form channels therebetween) on the first side of the surface and aligned in the flow direction (18), the at least one rib (404) extending away from the first side of the surface and defining channels (defined by space between riblets #404 on either side of perforations, especially when riblets #404 are formed as continuous riblets) on either side of the at least one rib (404); and at least one perforation (30) connecting a channel on the surface with the at least one resonant cavity (28).
With respect to claim 3, Howarth teaches wherein the at least one perforation (30) has an oblong shape.
With respect to claim 4, Howarth teaches wherein the oblong shape (of perforation #30) is oriented with a long dimension aligned with the flow direction (18).
With respect to claim 7, Howarth teaches wherein the component (24) is selected from the group consisting of a turbofan nacelle duct ([0010] – note sheet #24 forms a turbofan nacelle duct when panel is provided in nacelle inlet #19 or fan section #21), a blade surface, a vane surface and a wing.
With respect to claim 8, Howarth teaches wherein the at least one rib (404) comprises a plurality of substantially parallel ribs defining the channels therebetween. Clearly seen in Figure 5A, when riblets are formed from continuous protrusions #404 ([0018]).
With respect to claim 11, Howarth teaches wherein the at least one perforation (30) extends laterally across a width of the channel (channel between riblets #400, when riblets are formed by continuous protrusions #404 - [0018]).
With respect to claim 12, Howarth teaches a method for making a component (Figures 5A-5B, #24) having a surface treatment (400/404 – [0018]) on an aerodynamic surface (defined by upper surface of #24 facing airflow #18), the method comprising: forming a plurality of ribs (404 – [0018] – note that riblets can be formed by protrusions #404 and can be continuous so as to form channels therebetween) on a first side (defined by upper surface of #24 facing airflow #18) of the aerodynamic surface, the first side being configured to face a fluid flow (18), the ribs (404) extending away from the first side and defining channels therebetween (channels defined by space between riblets #404 on either side of perforations, especially when riblets #404 are formed as continuous riblets), and the aerodynamic surface further having a second side (side of #24 facing resonant cells #28) opposed to the first side, and at least one resonant cavity (28- [0014]) on the second side; forming at least one perforation (30) through the aerodynamic surface from the first side to the second side and communicated with the at least one resonant cavity (28).
With respect to claim 15, Howarth teaches wherein the step of forming the at least one perforation (30) comprises forming the at least one perforation (30) through the aerodynamic surface at the channels ([0013]).
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 2, 5-6, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howarth (2018/0016987).
With respect to claim 2, Howarth teaches the aerodynamic component of claim 1. Howarth further teaches wherein the at least one perforation (30) comprises a plurality of perforations (30) having a diameter of an obvious, but unspecified dimension.
Howarth fails to explicitly teach the plurality of perforations having a diameter between 10 and 1,000 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of perforations having a diameter between 10 and 1,000 microns, 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, setting or altering a perforation size is well known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further, 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).
With respect to claims 5-6, Howarth teaches the aerodynamic component of claim 1. Howarth further teaches wherein the at least one perforation (30) is configured to provide open area in the surface of an obvious, but unspecified percentage.
Although Figure 5A appears to depict the at least one perforation providing an open area in the surface of at least 1%, Howarth fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one perforation is configured to provide open area in the surface of at least 1%, and wherein the open area is between 4 and 20%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the at least one perforation is configured to provide open area in the surface of at least 1%, and wherein the open area is between 4 and 20%, 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, setting or altering a perforation open area is well known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for acoustically tuning the device.
With respect to claim 9, Howarth teaches the aerodynamic component of claim 1. Howarth further teaches wherein the plurality of substantially parallel ribs (404 – [0018] – note that riblets can be formed by protrusions #404 and can be continuous so as to form channels therebetween) have a lateral spacing, defining the channels, of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Howarth fails to explicitly teach the plurality of perforations having a diameter between 10 and 1,000 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of substantially parallel ribs have a lateral spacing, defining the channels, of between 10 microns and 1,000 microns, 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, setting or altering a spacing size between parallel ribs is well known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, as Howarth describes the ribs as being completely variable based on the needs of any particular situation. Further, 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).
With respect to claim 10, Howarth teaches the aerodynamic component of claim 1. Howarth further teaches wherein the at least one rib (404 – [0018] – note that riblets can be formed by protrusions #404 and can be continuous so as to form channels therebetween) has a height of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Howarth fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one rib has a height of between 10 microns and 1,000 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the at least one rib has a height of between 10 microns and 1,000 microns, 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, setting or altering a rib height is well known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, as Howarth describes the ribs as being completely variable based on the needs of any particular situation. Further, 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).
With respect to claim 14, Howarth teaches the aerodynamic component of claim 12. Howarth further teaches wherein the at least one perforation (30) is formed having a diameter of an obvious, but unspecified dimension.
Howarth fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one perforation is formed having a diameter of between 10 and 1,000 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the at least one perforation is formed having a diameter of between 10 and 1,000 microns, 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, setting or altering a perforation size is well known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further, 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howarth (2018/0016987) in view of Wilson (2003/0141144).
With respect to claim 13, Howarth teaches the aerodynamic component of claim 12. Howarth further teaches the step of forming the at least one perforation (30) includes an unspecified, but obvious method to form the at least one perforation (30).
Howarth fails to explicitly teach wherein the step of forming the at least one perforation comprises ultraviolet laser drilling to form the at least one perforation.
Wilson teaches a similar acoustic honeycomb panel having non-circular perforations, wherein the step of forming the at least one perforation comprises ultraviolet laser drilling to form the at least one perforation ([0035], [0106]).
Because Howarth does not specify how the perforations are formed, and Wilson teaches a method for forming similar perforations which includes ultraviolet laser drilling to form the at least one perforation, 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 method of Howarth, with the ultraviolet laser drilling of Wilson, so as to provide a known technique to form the perforations of Howarth in the same way as in Wilson, to provide the predictable result of successfully forming the Howarth perforations by use of the ultraviolet laser drilling technique of Wilson. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
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