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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 20 newly added. Applicant's arguments filed 13 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks Pgs. (7-9) state the following:
“As recited in Claim 1, the first textile layer has smaller-diameter yarns whereas the second textile layer has larger-diameter yarns. Such sizes of the yarns results in reduced roughness of the first textile layer, which is recited to be in contact with the airflow of the turbomachine for enhancing the aerodynamical properties of the turbomachine while having a panel with good mechanical and acoustic properties.
Herrera is silent about the aerodynamic properties of the turbomachine and the drawbacks concerning the disturbance of the airflow in the turbomachine due to the porous acoustic structure. Starting with document Herrera, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be encouraged to solve such problem.
Mueller discloses an acoustic panel having a plurality of layers (2, 3, 4). The acoustic panel has a first layer, a second layer and third layer, each layer being a woven textile layer. Each layer has yarns which have different diameters. However, Mueller teaches that the different diameters between each layer enhances the flexibility of the acoustic panel (column 3 lines 19-20). Mueller does not approach the problems concerning the disturbance of the airflow caused by the roughness of the layer which is in contact with the airflow.
In addition, document Mueller does not teach to set different diameter yarns within the porous acoustic structure which is attached to a perforated acoustic structure. To the contrary, based on the teachings of Mueller, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the mechanical properties of the structural layer (26) of document Herrera to enhance the flexibility of the acoustic panel rather than the porous acoustic layer.”
With respect to Remark (a) Herrera teaches the amended claim language, the first woven textile layer being intended to be in contact with an airflow of the turbomachine (Acoustic panels 10 reduces noise created by air flow 55 passing through 78 and combustion section 68, wherein 68 comprises a turbine 70 (a type of turbomachine); Col. 6, Lines 9-40; Fig. 8. In Fig. 3: first layer 32a contacts airflow 44 first; Col. 4, Lines 50-67).
With respect to Remark (b), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to Remark (c) and (d), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “roughness”) is not recited in rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Prior 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 9-10, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera et al. (US 8,820,477 B1) in view of Mueller (US 8,067,097 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Herrera et al. discloses an acoustic panel for an aircraft turbomachine (Panel 10 for turbomachine 60; Col. 6, Lines 9-30; Fig. 8), the acoustic panel having a sandwich structure comprising:
a cell structure comprising a plurality of acoustic cells (12 with cells 18,22,24; Col. 3, Lines 30-55; Fig. 3),
a perforated acoustic structure (32b with perforations 36; Fig. 3), and
a porous acoustic structure attached to the perforated acoustic structure, the perforated acoustic structure being arranged between the cell structure and the porous acoustic structure (See porous acoustic structure 32a and 34 attached to perforated structure 32b, perforated structure 32b arranged between cell structure 12 and porous structure 32a and 34; Fig. 3), wherein the porous acoustic structure is multi-layered and comprises:
a first woven textile layer (32a as an open weave or fibrous metal cloth; Col. 4, Lines 10-26; Fig. 3), and
a second woven textile layer connected to the first layer (34 as woven fabric of fibrous mesh woven into 32a; Col. 4, Lines 10-26; Col. 6, Lines 65-67; Fig. 3), the second layer being arranged between the first layer and the perforated acoustic structure (34 between 32a and 32b; Fig. 3), the first woven textile layer being intended to be in contact with an airflow of the turbomachine (Acoustic panels 10 reduces noise created by air flow 55 passing through 78 and combustion section 68, wherein 68 comprises a turbine 70 (a type of turbomachine); Col. 6, Lines 9-40; Fig. 8. In Fig. 3: first layer 32a contacts airflow 44 first; Col. 4, Lines 50-67).
Herrera et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first and second layers each comprising yarns (In structure of 34 and 32a as woven fabrics/cloth) having different first and second diameters, respectively, the first diameter being smaller than the second diameter.
However, Mueller teaches the first and second woven textile layers each comprising yarns having different first and second diameters, respectively, the first diameter being smaller than the second diameter (Mueller: First layer 3 and second layer 2, with 3 having a smaller/fine cross-section/diameter; Col. 4, Lines 10-20; 3 and 2 having warp 5 and weft 6; Col. 6, Lines 20-40; Fig. 1). Mueller and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven sound absorbers aircraft turbines. Modifying Herrera et al. with teachings of Mueller would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first and second layers each comprising yarns having different first and second diameters, respectively, the first diameter being smaller than the second diameter for the purpose of acoustic properties and flexional properties (Mueller: Col. 3, Lines 10-35).
Regarding Claim 9, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein the first and second woven textile layers are connected by welding or gluing (Col. 4, Lines 35-45).
Regarding Claim 10, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein the first and second woven textile layers have first and second openings respectively, the first openings being smaller than the second openings (Follows from first layer 32a and second layer 34 as modified by Mueller’s 3 having a smaller diameter than 2 in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein the porous acoustic structure is attached to the perforated acoustic structure by entanglement of the second woven textile layer in the perforated acoustic structure (Porous structure 34 and 32a, with second layer 34 woven into perforated 32b; Col. 4, Lines 10-26; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein the first (32a) and second woven textile layers (34) comprise a polymeric, metallic or ceramic material (32 and 34 comprises metal; Col. 4, Lines 10-20)
Regarding Claim 18, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first woven textile layer (32a; Fig. 3) has a first thickness (e1) of between 0.1 mm and 0.5 mm and/or the woven textile second layer (34; Fig. 1) has a second thickness (e2) of between 0.3 mm and 1.5 mm. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first layer has a first thickness (e1) of between 0.1 mm and 0.5 mm and/or the second layer (34; Fig. 1) has a second thickness (e2) of between 0.3 mm and 1.5 mm for the purpose of tuning the acoustic panel to varying frequencies (Col. 3, Lines 60-67), 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.
Claims 2-5 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera et al. (US 8,820,477 B1) in view of Mueller (US 8,067,097 B2) and Brown et al. (US 7,017,706 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first diameter of each of the yarns of the first layer (32 as modified by Mueller’s 3 having a small/fine cross-section diameter) is between 0.01 mm and 0.2 mm and between 0.01 mm and 0.15 mm.
However, Brown et al. teaches wherein the first diameter of each of the yarns of the first layer is between 0.01 mm and 0.2 mm and between 0.01 mm and 0.15 mm (Within range of Brown: Woven material 226 with diameter 0.02mm to 2mm; Col. 7, Lines 5-25; Fig. 8). Brown et al., Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven sound absorbers. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller with teachings of Brown et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first diameter of each of the yarns of the first layer is between 0.01 mm and 0.2 mm and between 0.01 mm and 0.15 mm for the purpose of optimizing exhaust flow (Brown: Col. 7, Lines 5-25), 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.
Regarding Claim 3, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 2, wherein the first diameter of each of the yarns of the first layer (32 as modified by Mueller’s 3 having a small/fine cross-section diameter) is between 0.01 mm and 0.15 mm (Within range of Brown: Woven material 226 with diameter 0.02mm to 2mm; Col. 7, Lines 5-25; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fail to explicitly disclose wherein the second diameter of each of the yarns of the second layer (34 as modified by Mueller’s 2 having a larger cross-section diameter) is between 0.01 mm and 1 mm.
However, Brown et al. teaches wherein the second diameter of each of the yarns of the second layer is between 0.01 mm and 1 mm (Within range of Brown: Woven material 226 with diameter 0.02mm to 2mm; Col. 7, Lines 5-25; Fig. 8). Brown et al., Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven sound absorbers. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller with teachings of Brown et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the second diameter of each of the yarns of the second layer is between 0.01 mm and 1 mm for the purpose of optimizing exhaust flow (Brown: Col. 7, Lines 5-25), 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 4, wherein the second diameter of each of the yarns of the second layer (34 as modified by Mueller’s 2 having a larger cross-section diameter) is between 0.03 mm and 0.5 mm (Within range of Brown: Woven material 226 with diameter 0.02mm to 2mm; Col. 7, Lines 5-25; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 10. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fail to explicitly disclose wherein the second openings have a size of between 0.1 mm and 2 mm.
However, Brown et al. teaches wherein the second openings have a size of between 0.1 mm and 2 mm (Within range of Brown: Woven material 226 with apertures 0.02mm to 10mm; Col. 7, Lines 5-25; Fig. 8). Brown et al., Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven sound absorbers. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller with teachings of Brown et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the second openings have a size of between 0.1 mm and 2 mm for the purpose of optimizing exhaust flow (Brown: Col. 7, Lines 5-25) and acoustic properties via clearance between fibers that form the second woven textile layer (Mueller: Col. 3, Lines 54-65), 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 11, wherein the second openings have a size of between 0.1 mm and 1 mm (Within range of Brown: Woven material 226 with apertures 0.02mm to 10mm; Col. 7, Lines 5-25; Fig. 8).
Claim 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera et al. (US 8,820,477 B1) in view of Mueller (US 8,067,097 B2) and Yamane (US 12,128,667 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fail to explicitly disclose wherein the porous acoustic structure (Porous structure 32a woven into 34; Col. 4, Lines 10-26; Fig. 1) comprises binding yarns which intersect yarns of the first and second layers to bind the first and second layers together.
However, Yamane teaches binding yarns which intersect yarns of the first and second layers to bind the first and second layers together (Yamane: Binding yarns 123 connect layers 121 and 122; Col. 8, Lines 5-15; Fig. 1). Yamane, Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven materials. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller with teachings of Yamane would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the porous acoustic structure comprises binding yarns which intersect yarns of the first and second layers to bind the first and second layers together for the purpose of maintaining a three-dimensional effect between the first and second layers (Yamane: Col. 1, Lines 35-61).
Regarding Claim 20, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fail to explicitly disclose wherein the porous acoustic structure comprises binding yarns which intersect yarns of the first and second woven textile layers to bind the first and second woven textile layers together, some of the yarns of the second woven textile layer forming the binding yarns. However,
However, Yamane teaches binding yarns which intersect yarns of the first and second woven textile layers to bind the first and second woven textile layers together (Yamane: Structure 12 comprises binding yarns 123 connect first woven 121 and second woven 122; Col. 6, Lines 60-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-15; Fig. 1), some of the yarns of the second woven textile layer forming the binding yarns (In structure of Yamane’s “interlacing the surface fabric-side binding yarn woven into the surface fabric 121 and the back fabric-side binding yam woven into the back fabric 122.” Col. 8, Lines 5-15). Yamane, Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven materials. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller with teachings of Yamane would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the porous acoustic structure comprises binding yarns which intersect yarns of the first and second woven textile layers to bind the first and second woven textile layers together, some of the yarns of the second woven textile layer forming the binding yarns for the purpose of for the purpose of maintaining a three-dimensional effect between the first and second layers (Yamane: Col. 1, Lines 35-61).
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera et al. (US 8,820,477 B1) in view of Mueller (US 8,067,097 B2), Yamane (US 12,128,667 B2), and Brown et al. (US 7,017,706 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 6, the yarns of the second layer comprise weft yarns and at least one warp yarn (34 as modified by Mueller’s 2 having a larger cross-section diameter with weft 6 and warp 5 in Fig. 1), at least two of the weft yarns forming the binding yarns (In structure of Yamane’s weft knitting 121 and 122 via binding yarn 123; Col. 9, Lines 20-35; Fig. 1. Weft knitting comprising a plurality of weft yarns).
Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Yamane fail to explicitly disclose wherein the second diameter of each of the yarns of the second layer (34 as modified by Mueller’s 2 having a larger cross-section diameter) is between 0.01 mm and 1 mm.
However, Brown et al. teaches wherein the second diameter of each of the yarns of the second layer is between 0.01 mm and 1 mm (Within range of Brown: Woven material 226 with diameter 0.02mm to 2mm; Col. 7, Lines 5-25; Fig. 8). Brown et al., Yamane, Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven sound absorbers. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Yamane with teachings of Brown et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the second diameter of each of the yarns of the second layer is between 0.01 mm and 1 mm for the purpose of optimizing exhaust flow (Brown: Col. 7, Lines 5-25), 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller, Yamane, and Brown et al. disclose the acoustic panel according to claim 7. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller, Yamane, and Brown et al. fail to explicitly disclose the wherein the binding yarns (Yamane: 123; Fig. 1) have a diameter smaller than the diameter(s) of yarns of the first and second layers. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera et al. (US 8,820,477 B1) in view of Mueller (US 8,067,097 B2) and Sugimoto et al. (JP-2014-047449 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first layer (32a; Fig. 3) has a roughness Ra of less than 20 µm.
However, Sugimoto et al. teaches the first layer a roughness Ra of less than 20 µm (In range of Sugimoto: Roughness Ra 1µm to 20 µm; Pg. 2, Last Paragraph; Pg. 3, First Paragraph). Sugimoto et al., Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising sound absorbers. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller with teachings of Sugimoto et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first layer a roughness Ra of less than 20 µm for the purpose of suppressing irregular reflection of sound waves on the surface of the first woven textile layer (Sugimoto: Pg. 2, Last Paragraph; Pg. 3, First Paragraph), 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.
Regarding Claim 14, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Sugimoto et al. disclose the acoustic panel according to claim 13, wherein the first layer (32a; Fig. 3) has a roughness Ra of less than 10 µm, a roughness Ra of less than 5 µm (In range of Sugimoto: Roughness Ra 1µm to 20 µm; Pg. 2, Last Paragraph; Pg. 3, First Paragraph).
Regarding Claim 15, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Sugimoto et al. disclose the acoustic panel according to claim 14, wherein the first layer (32a; Fig. 3) has a roughness Ra of less than 5 µm (In range of Sugimoto: Roughness Ra 1µm to 20 µm; Pg. 2, Last Paragraph; Pg. 3, First Paragraph).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera et al. (US 8,820,477 B1) in view of Mueller (US 8,067,097 B2) and Wilson et al. (US 5,490,602 A).
Regarding Claim 19, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 1. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first layer (32a; Fig. 3) has a weave in a satin pattern.
However, Wilson et al. teaches wherein the first woven textile layer has a weave in a satin pattern (Wilson: Col. 12, Lines 30-40). Wilson et al., Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven sound absorbers aircraft turbines. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller with teachings of Wilson et al., would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first layer has a weave in a satin pattern for the purpose of being a commonly used textile weave.
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 JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights