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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 10 amend “the respective cavity” to “a respective cavity of the plurality of cavities”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 21 and 24-25 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.
In reference to claim 1, the limitation “the different acoustic metamaterial members” is recited in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. It is unclear if the different acoustic metamaterials members are meant to refer to the two or more of the acoustic metamaterial members, each of the acoustic metamaterial members or the metamaterial members that comprise different shapes and being constructed from different materials. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “the different acoustic metamaterial members” will be interpreted as the two or more of the acoustic metamaterial members in the cavities comprise different shapes and are constructed from different materials. However, clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-13, 21 and 24-25, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US 2022/0139364) (Joshi) in view of Ayle (US 2012/0037449).
In reference to claims 1, 5, 12, 21 and 25, 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 holes 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.
Ayle teaches an acoustic system that is used to attenuate noise ([0003]). The system includes a honeycomb acoustic structure sandwiched between skins ([0009]; [0050]). Septum caps are inserted into honeycomb cells of the honeycomb acoustic structure ([0009]) (corresponding to acoustic metamaterial members positioned in and extending across the cavities). Ayle further teaches the septum caps may be placed at different levels within the honeycomb cells to provide fine-tuning of noise attenuation based on well-known Helmholtz resonator theory. Multiple septum caps may be placed in a single honeycomb cell at different levels to create multiple cavities and impedance grids. The multiple septum caps in the same honeycomb cell are made from different acoustic material ([0012]; [0024]; FIG. 5) (corresponding to two or more of the acoustic metamaterial members are positioned in the cavities in an overlapping alignment and with the different acoustic metamaterial member in the cavities being constructed from different materials; the acoustic metamaterial members in the cavities are spaced apart; each cavity comprises a pair of acoustic metamaterial members that are spaced apart by a gap).
The septum cap is formed from a polymer sheet of acoustic material ([0025]; [0028]-[0033]) (corresponding to the acoustic metamaterial members are constructed from a polymer). The septum cap has a resonator portion that extend in the same plane transversely across the cell and has an outer edge located at the cell walls and flange portions that extend between the outer edge of the resonator portion and the perimeter of the sheet (claim 1; claim 5; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; [0026]) (corresponding to each of the acoustic metamaterial members comprise: a width section that extends across the respective cavity; and legs that extend outward from outer edges of the width section, with the legs position along walls of the respective cavity; the width section of each of the acoustic metamaterial members extends across an entirety of the respective cavity). The septum is friction-locked to the cell wall ([0042]; [0045]).
Ayle further teaches routine experimentation is used to determine the various sizes and shapes of the acoustic sheets required to achieve the necessary frictional locking or holding of the septum caps in the cell wall ([0038]). The septum cap maybe cut to match the shape of the cell or maybe a rectangular sheet folded into a septum cap ([0039]). Thus, it is clear when two septum caps are inserted into a cell and one septum cap is cut to match the shape of the cell while the other septum cap is folded from a rectangular sheet that the two septum caps are different shapes (FIG. 2; FIG. 6) (corresponding to the different acoustic metamaterial members in the cavities comprising different shapes).
Alternatively, 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 septum caps 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 light of the motivation of Ayle, 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 septum caps in at least one cell of the cellular structure of Joshi, in order to provide fine-tuning of noise attenuation properties of the acoustic structure, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Further, given that the acoustic barrier caps of Joshi in view of Ayle 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 Ayle 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 claim 2, Joshi in view of Ayle teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi in view of Ayle teaches two sets of septum caps are inserted into the honeycomb to provide each cell with two septum caps (Ayle, [0035]) (corresponding to the acoustic metamaterial members are positioned in each of the cavities).
In reference to claim 3, Joshi in view of Ayle teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi in view of Ayle teaches two sets of septum caps are inserted into the honeycomb to provide each cell with two septum caps (Ayle, [0035]). FIG. 5, provided below, shows the septum caps, 22C/22D, are in a central section of the cells spaced away from the upper and lower
PNG
media_image1.png
252
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
surfaces of the honeycomb structure (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 layer).
In reference to claims 7 and 8, Joshi in view of Ayle 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_image2.png
447
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Joshi in view of Ayle teaches the septum caps are located within the cells (Ayle, [0024]). The septum caps may be placed at different levels within the honeycomb cells to provide fine-tuning of noise attenuation (Ayle, [0012]). 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 septum 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 claims 9 and 10, Joshi in view of Ayle 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 Ayle teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi in view of Ayle further teaches the size and shape of the septum cap is shaped to match the cell (Ayle, [0025]; [0038]; [0039]) (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 Ayle 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).
In reference to claim 24, Joshi in view of Ayle teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Joshi in view of Ayle teaches the septum caps are inserted into the cells of the honeycomb structure and form a permanent bond with the cell wall (Ayle, [0011]) (corresponding to the cellular member and the acoustic metamaterial members are formed together).
However, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Joshi in view of Ayle meets the requirements of the claimed product, Joshi in view of Ayle clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires two or more of the acoustic metamaterial members positioned in the cavities in an overlapping alignment and with the different acoustic metamaterial members in the cavities comprising different shapes and being constructed from different materials, it is noted that Joshi and Haile et al. (US 2021/0142774) (Haile), alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Joshi in view of Haile are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections over Joshi in view of Haile, Remarks filed 07/22/2026 at p. 7, 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
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