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 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, it is suggested to (1) in line 1, amend “Furniture” to “A furniture”; (2) in line 8, amend “at least one of the skins among the first skin and the second skin” to “at least one of the first skin and the second skin”; (3) in line 9, amend “said skin” to “said at least one of the first skin and the second skin” and (4) in line 9, amend “the cells” to “the plurality of cells”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claims 2-3 and 5-8, in line 1 it is suggested to amend “Furniture” to “The furniture”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 4, it is suggested to (1), in line 1, amend “Furniture” to “The furniture”; (2) in line 2, amend “the through holes” to “the plurality of through holes” and (3) after “have a” and before “dimensions”, delete “larger”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 9, it is suggested to (1), in line 1, amend “Furniture” to “The furniture” and (2) in line 3, after “or” and before “decorative film”, insert “the”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 10, it is suggested to (1), in line 1, amend “Furniture” to “The furniture” and (2) in line 2, amend “a privacy shell” to “the privacy shell”, in order to ensure consistency and 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 9 and 10 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 9, the limitations “the layer of flexible material” and “the support structure” are recited in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language, it is suggested to have claim 7 depend on claim 6, claim 8 depend on claim 7 and claim 9 depend on claim 8.
In reference to claim 10, in line 2 the word “it” is recited. It is unclear what “it” is meant to refer to, e.g., the furniture element, the composite panel or specific layers of the composite panel. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “it” will be interpreted as “the composite panel”. However, clarification is requested.
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 Dowty et al. (US 2022/0332421) (Dowty) in view of Keller (US 2009/0173571) and Fournier et al. (US 5,888,610) (Fournier).
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 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; it 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 ([0040]; [0043]; [0077]).
Keller teaches a trim panel for an aircraft interior that reduced aircraft interior noise levels ([0002]). The panel includes a structural layer ([0018]). The structural layer includes an outer resinated fiberglass net layer a honeycomb layer affixed to the outer resinated fiberglass layer and an inner fiberglass net layer affixed to the honeycomb layer opposite the outer resinated fiberglass net layer ([0020]) (corresponding to a composite panel, wherein the composite panel comprises: a first skin; a second skin; and a central honey-combed core arranged between the first skin and the second skin). The honeycomb layer includes a plurality of hexagonally-shaped prismatic cells ([0022]) (corresponding to said central honey-combed core comprising a plurality of cells).
In light of the motivation of Keller, 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 structure of Dowty include the trim panel, in order to provide a rigid, lightweight, acoustic absorption trim panel that both dampens exterior noise and transmits local exterior air pressure fluctuations so as not to radiate noise and reduces aircraft interior noise levels (Keller, [0002]; [0008]).
Dowty in view of Keller does not explicitly teach at least one of the outer resinated fiberglass net layer and the inner resinated fiberglass net layer includes a plurality of through holes, as presently claimed.
Fournier teaches a panel able to reconcile the strictest requirements concerning lightness, rigidity and mechanical resistance (col. 2, lines 10-12). The panel is a sandwich type formed of a core with an open cellular structure covered on its two faces with first and second skins (col. 2, lines 16-19). Perforations are formed in one of the skins with a diameter between 0.5 and 1.5 mm (col. 2, lines, 23-24) (corresponding to at least one of the skins among the first skin and the second skin comprising a plurality of through holes). The holes provide acoustic properties to the panel (col. 5, lines 36-42).
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 outer resinated fiberglass net layer of Dowty in view of Keller include perforations therethrough, in order to provide lightness and better acoustic properties to the panel.
Given that the outer resinated fiberglass net layer of Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier is substantially identical to the present claimed perforated skin, it is clear the outer resinated fiberglass net layer of Keller in view of Fournier would intrinsically be permeable to sound so that the cells of the honeycomb layer operate as sound traps.
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 claims 2 and 3, Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier further teaches the structure including the trim panel includes the honeycomb core layer made from a flame resistant meta-aramid material and the outer and inner resinated fiberglass net layers are made of glass fibers coated with a resin (Keller, [0020]-[0022]) (corresponding to the central honey-combed core is made of an aramid material or a metallic material).
Fournier further teaches the first and second skin made of glass fibers impregnated with resin include a plurality of plies, wherein the number of plies is directly linked to the stresses able to be applied to the panel (col. 2, lines 36-49). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the outer resinated fiberglass net layer and the inner resinated fiberglass net layer include a plurality of layers, in order to provide layers able to withstand more stresses (corresponding to the first skin and the second skin each comprise several layers of glass fibers and/or carbon fibers covered in by a resin).
In reference to claims 4 and 5, Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier further teaches the proportion on the total surface of the skin of holes is between 10% and 25% and the diameter of the holes is between about 0.5 and 1.5 mm (Fournier, col. 3, lines 51-54) (corresponding to the through holes have a larger dimension between 0.3 mm and 10 mm; a perforation rate of the skin is between 1% and 50%).
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 reference to claim 6, Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier further teaches a second sound attenuation panel is coupled to the structural layer (Keller, [0018]). The second sound attenuation panel includes a porous decor material layer, such as suede (Keller, [0023]) (corresponding to said furniture element further comprises a covering cap or a decorative film made of a sound-permeable material).
In reference to claim 7, Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier further teaches a second sound attenuation panel is coupled to the structural layer (Keller, [0018]). The second sound attenuation panel includes a foam layer, such as a layer made from open cell foam (Keller, [0023]) (corresponding to said furniture element further comprises a layer of flexible material). The instant application lists foam-based material as a flexible material in paragraph [0046], thus it is clear the foam layer is a foam-based layer and would be a flexible material.
In reference to claim 8, Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier further teaches the structural panel is affixed to an outer portion of a structural frame 210 via a plurality of anti-vibrational mounts 232 (Keller, [0025]; FIG. 4, provided below) (corresponding to said furniture element further comprises a support structure comprising removable or integrated fixing means for interfacing on the composite panel).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 9, Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier teaches the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Dowty in view of Keller and Fournier further teaches a second sound attenuation panel is coupled to the structural layer (Keller, [0018]). The second sound attenuation panel includes a porous decor material layer 134 and a foam layer 132 affixed to the porous decor material layer 134 (Keller, [0023]). FIG. 4, provided below, shows the foam layer 132 is between the decor material layer 134 and a structural frame 210 to which the trim panel is mounted (corresponding to the layer of flexible material is arranged between the support structure and the covering cap or decorative film).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Berry et al. (US 2019/0337632), Simpson et al. (US 2018/0257196), Lidoine (US 2010/0133378) and Chiou et al. (US 2009/0045009), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejections using these references would be cumulative to the rejections 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