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
Claims 1, 5-6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, it is suggested to (1) in line 18, between “decorative film” and “(ii)”, insert “,” and (2) in line 19, after “(iii)” and before “support structure” insert “the”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 5, in line 2, amend “the skin” to “said at least one of the first skin and the second skin comprising the plurality of through holes”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 6, in line 2, it is suggested to amend “a covering cap or a decorative film” to “a second covering cap or a second decorative film”, to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 10, in line 2, amend “a privacy shell” to “the privacy shell” and “a seat” to “the seat”, 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, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowty et al. (US 2022/0332421) (Dowty) in view of Patel et al. (US 2013/012244) (Patel) and Aten et al. (US 2020/0199866) (Aten).
In reference to claims 1 and 10, Dowty teaches aircraft cabin designs including aircraft interior structures ([0001]). The aircraft interior structure includes a privacy shell and one or more aircraft seats ([0045]-[0046]) (corresponding to a furniture element to be installed in an aircraft cabin; said furniture element taking the form of a seat, a privacy shell, a console, an ottoman, a monument or any other furniture element in the aircraft cabin; the furniture element is constituted by a privacy shell intended to extend at least partly around a seat).
Dowty does not explicitly teach the structure comprises a composite panel, as presently claimed. However, Dowty teaches the structure can include one or more interior or exterior decor panels and it would be beneficial for the structure to protect from loud sounds and include noise receding structures installed on panels ([0040]; [0043]; [0076]; [0077]).
Patel teaches an interior panel for an aircraft ([0001]; [0036]). The panel comprises base and aft facings fused together along a perimeter defining an interior volume between the two facings ([0010]). The aft facing material may include an open weave/leno weave material having a porosity for effective control of propagating sound waves ([0045]) (corresponding to a covering cap or a decorative film made of a sound-permeable material). A flexible foaming film is used to form a composite reinforcement core positioned in the interior volume between the two facings ([0033]) (corresponding to a layer of flexible material).
In light of the motivation of Patel, 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 interior decor panel of Dowty be the interior panel including the aft facing, flexible foaming film and the base facing, in order to provide an interior panel for an aircraft that has reduced weight and material cost as well as enhanced thermal insulation and structural rigidity (Patel, [0021]; [0022]).
Aten teaches an acoustic panel for attenuating sound associated with aircraft operation ([0001]). The acoustic panel is arranged on the exterior wall structure provided in the aircraft ([0005]). The acoustic panel includes a first skin, a second skin and a core structure ([0003]) (corresponding to a composite panel, wherein the composite panel comprises: a first skin; a second skin; and a central honey-combed core). The core structure is connected to and forms a plurality of cavities between the first skin and the second skin ([0003]) (corresponding to a central honey-combed core arranged between the first skin and the second skin, said central honey-combed core comprising a plurality of cells).
Aten further teaches the first skin and the second skin may include perforations ([0003]) (corresponding to at least one of the first skin and the second skin comprising a plurality of through holes so as to make said at least one of the first skin and the second skin permeable to sound so that the plurality of cells of the central honey-combed core operate as sound traps). The acoustic panel is arranged on the exterior wall structure through a plurality of vibration-isolating mounts ([0036]) (corresponding to a support structure comprising removable or integrated fixing means for fixing an assembly on the composite panel). The mounts are configured to provide an air gap between the exterior fuselage skin and the acoustic panel, thereby providing an additional resonance chamber between the exterior fuselage skin and the acoustic panel ([0036]).
In light of the motivation of Aten, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to attach the acoustic panel via vibration-isolating mounts to the interior panel of Dowty in view of Patel, in order to provide tunable noise dampening and an additional resonance chamber between the exterior or the interior panel and the acoustic panel (Aten, [0048]; [0036]), and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Given that the interior panel of Dowty in view of Patel and Aten includes the aft facing, the flexible foaming film and the base facing layered in this order and the mounts are attached to the base facing layer, it is clear the flexible foaming film is between the aft facing and the base facing layer and mounts connecting the interior panel to the acoustic panel (corresponding to a support structure comprising removable or integrated fixing means for fixing an assembly including (i) the covering cap or the decorative film (ii) the layer of flexible material, and (iii) support structure on the composite panel, and the layer of flexible material being arranged between the support structure and the covering cap or decorative film).
In reference to claim 3, Dowty in view of Patel and Aten teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Patel and Aten further teaches the cellular core is made of aramid fiber composite, aramid fibers, metal or metal matrix composites (Aten, [0046]) (corresponding to the central honey-combed core is made of an aramid material or a metallic material).
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowty in view of Patel and Aten as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fournier et al. (US 5,888,610) (Fournier).
In reference to claim 2, Dowty in view of Patel and Aten teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Patel and Aten further teaches the first skin, septum and the second skin may be constructed from fiber reinforced composites (e.g., fiberglass composite, carbon fiber composite, composite reinforced by any combination of glass, carbon aramid or other fibers) (Aten, [0046]).
Dowty in view of Patel and Aten does not explicitly teach the first skin, septum and second skin each comprise several layers of glass fibers and/or carbon fibers covered by a resin.
Fournier teaches a panel with acoustic properties (col. 1, lines 7-9). The panel including an open honeycomb core and a first and second skin sandwiching the core (col. 2, lines 16-31). The skins are constituted by glass fibres impregnated with polyetherimide resin (col. 2, lines 36-37). The skins are made of a given number of plies (col. 2, lines 38-49) (corresponding to the first skin and the second skin each comprise several layers of glass fibers covered by a resin).
In light of the motivation of Fournier, 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 first skin, septum and second skin of Dowty in view of Patel and Aten comprise a plurality of plies of glass fiber impregnated with poletherimide resin, in order to provide a lightweight and rigid material for the layers that have the ability to withstand stresses, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claims 4 and 5, Dowty in view of Patel and Aten teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Patel and Aten further teaches selecting perforation hole sizes and spacing helps tune the acoustic panel for attenuating specific frequencies (Aten, [0048]).
Fournier teaches a panel with acoustic properties (col. 1, lines 7-9). The panel including an open honeycomb core and a first and second skin sandwiching the core (col. 2, lines 16-31). Perforations formed in one of the skins have a diameter between 0.5 and 1.5 mm and a proportion on the total surface of the skin of the holes is between 10 and 25% (col. 2, lines 2; col. 3, lines 51-54) (corresponding to the plurality of through holes have a dimension between 0.3 mm and 10 mm; a perforation rate of the skin is between 1% and 50%). Fournier further teaches the diameter of the hole is linked to the vacuum percentage in the perforated skin and can evolve according to the acoustic characteristic or properties of any possible decorative coating elements provided on the perforated skin (col. 5, lines 36-42).
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).
In light of the motivation of Fournier, 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 perforations of Dowty in view of Patel and Aten have a diameter between 0.5 and 1.5 mm and a perforation rate of between 10% and 25%, in order to provide a skink that evolves according to the acoustic characteristic of the acoustic panel, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 6, Dowty in view of Patel and Aten teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Patel and Aten further teaches the second skin includes perforations and forms an exposed surface in the aircraft cabin (Aten, [0039]; [0047]).
Fournier teaches a panel with acoustic properties (col. 1, lines 7-9). The panel including an open honeycomb core and a first and second skin sandwiching the core (col. 2, lines 16-31). Fournier further teaches one of the skins is perforated, the perforated face can be easily treated by thermosheathing a coating, such as a perforated decorated film or applying a acoustically transparent textile fiber (col. 3, lines 1-6).
In light of the motivation of Fournier, 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 a perforated decorated film or an acoustically transparent textile fiber on the second skin of Dowty in view of Patel and Aten, in order to provide a desired aesthetic to the exposed surface in the aircraft cabin, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claims 1-6 and cancelled claims 7-9, the previous Claim Objections of claims 1-9 are withdrawn. In response to amended claim 10, the claim objection with respect to the term “a privacy shell” is maintained. Additionally, in response to the amendments and upon further consideration of the claims a new set of Claim Objections is set forth above.
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires a support structure comprising a removable or integrated fixing means for fixing an assembly including (i) the covering cap or the decorative film, (ii) the layer of flexible material and (iii) the support structure on the composite panel, it is that Dowty, Keller (US 2009/0173571) and Fournier, alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier are withdrawn from record. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections over Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier 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
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