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 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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccobene et al. (US 2020/0013385) (Riccobene) in view of Wirt et al. (US 3,819,007) (Wirt).
In reference to claim 1, Riccobene teaches a structure of an acoustic panel ([0029]) (corresponding to a structural element for a composite acoustic structure). The acoustic panel 20 comprises a composite structure 22 and a honeycomb structure 24 which is fixed to the composite structure 22 ([0030]; Fig. 2) (corresponding to at least one cellular core; a resistive skin covering one of the two faces of the cellular core).
Fig. 2, provided below, shows the honeycomb structure 24 includes a plurality of cells separated by walls (corresponding at least one cellular core having a network of hollow cells delimited by partitions that extend between two faces of the cellular core). Inserts 28 comprising nozzles 30 are embedded in the composite structure 22 ([0034]; Fig. 2) (corresponding to the structural element comprises a plurality of applied inserts; the resistive skin being perforated by each of the inserts).
Riccobene further teaches the nozzle 30 is formed of a hollow cylinder having a through-bore 34 ([0032]; Fig. 3) (corresponding to each insert having a tubular through-body open at ends). Fig. 3, provided below, shows the insert 28 has a widened base 39 on an end opposite to the cap 32 ([0047]) (corresponding to a flange protruding from the tubular through-body).
The insert 28 is integrated in the composite structure 22 by penetrating the cover 38 of the insert 28 into the composite structure 22 ([0035]; [0044]) (corresponding to the resistive skin being perforated by each of the inserts positioned facing all or some of the cells such that, for each insert, the flange is position against the resistive skin on a first side, and the tubular through-body opens out on a second side of the resistive skin opposite the first side). The bore 30 of the insert is a unitary body (Fig. 3) (corresponding to the inserts are formed in one piece; the tubular through-body of each of the inserts extending between a first end having the flange and a second end).
Riccobene does not explicitly teach the second end of the tubular body being circumferentially beveled, as presently claimed.
Wirt teaches an apertured facing sheet used in the construction of sound absorptive panels (col. 1, lines 6-7, 39-41). A rivet-like hollow tubular element extends through the laminated sheet and has its upper flange end flush with the outer surface of the facing sheet (col. 3, lines 20-28). The dependent end of the tubular element is chamfered to permit the element to be driven through the laminated sheet by a suitable tool in order to install the element (col. 3, lines 28-32).
In light of the motivation of Wirt, 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 tubular body end with a chamfer, in order to permit the insert to be driven through the composite structure without requiring a cap, thus simplifying the inserts construction and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
992
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, Riccobene in view of Wirt teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Riccobene teaches the nozzle 30 is in the form of a hollow cylinder having a through hole and comprises a widened base 39 opposite the end of the insert 28 that initially penetrates the composite structure 22 ([0032]; [0047]; Fig. 3) (corresponding to the tubular through-body of each of the inserts extends between a first end and a second end along an open axis, the tubular through-body having, at the first end, the flange extending in a plane orthogonal to the opening axis of the tubular body being axially open at both ends thereof).
In reference to claim 5, Riccobene in view of Wirt teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fig. 2, provided above, shows the nozzles 30 are separate from one another (corresponding to the inserts are separate from one another).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccobene in view of Wirt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 2006/0093802) (Tsai).
In reference to claim 2, Riccobene in view of Wirt teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Riccobene in view of Wirt does not explicitly teach the composite structure is formed from a multilayer composite structure, as presently claimed.
Tsai teaches composite materials using thin plies to achieve improved physical properties ([0003]). The thin plies are combined with an adhesive to provide a reinforced bonding material for composite components having honeycomb or sandwich constructions (claim 9).
Tsai teaches the composite material has a plurality of layers (plies) including first plies oriented in a first direction and second plies oriented in a second direction ([0037]) (corresponding to the resistive skin is formed from a multilayer composite structure). Tsai further teaches a hybrid combination of thick and thin plies can provide a balance between performance and cost ([0040]).
In light of the motivation of Tsai, 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 composite structure of Riccobene in view of Wirt include a plurality of thin plies, in order to achieve improved physical properties, improved resistance to micro-cracking and delamination and provide a balance between performance and cost (Tsai, [0003]; [0011]; [0040]), and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 4, Riccobene in view of Wirt and Tsai teaches the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Riccobene in view of Writ and Tsai teaches the insert is a hollow cylinder (Riccobene, [0032]; Fig. 2; Writ, Fig. 3) (corresponding to the tubular through-body of the inserts has a constant cross-section).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riccobene in view of Wirt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Why Thermoplastic Materials are Important (Dynisco).
In reference to claim 6, Riccobene in view of Wirt teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Riccobene in view of Wirt does not explicitly teach the inserts are formed from thermo- plastic material(s), as presently claimed.
Dynisco teaches plastic materials are used extensively as they can be molded into complex components fairly easily and provide resilience, physical strength, corrosion resistance, electrical insulation, elasticity, chemical resistance, broad color range, lightness in weight, thermal insulation, and moldability (p. 1, Advantages of Plastics).
In light of the motivation of Dynisco, 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 inserts be made of a thermoplastic material, such as engineering thermoplastics, in order to provide an insert with high strength, impact resistance, stiffness, fire resistance, and temperature resistance (Dynisco, p. 2), and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claims 1 and 3-4, the previous Claim Objections of record are withdrawn.
Applicant primarily argues:
“The Office Action errs when equating Riccobene's insert (28), taken as a whole, to an insert ‘formed in one piece’ within the meaning of present Claim 1. In Riccobene, the insert (28) is necessarily made of two separate and assembled parts: a pointed cap (32, 38) and a cylindrical nozzle (30) provided with its flange (39) (See paragraphs 34 and 35 and FIG. 3 of Riccobene). The cap (32) is indispensable in Riccobene for perforation of the skin during installation, before being removed or destroyed to clear the acoustic passage.
In contrast to Riccobene, Claim 1 recites an insert (e.g. reference number 50) whose tubular body (e.g. reference number 51) is formed in one piece and extends directly from a first end (e.g. reference number 53) having the flange (e.g. reference number 52) to its second end (e.g. reference number 54) which is circumferentially beveled. This unitary structure, combined with the circumferential bevel (e.g. reference number 54), allows the insert to perforate the skin itself in a clean and direct manner without a complex perforation tool or a cap removal step required by Riccobene.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Secondly, while Riccobene teaches a cap on the inserts, Riccobene teaches the caps are removed from the nozzles. Therefore, it is clear the final structure does not include a cap and the nozzles are formed in one piece.
Lastly, as discussed in the rejection Riccobene in view of Writ teaches a nozzle in the acoustic panel that does not include a cap. Thus, it is clear the nozzle of Riccobene in view of Writ is formed in one piece.
Applicant further argues:
“A person skilled in the art, relying on their common general knowledge, would have had no technical reason to modify the shape of the end of Riccobene's cylindrical nozzle (30) to bevel it, since this nozzle is not intended to perforate the composite skin itself. In Riccobene's system, such a modification would have been redundant and useless due to the presence of the cap (32). Eliminating the cap (32) and directly beveling the end of the nozzle (30) to make it a self-perforating monobloc insert is not a mere routine adaptation, but a complete rewrite of Riccobene's design principle. Such an approach only proceeds from an analysis guided a posteriori knowledge.”
Remarks, p. 9
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Riccobene and Wirt are both drawn to acoustic panels. Wirt further provides proper motivation to modify the nozzle of Riccobene have an end with a chamfer, namely, to permit the insert to be driven through the composite structure without requiring a cap, thus, simplifying the inserts construction and process of making the acoustic panel. The omission of the cap and its function is obvious given that the function of the element is no longer desired by the cap. See MPEP 2144.01.II.A.
Including a chamfer end would not destroy Riccobene’s concept. Including the beveled end would create a clean passage when the nozzle is inserted. Additionally, the nozzle is formed in one piece given that the insert of Riccobene in view of Wirt includes a nozzle having a flange at one end and a chamfer at the opposite end of the nozzle.
Given that Riccobene and Wirt each disclose acoustic panels including inserts, Writ discloses having a hollow tubular element with a chamfered end at the insertion end of the element and there is proper motivation to combine Riccobene with Wirt, it is the examiner’s position that there would be a reasonable expectation of success when combining the references.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
