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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Group I, claims 1-13, drawn to an acoustic attenuation panel, classified in B32B 2305/026.
Group II, claims 14-17, drawn to an acoustic attention panel, classified in B32B 3/266.
Group III, claims 22-23, drawn to an acoustic attention panel, classified in B32B 2250/04.
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design. Specifically, Group I requires each of the acoustic metamaterial members comprise: a top section that extends across the respective cavity; and legs that extend outward from outer edges of the top section, with the legs positioned along walls of the respective cavity and the back layer is configured to be mounted to a surface in proximity to the source, which is not required by Group II. While Group II requires cavities that extend through the cellular member with open faces at the first side and the second side, which is not required by Group I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design. Specifically, Group I requires acoustic metamaterial members positioned in and extending across the cavities, wherein each of the acoustic metamaterial members comprise: a top section that extends across the respective cavity; and legs that extend outward from outer edges of the top section, with the legs positioned along walls of the respective cavity, which is not required by Group III. While Group III requires a single acoustic metamaterial positioned in and extending across the cavities, which is not required by Group I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design. Specifically, Group II requires acoustic metamaterial members connected to the cellular member and positioned in the cavities, the acoustic metamaterial members comprising: a top section sized to extend across the cavities; legs that extend outward from the top section and are positioned along the walls of the cavities, which is not required by Group III. While Group III requires a single acoustic metamaterial member positioned in and extending across the cavities; wherein the back layer is configured to be mounted to a surface in proximity to the source, which is not required by Group II. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-23 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Further, it is noted that if claims 22 and 23 were not withdrawn from consideration, the claims appear to raise the issue of new matter. While there is support in the original disclosure for acoustic metamaterial members positioned in and extending across the cavities, it does not appear there is support for the acoustic metamaterial member to be a single acoustic metamaterial member as claimed.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US 2022/0139364) (Joshi) in view of Haile et al. (US 2021/0142774) (Haile).
In reference to claims 1, 12 and 21, Joshi teaches a sandwich-structured component (e.g., panel) suitable for use in noise-attenuating applications ([0040]) (corresponding to an acoustic attenuation panel to reduce noise that emanates from a source). The panel includes a backing member, facing sheet and cellular structure disposed between backing member and facing sheet ([0046]) (corresponding to the acoustic attenuation panel comprising: a face layer; a back layer; an intermediate second positioned between the face layer and the back layer).
The facing sheet is porous and includes a plurality of though holed formed therein ([0052]) (corresponding to a porous face layer). The cellular structure includes walls serving as partitions defining sub-cavities (cells) within noise-attenuating cavity ([0047]) (corresponding to a cellular member comprising a plurality of cavities).
The backing member may be a part of another component of an engine such as a wall of the inlet or bypass duct of the engine ([0047]). Alternatively, the backing member is a sheet or a plate ([0047]). Joshi further teaches the panel is mounted on a duct in the engine ([0056]-[0057]). Thus, it is clear the sheet or plate backing member is mounted on the duct (corresponding to the back layer is configured to be mounted to a surface in proximity to the source).
Joshi does not explicitly teach acoustic metamaterial members positioned in and extending across the cavities, as presently claimed.
Haile teaches an acoustic system used to attenuate noise ([0001]). The system includes an acoustic panel having a honeycomb core sandwiched between a sound permeable skin and a solid sound impermeable skin ([0062]). Acoustic barrier caps are inserted into at least one of the cells to provide an acoustically reflective hard wall that forms the acoustic bottom of the cell ([0013]; [0062]) (corresponding to acoustic metamaterial members positioned in and extending across the cavities). The acoustic barrier cap is a solid polymer film that has been folded to form a planar acoustic barrier portion and a tab portion surrounding the acoustic barrier portion. The planar acoustic barrier portion extends transverse to the upper and lower walls of the honeycomb ([0013]; FIGS. 1-2 & 9) (corresponding to each of the acoustic metamaterial members comprise: a top section that extends across the respective cavity; and legs that extend outward from the outer edges of the top section; the acoustic metamaterial members are constructed from a polymer; the top section of each of the acoustic metamaterial members extends across an entirety of the respective cavity).
Haile further teaches the tabs of the insert are friction-locked to the cell walls during insertion of the insert ([0033]; [0036]) (corresponding to the legs positioned along walls of the respective cavity).
In light of the motivation of Haile, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include acoustic barrier caps in at least one cell of the cellular structure of Joshi, in order to reflect a substantial portion of sound that enters the cell and provide an internal termination of the acoustic cell that determines the acoustic depth of the cell (Haile, [0040]; [0001]), and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Further, given that the acoustic barrier caps of Joshi in view of Haile are substantially identical to the presently claimed acoustic metamaterial members in composition and structure, it is clear that the acoustic caps of Joshi in view of Haile are acoustic metamaterials.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claims 2 and 4-5, Joshi in view of Haile teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi in view of Haile teaches the acoustic barrier cap is inserted into at least one of the cells (Haile, [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include acoustic barrier caps in each of the cells of the cellular structure, in order to reflect a substantial portion of sound that enters each of the cells (Haile, [0040]), and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
When each of the cells includes an acoustic barrier cap (i.e., at least two of the acoustic metamaterial members positioned in the cavities) cell walls separate the acoustic barrier caps from each other. Thus, it is clear the at least two acoustic barrier caps in the cells are spaced apart.
In reference to claims 3 and 7-8, Joshi in view of Haile teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi further teaches the panel includes a porous septum connecting upper noise-attenuating cavities and lower noise-attenuating cavities ([0054]; Fig. 3) (corresponding to a septum that is porous). Fig. 3, provided below, shows the septum 34 extends across the cellular member between the facing sheet 28 and the backing member 26 (corresponding to extends across the cellular member between the face layer and the back layer and forms an upper section and a lower section of each cell).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Joshi in view of Haile teaches the acoustic barrier caps are located in the cells away from the first and second skins (Haile, [0063]; FIG. 9) (corresponding to the acoustic metamaterial members are positioned within a central section of the cavities and are spaced away from each of the face layer and the back face layer). The depth of the acoustic barrier caps maybe different among the cells. Multiple resonator depths allow fine-tuning of the noise attenuation properties of the acoustic structure (Haile, [0063]). Therefore, 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 barrier caps be in the central section of the cell and positioned in the upper section and lower section of the cavities, in order to provide different depth of the acoustic barrier caps and fine-tuning of the noise attenuation properties of the component.
In reference to claim 6, Joshi in view of Haile teaches the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. While Joshi in view of Haile does not explicitly teach the acoustic barrier caps comprise different shapes from one another, 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 acoustic barrier caps to fit the cell and comprise different shapes, 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 claims 9 and 10, Joshi in view of Haile teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi teaches the panel is mounted on a duct, wherein the duct is a part of an inlet of an aircraft engine ([0040]; [0056]-[0057]) (corresponding to the acoustic attenuation panel is mounted on an engine nacelle of an aircraft). The panel maybe mounted on a curved surface ([0045]; [0057]) (corresponding to the face layer, the back layer, and the intermediate section are flexible to enable the acoustic attenuation panel to be mounted on a curved surface of the aircraft).
In reference to claim 11, Joshi in view of Haile teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi in view of Haile further teaches the size and shape of the planar acoustic barrier portion will be the same or slightly less than the cell size and shape (Haile, [0047]; FIG. 2) (corresponding to the cavities and the acoustic metamaterial members comprise matching polygonal shapes to enable the acoustic metamaterial members to extend across an entirety of the cavity).
In reference to claim 13, Joshi in view of Haile teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi further teaches the cellular structure is a honeycomb core ([0051]) (corresponding to the cellular member comprises a honeycomb structure).
Response to Arguments
In response to amendments to the Drawings and Specification filed 03/16/2026, the previous Drawing Objections of record are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 1, which now recites “each of the acoustic metamaterial members comprise: a top section that extends across the respective cavity; and legs that extend outward from outer edges of the top section, with the legs positioned along the walls of respective cavity”, it is noted that Joshi, Biswas (US 2024/0198623) and Acoustic metamaterials based on polymer sheets: from material design to applications as sound insulators and vibrational dampers (Nakayama), alone or in combination, no longer meets the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Joshi in view of Biswas and Nakayama are withdrawn from record. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/16/2026 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 Kruckenberg (US 2020/0063691), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejection using this reference would be cumulative to the rejection of record set forth above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights