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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 7, amend “an axial” to “the axial”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porte et al. (US 2012/0318924) (Porte) in view of Wilson (WO 92/12854).
In reference to claims 1, 7 and 9-10, Porte teaches an air intake of an aircraft nacelle ([0017]). An aircraft propulsion system comprises the nacelle ([0002]) (corresponding to an aircraft propulsion assembly; a propulsion assembly for an aircraft).
The nacelle includes a lip 42 having a wall 52 that extends over the entire circumference ([0032]) (corresponding to a panel comprising a first skin). An alveolar 60 in the form of a honeycomb is flattened against the inside surface of the wall 52 and inserted between the wall 52 and a defrosting system 58 ([0035]; [0039]) (corresponding to a cellular structure forming acoustic absorption cavities). The defrosting system 58 includes a skin 62 ([0045]) (corresponding to a second skin).
Porte further teaches the alveolar structure includes a plurality of zones, the alveolar structures are sized essentially for the acoustic characteristics ([0057]; Fig. 6) (corresponding to an acoustic panel; the acoustic absorption cavities are distributed into several groups including a first group of the acoustic absorption cavities that are oriented towards a front end of the panel and a second group of the acoustic absorption cavities that are oriented towards a rear end of the panel).
Porte does not explicitly teach the honeycomb structures extend along an oblique axis relative to the wall, as presently claimed.
Wilson teaches a structural component for a noise attenuation panel (p. 1, lines 1-5). The panel includes a structural cellular component (p. 2, lines 7-9). The structural cellular component comprising wall portions which provide bounding surfaces for an array of cells and which terminate at opposite faces of the component, characterized in that the wall portions or predetermined ones of the wall portions forming the cells extend to at least one of the faces of the component at an angle or angles inclined to the normal to that face (p. 2, lines 9-15) (corresponding to each extend along an oblique axis relative to the first skin). The angle at which the wall portions are inclined to the normal to the or each face of the component is in excess of 20º (p. 3, lines 15-18) (corresponding to the axis of each acoustic absorption cavity of the acoustic absorption cavities forms an angle of inclination relative to the first skin comprised between 30 degrees and 50 degrees).
Wilson further teaches the cellular structure may include an upper cellular element inclined in one direction and a lower cellular element with cells inclined in an opposite direction (Wilson, p. 11, line 25 – p. 12, line 21; p. 13, lines 9-18) (corresponding to a first group of the acoustic absorption cavities that are inclined towards a front end of the panel along an axial direction of the aircraft propulsion assembly and a second group of the acoustic absorption cavities that are inclined towards a rear end of the panel along an axial direction of the aircraft propulsion assembly). The acoustic absorbing properties of the panel are improved by an appropriate inclining of the cells of the core to the backing and facing sheets, thereby extending the length of the cells without increasing the panel thickness and thereby extending the sound attenuation of the panel to the lower frequencies generated in the large diameter ultra high bypass ratio turbofan engines (p. 2, lines 26-31; p. 11, lines 17-24) (corresponding to an inclination of the acoustic absorption cavities allows the acoustic absorption cavities to have an acoustic length greater than a distance between the first skin and the second skin).
In light of the motivation of Wilson, 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 honeycomb structure of Porte include an upper cellular element and lower cellular element having cells inclined in opposite directions to each other and the cells inclined to the wall in excess of 20º, in order to provide a structural cellular component which is effective to attenuate noise without requiring an undesirable increase in the panel depth and to provide greater sound attenuation that covers a wider frequency range (Wilson, p. 11, lines 7-9).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
979
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Porte in view of Wilson teaches a plurality of zones each including an upper cellular element having a plurality of inclined cells and lower cellular element having a plurality of inclined cells, wherein the inclined cells of the upper cellular element are inclined opposite to the cells of the lower cellular element (corresponding to the cellular structure comprises several stages each including acoustic absorption cavities of the first group and acoustic absorption cavities of the second group). The inclined cells of the upper cellular structure are inclined to the normal to the inner facing sheet (i.e., towards a front end of the panel) and the cells of the lower cellular structure are inclined to the normal to the backing sheet (i.e., towards a rear end of the panel) (Wilson, p. 13, lines 9-18; Fig. 5).
In reference to claim 2, Porte in view of Wilson teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Porte teaches the honeycomb structure includes a plurality of zones, including at least one zone Z2 that is adjacent to the zone Z1 ([0057]). Fig. 6, provided above, shows two peripheral zones Z2 at the front and rear of the panel (corresponding to the cellular structure comprises a front block forming the acoustic absorption cavities of the first group and a rear block forming the cavities acoustic absorption of the second group).
In reference to claim 3, Porte in view of Wilson teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Porte teaches the free edges 68 of the alveolar structures 60.2 have a beveled shape ([0062]; Fig. 6) (corresponding to the cellular structure comprises a front edge and a rear edge which are each bevelled).
In reference to claim 4, Porte in view of Wilson teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Porte in view of Wilson teaches the alveolar structure is a honeycomb structure comprising a plurality of cells extending from the wall to the rear skin (Porte, Fig. 6; Wilson, Fig. 1) (corresponding to several of said acoustic absorption cavities of the first group open onto the front edge of the cellular structure and several of the acoustic absorption cavities of the second group open onto the rear edge of the cellular structure).
In reference to claim 5, Porte in view of Wilson teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Porter shows in Fig. 6, provided above, that the free edges 68 of the alveolar structures 60.2 having the beveled shape are covered by the rear skin 62 (corresponding to the second skin comprises a front part covering the front edge of the cellular structure and a rear part covering the rear edge of the cellular structure).
PNG
media_image2.png
465
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 6, Porte in view of Wilson teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Fig. 5, provided below, shows the free edge 64 of the alveolar structure 60 has a beveled shape in such a way as to ensure a better passage of the forces between the rear skin 62 and the wall. Fig. 5 and 6 show the beveled shape has an angle of about 45º (corresponding to the front edge and the rear edge of the cellular structure each form with the first skin an angle comprised between 30 degrees and 60 degrees).
In reference to claim 8, Porte in view of Wilson teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Porte further teaches the rear skin comes in the form of a layer that is based on fibers marketed under the trademark Kevlar® ([0045]) (corresponding to the first skin and/or the second skin comprises an organic matrix composite material). The alveolar structure is made of an aluminum alloy ([0044]; [0060]) (corresponding to the cellular structure comprises a metal material).
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“In the previous Response, Applicant pointed out that Porte does not teach inclined cavities and that the allegedly inclined honeycomb structure in Wilson do not specify an orientation and at most, Wilson suggest the honeycomb structure are inclined in a circumferential direction. That is, Wilson FIG. 5 shows a slight curvature which correlates to the curvature around the rotational axis of the propulsion engine (the propulsion engine is shown in FIG. 6). The inclination of the honeycomb structures in Wilson therefore follows the curvature around the axis rather than having an inclined toward an end of the panel along the axial direction.”
Remarks, p. 4
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Wilson teaches the cellular core includes cells inclined to the normal to the backing sheet (p. 2, 2nd paragraph; p. 7, 1st paragraph). The core includes upper and lower cellular elements, which are positioned and arranged one above the other. The cells of the one element are inclined to the normal to the panel in a direction opposite to that of the cells of the other element (p. 5, 5th paragraph). While Wilson does not explicitly disclose the upper cells and lower cells are inclined toward a front end or back end of the panel, the cells are inclined with respect to the surface normal of the panel and will necessarily be towards a front or back of the panel, as shown in FIG. 5 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
408
1020
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Given that Porte in view of Wilson teaches the panel includes the cellular structure having upper and lower cellular elements having cells inclined in opposite directions of each other, it is clear at each of a front end and rear end of the panel cells will be included towards both the front and rear end of the panel, and thereby meeting the presently claimed limitations.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Evans (US 2020/0298987), 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