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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Merlo or Jones teaches the combination of the previously recited claim limitations in addition to “adjacent to the first acoustic resonators perpendicularly to the thickness of the sound absorber”. This argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Merlo, Applicant’s argument relies on an overly narrow interpretation of the claim language. The claim recites the microporous element is adjacent to the first acoustic resonators perpendicularly to the thickness of the sound absorber. This language specifies the direction in which the adjacency exists, not that the elements must be co-planar or non-overlapping. In Merlo, the microporous portions are adjacent to resonators perpendicularly to the thickness: looking at the panel in plan view (perpendicular to the thickness), the microporous portions alternate with non-porous portions; the honeycomb cells are arranged in a grid that is laterally neighboring one another. The cells are arranged in a grid that is laterally neighboring one another. In the plane perpendicular to the thickness, microporous portion over the cells is adjacent to the non-microporous portion over the other cell (and vice versa). The claim limitations do not require the microporous element and resonators to be at the same depth level, and even if elements (42) are positioned above the cells, they are still adjacent when viewed perpendicular to the thickness. Alternatively still, the adjacent cells are connected by passages allowing acoustic cooperation, and these passages between laterally adjacent cells constitute microporous features adjacent to resonators perpendicular to the thickness. The same arguments apply to Jones: Jones discloses all cells may be quarter-wavelength resonators, all cells may be Helmholtz resonators, or a combination thereof and therefore this teaches different acoustic element types arranged adjacently in the same panel – the Helmholtz resonators with perforated necks can then constitute “microporous elements” (apertures in periodic pattern), and those cells are adjacent to the quarter-wave cells perpendicular to thickness (side-by-side in the grid). Alternatively, the perforated face sheet includes the plurality of holes arranged over the cells and is “adjacent perpendicular to thickness” at the cell boundaries, and this sheet with periodically arranged holes reads on the microporous element consisting of a plurality of repeating unit cells.
The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merlo (US 20150086335).
Regarding claim 1, Merlo discloses a sound absorber extending between two opposite surfaces and comprising: one or more first quarter-wave acoustic resonators each having a first length, substantially greater than a thickness of the sound absorber between the two opposite surfaces, between a first end, open on a first surface of the two opposite surfaces of the sound absorber, and a second, closed end (Figures 2 and 8; resonator 34, 34’ having a length greater than the thickness of the acoustic absorbent; the first open end; the second closed end 44; the resonator represents a quarter-wave acoustic resonator for a frequency defined by the formula f=c/4L), and a microporous element, consisting of a plurality of periodically repeating unit cells, adjacent to the first acoustic resonators perpendicularly to the thickness of the sound absorber (Figures 2 and 8; microporous element 42; paragraphs 36-37 describes the hole layout scheme; looking at the panel in plan view (perpendicular to the thickness), the microporous portions alternate with non-porous portions; the honeycomb cells are arranged in a grid that is laterally neighboring one another. The cells are arranged in a grid that is laterally neighboring one another. In the plane perpendicular to the thickness, microporous portion over the cells is adjacent to the non-microporous portion over the other cell (and vice versa)).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Merlo discloses the sound absorber according to claim 1 above. Merlo further discloses the first quarter-wave acoustic resonators are inclined relative to a direction of the thickness of the sound absorber and are bent (Figures 2 and 8, see the U-shaped resonator which is thereby “inclined” and “bent”).
Regarding claims 6-9, Merlo discloses the sound absorber according to claim 1 above. Merlo further discloses each unit cell comprises a channel (Paragraph 37 which discusses the permeable portions are porous with micro holes which represent channels), the first quarter-wave acoustic resonators are disposed around the microporous element (Paragraph 36 which discuses the alternation between permeable portions and sound reflective portions; this chessboard layout is thereby “disposed around” as claimed), one or more second quarter-wave acoustic resonators each having a second length (see Figure 8, first resonator 34, 34b’ and second resonator 34a’), substantially different from the first length, and the first acoustic resonators and the second acoustic resonators are disposed in adjacent rows (Paragraph 54 discloses the predetermined chessboard layout which is adjacent rows).
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones (US 9514734).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a sound absorber extending between two opposite surfaces and comprising: one or more first quarter-wave acoustic resonators each having a first length, substantially greater than a thickness of the sound absorber between the two opposite surfaces, between a first end, open on a first surface of the two opposite surfaces of the sound absorber, and a second, closed end (Figure 3, Column 4, Lines 52-63 disclosing “bent cell section 320 includes cells with bent chambers of varying lengths to absorb progressively lower frequencies as the overall length increases. In Figure 3, the chambers are bent at a right angle and packaged in such a way as to maximize the available volume…” There are then various geometries disclosed and discussed, and then in Col. 4, Lines 9-25 the quarter wavelength resonator is defined), and a microporous element, consisting of a plurality of periodically repeating unit cells, adjacent to the first acoustic resonators perpendicularly to the thickness of the sound absorber (Figure 3, Col. 1, Line 37 porous facesheet, and Figures 5-8 which discloses perforated face sheet denoted by hash, the perforated face sheet includes the plurality of holes arranged over the cells and is “adjacent perpendicular to thickness” at the cell boundaries, and this sheet with periodically arranged holes reads on the microporous element consisting of a plurality of repeating unit cells; alternatively, the Helmholtz resonators with perforated necks can then constitute “microporous elements” (apertures in periodic pattern), and those cells are adjacent to the quarter-wave cells perpendicular to thickness (side-by-side in the grid)).
Regarding claims 2-4, Jones discloses the sound absorber according to claim 1 above. Jones further discloses the first quarter-wave acoustic resonators are inclined relative to a direction of the thickness of the sound absorber and are bent (“S” shape and curved chambers) and the acoustic resonators are at least partially helical (Col. 5, Lines 52-56 with the cells being any desired pattern such as circumferential, axial, helical, or zigzag).
Regarding claims 6-9, Jones discloses the sound absorber according to claim 1 above. Jones further discloses each unit cell comprises a channel (porous facesheet, perforated facesheet; microholes are the channels), the first quarter-wave acoustic resonators are disposed around the microporous element (Figure 7, 720, or Figure 8, 800), one or more second quarter-wave acoustic resonators each having a second length, substantially different from the first length (Figure 3, Col. 4, Lines 51-63; different lengths disclosed and can have any desired length to achieve the resonant chambers), and the first acoustic resonators and the second acoustic resonators are disposed in adjacent rows (Col. 4, Lines 51-63; “Bent cell section 320 includes cells with bent chambers of varying lengths to absorb progressively lower frequencies as the overall length increases…While generally shown as gradually increasing in length from right to left, each chamber may have any desired length with respect to adjacent chambers”).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merlo (US 20150086335) or Jones (US 9514734) in view of Mardjono (US 20200386113).
Merlo and Jones discloses the sound absorber according to claim 1 above.
Merlo and Jones fail to teach the microporous element comprises at least a first and a second superposed layer in the thickness of the sound absorber, and the unit cells constituting the first layer are different from the unit cells constituting the second layer.
Mardjono teaches a microporous element for an acoustic sound absorber for a gas turbine engine, the microporous element comprises at least a first and a second superposed layer in the thickness of the sound absorber, and the unit cells constituting the first layer are different from the unit cells constituting the second layer (“a first layer consisting of a three-dimensional scaffolding of filaments of an abradable material forming an ordered network of channels or microchannels with pore sizes between 50 and 250 microns and a porosity greater than 85%, and a second layer having a function of dissipating energy from acoustic waves striking said outer surface of said coating and consisting of a three-dimensional scaffolding of filaments of a first thermosetting material forming an ordered network of channels and/or microchannels whose pore sizes are between 50 and 400 microns and whose porosity is greater than 60%”; Paragraphs 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound absorber of Merlo and Jones such that the microporous element comprises at least a first and a second superposed layer in the thickness of the sound absorber, and the unit cells constituting the first layer are different from the unit cells constituting the second layer as taught by Mardjono for the purposes of reducing radial aerodynamic losses, fluid retention is reduced, and sound and ballistic absorption is maximized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations (including claims 8-9) of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is allowed.
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 JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights