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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that (1) the ISA did not find unity to be lacking, (2) the technical feature is a “special technical feature” and (3) the Examiner has not shown a requisite search burden (Remarks, p. 2-3). These are not found persuasive for the following reasons. With respect to (1), nowhere in MPEP states that the USPTO should be precluded from independently revisiting the inquiry regarding lack of unity or that the USPTO must defer to the International Searching Authority. It is agreed that a portion of MPEP 1850 (II) states that the decision with respect to unity of invention rests with the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority. However, this is believed to refer to letting Applicants know that the ISA can make the determination of lack of unity not that the USPTO cannot make an independent decision on lack of unity. Further, it is noted that MPEP 1850 (II) also says that lack of unity of invention may be directly evident “a priori,” that is, before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent “a posteriori,” that is, after taking the prior art into consideration. As set forth on pages 3-5 of the previous Office Action mailed 02/19/2026, the examiner has shown that the present invention does not make a contribution over the prior art, i.e. has shown there is a lack of unity “a posteriori” and therefore, the restriction requirement is proper.
With respect to (2), as discussed in the Office Action mailed 02/19/2026 Groups I to III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of the groups require a technical feature, the limitations fail to define a contribution over Porte. Therefore, the technical features fails to constitute a special technical feature. Applicant has not distinctly and specifically pointed out the supposed errors with the prior art meeting the limitations.
With respect to (3), the instant application is a national stage entry filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is therefore not subject to US restriction practice but rather subject to lack of unity practice, see MPEP 1893.03(d). It is noted that undue search burden is not a criterion in lack of unity analysis. The test is whether or not special technical features can be established. It is noted that inventions listed as Groups I to III do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth on pages 3-5 of the previous Office Action.
Therefore, given that the examiner has properly established that inventions I to III lack unity as set forth on paged 3-5 of the Office Action mailed 02/19/2026, it is the examiner’s position that the restriction is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, it is suggested to (1) in line 5 amend “the faces” to “the two faces”; (2) in lines 11 and 13, after “tubular” and before “body”, insert “through-” and (3) in line 11, after “second side” and before “opposite” insert “of the resistive skin”, in order to ensure consistency and clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 3, it is suggested to (1) in each of lines 2 and 3 after “tubular” and before “body”, insert “through-” and (2) in line 3 amend “a first end and a second end” to “the first end and the second end”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 4, in line 2 after “tubular” and before “body”, insert “through-”, 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 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 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 oof 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 body opens out on a second side 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 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
PNG
media_image1.png
565
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
992
media_image2.png
Greyscale
claimed invention.
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 body of each of the inserts extends between a first end and a second end along an open axis, the tubular 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Porte et al. (US 2021/0371118), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejection using this reference would be cumulative to the rejection 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
Prosecution Insights