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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2303999, filed on 20 April 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13-15, 18-19 recites the limitation "the first layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “the first layer” is read as “the first woven textile layer”.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, and 16-18 recites the limitation "the second layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “the second layer” are read as “the second woven textile layer”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the binding yarns". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes “binding yarns” is recited in Claim 6 and not 2. For examining purposes, “the binding yarns” is read as “
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) for being dependent upon claim 1.
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 34; 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; Fig. 3), wherein the porous acoustic structure is multi-layered and comprises:
a first woven textile layer (32/32a 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 32; 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).
Herrera et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first and second layers each comprising yarns (In structure of 34 and 32 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 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 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 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 layer in the perforated acoustic structure (34 as woven into 32; 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 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 layer (32a; Fig. 3) 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. 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).
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), Brown et al. (US 7,017,706 B2), and Yamane (US 12,128,667 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. discloses the acoustic panel according to claim 2, 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). Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. 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, and at least two of the weft yarns (Mueller: Wefts 6; Fig. 1) forming the binding yarns.
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.
Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. fails to explicitly disclose at least two of the weft yarns (Mueller: Wefts 6; Fig. 1) forming the binding yarns. However, Yamane teaches 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). Yamane, Brown et al., Mueller, and Herrera et al. are in similar fields comprising woven materials. Modifying Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller and Brown et al. 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 at least two of the weft yarns forming the binding yarns for the purpose of being a common method of knitting adjacent layers together.
Regarding Claim 8, Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller, Brown et al., and Yamane the acoustic panel according to claim 7. Herrera et al. as modified by Mueller, Brown et al., and Yamane 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.
Claim 6 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 (32 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).
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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-4294329-A, US-4421455-A, US-4390584-A, US-8309477-B2, JP-2008111218-A.
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
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837