DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 08/20/2024 which is a 371 of PCT/FR2023/050249 filed on 02/22/2023 which claims foreign priority to France application FR2201598 filed on 02/22/2022. Claims 8 – 14 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cover comprising a first layer and a second layer, the second layer being superimposed onto the first layer, the first layer having a first stiffness and the second layer having a second stiffness lower than the first stiffness, a plurality of orifices being provided through the first layer, the second layer being acoustically porous” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 8. None of the originals figures showed the cited limitations. Figs. 5 – 8 only show a single layer cover (520) of a homogeneous material based on the hatching. The single layer cover (520) has a plurality of orifices (54). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein at least one of the plurality of partitions is acoustically porous” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 12. None of the originals figures showed the cited limitations, e.g., where the partition has holes or orifices. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 8 “first layer” and “second layer” are not described in the original Specification.
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.
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.
Claims 8 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussol et al. (9,989,010) in view of Chiou et al. (7,921,966) in view of Gangloff, Jr. et al. (11,391,244).
Regarding Claim 8, Dussol teaches, in Figs. 1 - 11, the invention as claimed including an assembly comprising: a duct (white space in Fig. 1 defined between 43 and 52, Col. 4, ll. 15 – 20 “a fan 51, which blows air rearward to form the primary airflow and the secondary airflow within the powerplant 1”) configured to guide an air flow; a beam (455 – Fig. 7) configured to support a movable element (432) of a thrust reverser (43) of an aircraft engine (1 – Fig. 1), the beam (455) comprising a wall (shown in Figs. 7 - 9) delimiting a plurality of cavities (457) opened to the air flow (through the duct); and an acoustic fairing comprising: a cover comprising a first layer (top and bottom walls shown in Figs. 7 - 9), a plurality of orifices (456) being provided through the first layer (top and bottom walls shown in Figs. 7 - 9), and a plurality of partitions (shown in Figs. 7 – 9, walls of the honeycomb cells) secured to the cover (when assembled for operation of the aircraft engine); wherein the acoustic fairing is configured to be added and fixed onto the beam (455, when assembled for operation of the aircraft engine) so that the cover delimits a portion of the duct (white space in Fig. 1 defined between 43 and 52) by obturating the plurality of cavities (457), and so that each of the plurality of partitions extends within one of the plurality of cavities (457) so that the acoustic fairing and the beam (455) delimit a plurality of acoustic cells (assembly shown in Figs. 7 - 9) configured to absorb an acoustic wave propagating from the air flow (Col. 7, ll. 10 – 20 “The acoustic splitter 45 preferably comprises surfaces forming acoustic panels on both sides, configured to absorb and/or dampen sound waves that it receives, in order to limit the noise produced by the engine.”); and wherein, once the acoustic fairing is added and fixed onto the beam (455, when assembled for operation of the aircraft engine), the first layer (top and bottom walls shown in Figs. 7 - 9) obturates the plurality of cavities (457).
Dussol is silent on said cover comprising said first layer and a second layer, the second layer being superimposed onto the first layer, the first layer having a first stiffness and the second layer having a second stiffness lower than the first stiffness, the second layer being acoustically porous, wherein, once the acoustic fairing is added and fixed onto the beam, the first layer obturates the plurality of cavities and the second layer delimits the portion of the duct.
Chiou teaches, in prior art Fig. 1, a similar cover comprising a first layer (16) and a second layer (18), the second layer (18) being superimposed onto the first layer (16), the first layer (16) having a first stiffness (inherent material property) and the second layer (18) having a second stiffness (inherent material property) lower than the first stiffness (0.006 inch thick fine woven stainless steel, i.e., woven mesh or fabric, second layer would have had a stiffness less than the first layer constructed from an aluminum sheet, i.e., structural load bearing material), the second layer (18) being acoustically porous. Chiou teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 50 – 60 and Col. 3, ll. 40 – 45, that the first layer (16) can be constructed from an aluminum sheet while the second layer (18) can be constructed from porous fine woven stainless steel having a thickness of 0.006 inch. Gangloff teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, a similar cover comprising a first layer (32) and a second layer (52), the second layer (52) being superimposed onto the first layer (32), the first layer (32) having a first stiffness (inherent material property) and the second layer (52) having a second stiffness (inherent material property) lower than the first stiffness (0.0004 inch to 0.0197 inch thick woven membrane, i.e., woven mesh or fabric, second layer would have had a stiffness less than the first layer constructed from suitable materials like metal or fiber reinforced composites, i.e., structural load bearing material), the second layer (52) being acoustically porous. Gangloff teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 65 and Col. 5, ll. 1 – 10, that the first layer (32) can be constructed from any suitable material while the second layer (52) had a thickness from approximately 10 microns to 500 microns (0.0004 inch to 0.0197 inch) can be an air-permeable membrane made from at least one of an oleophobic and a hydrophobic material, including, but not limited to a fibrous non-woven material, a woven construct, or a grid pattern based on polymers or inorganic fibers such as polyethylene, terephthalate, polyamide, carbon fiber, aramid fiber, or glass fibers, or any other suitable material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dussol, with the second layer being superimposed onto the first layer, the first layer having a first stiffness and the second layer having a second stiffness, the second layer being acoustically porous, taught by Chiou and Gangloff, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the assembly comprising: a duct configured to guide an air flow; a beam configured to support a movable element of a thrust reverser of an aircraft engine, the beam comprising a wall delimiting a plurality of cavities opened to the air flow; and an acoustic fairing comprising: a cover comprising a first layer and a second layer, the second layer being superimposed onto the first layer, the first layer having a first stiffness and the second layer having a second stiffness, the second layer being acoustically porous, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., superimposing the acoustically porous second layer onto the first layer would have facilitated preventing the entry of liquids (e.g., water, de-icer fluid, fuel, etc.) into an interior of the cells of the plurality of cells, Gangloff - Col. 4, ll. 50 – 60. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, would have had once the acoustic fairing is added and fixed onto the beam, the first layer obturates the plurality of cavities (spaces defined inside the walls of the honeycomb core) and the second layer delimits the portion of the duct since the function of the second layer was to prevent the entry of liquids (e.g., water, de-icer fluid, fuel, etc.) into the interiors of the plurality of cells.
Re Claim 9, Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein at least one passage (456 – Dussol – Figs. 7 - 9) is arranged passing through the cover (acoustically porous second layer superimposed onto the first layer containing a plurality of passages 456) so that, once the acoustic fairing is added and fixed onto the beam, the acoustic wave can propagate from the air flow to at least one acoustic cell through the at least one passage, as discussed in the Claim 8 rejection above, limiting the noise produced by the engine by absorbing and/or dampening sound waves, i.e., acoustic wave, was the designed and intended function of the acoustic fairing.
Re Claim 10, Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the cover and at least one of the plurality of partitions are in one piece.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, because Applicant has not disclosed that “the cover and at least one of the plurality of partitions are in one piece” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 11 recites “wherein at least one of the plurality of partitions is added and fixed onto the cover” which is mutually exclusive to Claim 10. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the arrangement of Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, because when the acoustic fairing was assembled for operation in the gas turbine engine all the structures would have been connected to prevents parts from being blown away or vibrated loose.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Re Claim 11, Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein at least one of the plurality of partitions is added and fixed onto the cover.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, because Applicant has not disclosed that “wherein at least one of the plurality of partitions is added and fixed onto the cover” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 10 recites “the cover and at least one of the plurality of partitions are in one piece” which is mutually exclusive to Claim 11. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the arrangement of Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, because when the acoustic fairing was assembled for operation in the gas turbine engine all the structures would have been connected to prevents parts from being blown away or vibrated loose.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Re Claim 12, Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein at least one of the plurality of partitions is acoustically porous.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, because Applicant has not disclosed that “wherein at least one of the plurality of partitions is added and fixed onto the cover” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the arrangement of Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, because when the acoustic fairing was assembled for operation in the gas turbine engine all the structures would have been connected to prevents parts from being blown away or vibrated loose.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Re Claim 13, Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising another acoustic fairing comprising another cover and a plurality of other partitions secured to the other cover, the other acoustic fairing being configured to be added and fixed onto the beam so that the other cover partially obturates one of the plurality of cavities and so that the plurality of other partitions extend within the one of the plurality of cavities, the acoustic fairing being configured to be added and fixed onto the beam so as to be superimposed onto the other acoustic fairing.
MPEP 2144.04(VI(B) Duplication of Parts states “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, with further comprising another acoustic fairing comprising another cover and a plurality of other partitions secured to the other cover, the other acoustic fairing being configured to be added and fixed onto the beam so that the other cover partially obturates one of the plurality of cavities and so that the plurality of other partitions extend within the one of the plurality of cavities, the acoustic fairing being configured to be added and fixed onto the beam so as to be superimposed onto the other acoustic fairing because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Re Claim 14, Dussol, i.v., Chiou and Gangloff, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including an aircraft engine (1 – Dussol – Fig. 1) comprising the assembly of claim 8 and another wall (interior wall of the air inlet or interior wall of the fan containment case) delimiting another part of the duct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights