CTNF 18/619,670 CTNF 93604 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In reference to claim 27 , new claim 27 depends on claim 4 which requires the attachment portion extends away from the main body of the core structure. While the originally filed disclosure has support for the attachment portion extending away from the main body or may form a part of the main body at [0053]; FIGS. 3-4 & 5-7. There does not appear to be support for when the attachment portion extends away from the main body, the first portion of the attachment aperture extends between the first face and the second face of the main body as require by claim 27 . Regarding dependent claim 28 , these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 27 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In reference to claim 29 , the new claim requires the core structure to comprises a plurality of hollow cells, however, claim 4 on which claim 29 ultimately depends already requires the core structure to include a plurality of hollow cells. Therefore, claim 29 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 4, 25-26 and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porte et al. (US 6,123,170) (Porte) in view of Delehouze et al. (US 2018/0166058) (Delehouze) . In reference to claims 2, 4, 25, 29 and 34-35 , Porte teaches a noise reducing assembly for turbines comprising an air inlet structure and an air blower housing (col. 2, lines 56-58). FIG. 3, provided below, shows the air blower housing 22 includes a honeycomb core (col. 6, lines 55-66) ( corresponding to a composite panel comprising: a core structure comprising a main body defining at least one face; a plurality of hollow cells formed within the main body, the plurality of hollow cells defined by a plurality of walls ). The air blower housing includes a flange 34 having a hole 35 for passing a fastening means through (FIG. 3; col. 6, lines 16-24) ( corresponding to an attachment portion is integrally formed with the main body, and the attachment portion defines a first portion of an attachment aperture; the attachment portion forms a local thickened feature, and the attachment aperture is positioned outwardly of the main body and the local thickened feature; the attachment portion extends away from the main body to a terminal end along a first axis, and wherein the attachment aperture is disposed between the main body and the terminal end of the attachment portion and defines a second axis that is transverse to the first axis ). A connection part 36 having a through hole 37 matching through hole 35, wherein the connection part 36 has a first arm 36a disposed against a portion of the housing structure including the honeycomb core (FIG. 3) ( corresponding to a sheet bonded to at least one face of the core structure, wherein the composite sheet defines a second portion of the attachment aperture, wherein the first portion of the attachment aperture and the second portion of the attachment aperture align along a common axis ). Porte does not explicitly teach the connection part is a composite sheet, as presently claimed. Delehouze teaches an acoustic attenuation panel comprising two external skins made of a ceramic-matrix composite material containing a fibrous reinforcement, assembled on either side of a cellular central core including walls forming acoustic cavities made by a least partial electrochemical conversion of aluminum into aluminum oxide ([0010]). Delehouze further teaches ceramic-matrix composite material is both resistant and light ([0009]). Further, by providing a cellular core composed of aluminum oxide enables the panel to withstand temperatures much higher than the melting temperature of aluminum and allows the panel to be in hot areas of an engine ([0022]). In light of the motivation of Delehouze, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the connection part of Porte be a ceramic-matrix composite material, in order to provide a connection part that is both resistant and light and have the honeycomb core be composed of aluminum oxide, in order to provide a noise reducing honeycomb that is able to be in hot areas of PNG media_image1.png 780 1428 media_image1.png Greyscale the engine, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. In reference to claim 26 , Porte in view of Delehouze teaches the limitations of claim 25, as discussed above. Porte teaches the connection between the internal wall 20 and the air blower housing 22 is made by means of an annular connection part 36 and the external annular flange 34 of the air blower housing (FIG. 3; col. 6, lines 16-24) ( corresponding to the local thickened feature is a flange ). In reference to claim 30 , Porte in view of Delehouze teaches the limitations of claim 29, as discussed above. Porte teaches the air blower housing core is a honeycomb core (col. 6, line 65) ( corresponding to at least one of the plurality of hollow cells comprises a hexagonal shape ). In reference to claim 31 , Porte in view of Delehouze teaches the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Porte in view of Delehouze teaches the claimed invention except for the shape of the through hole being non-circular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the through hole be non-circular, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In reference to claim 32 , Porte in view of Delehouze teaches the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Porte teaches the core is a honeycomb core while the flange is made of a metal material (col. 6, line 65; col. 7, lines 7-10). Given that the honeycomb core includes a plurality of cells while the skin is a solid metal and forms the attachment portion, it is clear the attachment portion comprises a density greater than that of the core ( corresponding to the attachment portion comprises a material density that is greater than a material density of the main body ). In reference to claim 33 , Porte in view of Delehouze teaches the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Porte teaches the core is a honeycomb core (col. 6, line 65) ( corresponding to the main body is defined by a first lattice having a plurality of lattice walls in a first lattice pattern ). In reference to claim 36 , Porte in view of Delehouze teaches the limitations of claim 35, as discussed above. Given that the core material of Porte in view of Delehouze only includes aluminum oxide, it is clear the core material is an unreinforced core structure (Delehouze, [0022]-[0023]) ( corresponding to the core structure is an unreinforced core structure ). Response to Arguments In response to cancelled claim 7, the previous 35 USC 112(d) rejections of record are withdrawn. In response to cancelled claim 1 and amended claims 2 and 4, which now require the attachment aperture positioned outwardly of the main body and of the local thickened feature and the attachment portion extends away from the main body to a terminal end along a first axis and the attachment aperture is disposed between the main body and the terminal end of the attachment portion and defined a second axis that is transverse to the first axis, it is noted that Lewis et al. (US 2019/0009880) (Lewis) and Delehouze, alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Lewis in view of Delehouze are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections, as discussed above. Applicant’s arguments filed 03/11/2026 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Porte et al. (FR 3 055 885), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejection using this reference would be cumulative to the rejection of record set forth above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm. 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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. /MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/619,670 Page 2 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/619,670 Page 3 Art Unit: 1784
Prosecution Insights