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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang “Sound absorption performance of micro-perforated plate sandwich structure based on triply periodic minimal surface” in view of Kong “Research on Sound Absorption Properties of Tri-Periodic Minimal Surface Sandwich Structure of Selective Laser Melting Titanium Alloy” and Chen “Sound Absorption Characteristics of Micro-Perforated Panel and Polyurethane Micro-porous Membrane Composed Structures”.
1. Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses a sound absorption performance of micro-perforated plate sandwich structure based on triply periodic minimal surface (Title) and load-bearing (Abstract) comprising a microperforated panel that has pores ranging from 100 micrometer to 1400 micrometers (Fig. 11 (d)), a sandwich layer, and a solid panel wherein said sandwich layer is of a triply periodic minimal surface porous structure (Abstract & Page 387, 2nd column, last paragraph).
2. However, Zhang does not disclose its sandwich layer, solid panel, and microperforated panel all being made of a titanium alloy. It also does not disclose the claimed polyurethane filling layer.
3. Kong discloses a sound absorption panel having a tri-periodic minimal surface sandwich structure (title) that comprises a solid panel, a tri-periodic minimal surface sandwich layer, and another solid panel (Page 862, 1st column, last two paragraphs). Kong further discloses that said structure is made from Ti6Al4V titanium alloys (Abstract) and contributes to “better” sound absorption performance (Page 867, 2nd column).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the aluminum alloy, of Zhang, by using the aforementioned titanium alloy, of Kong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain better sound absorption performance.
5. Chen discloses that when a micro-perforated panel is backed with a polyurethane membrane (corresponds to claimed PU fill layer) it results in a higher sound absorption ability in low-frequency range (Abstract).
6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure, of Zhang, by having a PU layer that is backed up against the microperforated panel, as disclosed by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain higher sound absorption ability in low-frequency ranges.
2. Regarding Claim 2, Zhang in view of Kong and Chen suggests using a Ti6Al4V alloy (Kong: Abstract), a Diamond structure (Zhang: Abstract) wherein the size of each of the unit cells is 5 mm X 5 mm X 5 mm with a volume fraction of 20% (Zhang: Page 396, 1st column), and a pore diameter less than 1 mm (Zhang: Fig. 11(d)). Although the claimed length, width, and thickness of the sandwich layer and solid panel as well as the number of unit cells is not explicitly disclosed by the prior art of record, the Examiner respectfully submits that these are considered to be parameters that are routinely adjusted based on the end-user structure specifications. It would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify these parameters based on the actual size of the panel structure that is needed.
3. Regarding Claim 3, Zhang in view of Kong and Chen suggests the same claimed function wherein Where RD is a morphological control parameter, which is used to adjust the porosity of the Diamond structure. It can determine the thickness of the strut, but does not change the size of the unit. “a", " b", and " g" determine the Diamond structure unit size in X, Y and Z direction of the unit size control parameters, the larger the value of the unit size is smaller, such as the X direction of the period is Tx ¼ 2p=a, Tx is the X direction of the unit size (Zhang: Page 388, 1st column). Although the claimed RD value is not explicitly disclosed, the Examiner submits that given that Zhang explicitly declares it to be a morphological control parameter, it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to adjust it according to the morphology desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights