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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 5, line 1 delete “length the first slot” and insert therein - - length of the first slot - - for form. 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein a ratio of the length the first slot to a radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot is about 2:1”. The limitation “about 2:1” is unclear and confusing as in claim 4 (from which claim 5 depends) the ratio of the length of the first slot (L see Figure 3 of the instant specification) to the width of the first slot (W see Figure 3) is between 2:1 and 10:1 so that the ratio of the length of the first slot (L see Figure 3) to the radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot (R see Figure 3, the radius is less than the width/half the width of the first slot) is between 2:0.5 and 10:0.5 and does not include about 2:1 and including as set forth in the instant specification about means ± 0.2 (see paragraph 0039).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al. (CN 105346152 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Xue discloses a face skin (acoustic resistance layer 5) capable of intended use for an acoustic panel (preamble statement considered to recite purpose or intended use see MPEP 2111.02), the face skin comprising: a sheet (acoustic resistance layer 5) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; and a plurality of slots extending from the first surface to the second surface, wherein each slot of the plurality of slots is defined by, at least, a first semi-circular wall and a second semi-circular wall opposite the first semi-circular wall (Figure 1 and see “It can be understood that, the width of short side direction of the rectangular hole is also can be semicircular, the semicircular arc is connected with two long sides” page 4 of the machine translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Xue teaches the sheet comprises a fiber reinforced composite material wherein the fiber reinforced composite material comprises at least one of a fiberglass reinforced composite or a carbon fiber reinforced composite (see page 5 of the machine translation).
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porte et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0148891).
Regarding claim 1, Porte discloses a face skin (structural layer 2’’’a) capable of intended use for an acoustic panel (preamble statement considered to recite purpose or intended use see MPEP 2111.02), the face skin comprising: a sheet (structural layer 2’’’a) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; and a plurality of slots extending from the first surface to the second surface, wherein each slot of the plurality of slots is defined by, at least, a first rounded end of a rectangle and considered a first semi-circular wall (see Figure 5) and a second rounded end of a rectangle considered a second semi-circular wall opposite the first semi-circular wall (see Figure 5 and Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Porte teaches the sheet comprises a fiber reinforced composite material wherein the fiber reinforced composite material comprises at least one of a fiberglass reinforced composite or a carbon fiber reinforced composite (Paragraph 0055).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xue.
Xue is described above in full detail.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Xue teaches a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is between 2:1 and 4:1 (see page 4 of the machine translation) wherein a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is 2:1 is considered a ratio of the length of the first slot to a radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot is about 2:1 (in as much as the limitation is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) so that Xue is considered to anticipate the limitations. In the event it is somehow considered Xue does not necessarily anticipate one or more of the limitations the following rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the plurality of slots taught by Xue have a length and a width and a radius of the semi-circular walls including a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is between 2:1 and 10:1 and a ratio of the length of the first slot to a radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot is about 2:1 as is not only fully consistent with that taught by Xue but in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close wherein there is no evidence of record showing criticality of the claimed ranges and Xue does not teach away from the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05) and further where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Porte.
Porte is described above in full detail.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Porte teaches a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is greater than or equal to 2:1 (Paragraphs 0045 and 0064) wherein a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is 2:1 is considered a ratio of the length the first slot to a radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot is about 2:1 (in as much as the limitation is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) so that Porte is considered to anticipate the limitations. In the event it is somehow considered Porte does not necessarily anticipate one or more of the limitations the following rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the plurality of slots taught by Porte have a length and a width and a radius of the semi-circular walls including a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is between 2:1 and 10:1 and a ratio of the length of the first slot to a radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot is about 2:1 as is not only fully consistent with that taught by Porte but in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close wherein there is no evidence of record showing criticality of the claimed ranges and Porte does not teach away from the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05) and further where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porte in view of Xue.
Porte is described above in full detail regarding claims 1 and 4-7.
Regarding claim 1, Porte teaches each slot of the plurality of slots is defined by, at least, a first rounded end of a rectangle (see including Figure 5) and considered a first semi-circular wall and a second rounded end of a rectangle considered a second semi-circular wall opposite the first semi-circular wall. In the event it is somehow considered the rounded ends of the rectangle taught by Porte are not necessarily semi-circular walls the following rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention each rounded end of the rectangle as taught by Porte is a semi-circular wall as is the conventional and predictable type rounded end of the rectangle for each slot of the plurality of slots as evidenced by Xue (described above in full detail).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Porte teaches a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is greater than or equal to 2:1 (Paragraphs 0045 and 0064) wherein a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is 2:1 is considered a ratio of the length the first slot to a radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot is about 2:1 (in as much as the limitation is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) so that Porte as modified by Xue is considered to teach the limitations. In the event it is somehow considered Porte as modified by Xue does not necessarily teach one or more of the limitations the following rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the plurality of slots taught by Porte as modified by Xue have a length and a width and a radius of the semi-circular walls including a ratio of a length of a first slot of the plurality of slots to a width of the first slot is between 2:1 and 10:1 and a ratio of the length of the first slot to a radius of the first semi-circular wall of the first slot is about 2:1 as is not only fully consistent with that taught by Porte but in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close wherein there is no evidence of record showing criticality of the claimed ranges and neither Porte nor Xue teach away from the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05) and further where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Bouty et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0000770) and/or Lidoine (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0133378). Additionally, claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porte in view of in view of Bouty and/or Lidoine. Additionally, claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porte and Xue as applied to claims 1 and 4-7 above, and further in view of Bouty and/or Lidoine.
Xue and Porte are each described above in full detail.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Neither Xue nor Porte require any particular slot pattern to achieve any particular percentage of open area wherein Porte expressly teaches one can vary the mutual spacing of the slots including identical or not and regular or not (Paragraph 0066). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the acoustic treatment/noise attenuation of the face skin by including a first region of the face skin comprises a greater percentage of open area as compared to a second region of the face skin by the first region of the face skin having a greater number of openings/holes of the plurality of openings/holes per unit area as compared to the second region as evidenced by Bouty (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0010, 0011, and 0034-0039) and/or Lidoine (Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0041, 0042, and 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Xue and Porte and Porte as modified by Xue include a first region of the face skin comprises a greater percentage of open area as compared to a second region of the face skin by the first region of the face skin having a greater number of slots of the plurality of slots per unit area as compared to the second region to optimize the acoustic treatment/noise attenuation of the face skin as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Bouty and/or Lidoine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Follet et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0029719 and see Figure 5) and Morin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0347785 and see Figure 3) each disclosing a face skin having a plurality of slots extending from a first surface to a second surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746