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 . 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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound waves" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recite “the center of the cell” in line 6. It is unclear whether this refers to the same “cellular center” recited earlier in the claim or if these limitations are differently worded to distinguish two distinct central portions of a cell or adjacent cells. Consistent terminology should be used throughout the claim for clarity and definiteness.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the length" and “the path traveled” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “an acoustic cell” in line 13. Since an acoustic cell is previously recited in the claim, it is unclear whether the limitation in line 13 is referring to the previously recited cell or introducing a new and different cell by which passage size is defined.
Claim 1 recites “at least one perforated metal sheet” in line 16. Since a perforated metal sheet is previously recited in the claim, it is unclear whether the limitation in line 16 is referring to the previously recited perforated metal sheet or introducing a new and different sheet.
Claim 1 recites “a perforated metal sheet” in lines 17-18. This is unclear because a perforated metal sheet is previously recited in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation in lines 17-18 is referring to the previously recited perforated metal sheet or introducing a new and different sheet.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a portion of acoustic cell of said cellular center” in lines 19-20. This is grammatically incorrect and indefinite. Earlier in the claim, the cellular center is defined as being formed by adjoining acoustic cells. In lines 19-20 it appears that the acoustic cell is instead somehow part of the “cellular center”. These relationships are not clearly defined, and one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
The recitation of “acoustic cell” is also unclear because it cannot be determined whether such a recitation refers to the earlier recited acoustic cell or is introducing a new and different acoustic cell.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each honeycomb cell of a cellular core being opposite a passage” in lines 20-21. This relationship is unclear and indefinite. There is no indication of how the cellular core is opposite a passage when they are disposed immediately adjacent to one another.
The recitation of “a passage” in line 21 is also unclear because it cannot be determined whether such a recitation refers to the earlier recited passage or is introducing a new and different passage.
Claim 1 recites “a perforated metal sheet” in lines 21-22. This is unclear because a perforated metal sheet is previously recited in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation in lines 21-22 is referring to the previously recited perforated metal sheet or introducing a new and different sheet.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the central axis of the honeycomb cell" in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The claim appears to be a translation into English from foreign patent documents and is replete with errors. Articles are used in an inconsistent manner throughout, which creates many issues of indefiniteness. Various relationships between components are also described in a confusing and unclear manner. While Examiner has made an earnest attempt to identify all such errors and interpret the claim scope in a manner consistent with the specification and drawings, Applicant is encouraged to carefully and thoroughly review the claim and to make any and all necessary corrections such that the claim is written in clear and concise language which conforms to U.S. practice and accurately defines the protection sought.
For examination purposes, claim 1 has been construed as reciting a process in which one or more perforated metal sheets are welded with a plurality of thermoplastic honeycomb cores while compaction pressure is applied, wherein the honeycomb cores include hollow cells in which the perforated metal sheet(s) is situated, wherein portions of the metal sheet adjacent each hollow cell form a partial obstacle within each of the hollow cells, and wherein perforations of the one or more perforated metal sheets form openings in said partial obstacles, wherein the openings are off-center relative to a center of the hollow cells.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a temperature comprised between the glass transition temperature for amorphous thermoplastics” in lines 2-3. This is unclear because the limitation uses the term “between” but only gives one temperature. Also the term “comprised” in such a limitation renders the claim scope unclear because it suggests that the temperature includes the glass transition temperature but may also include other temperatures.
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.
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 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 8,820,477) in view of Quesada (US 2022/0199064), Aten (US 2020/0199866), Jung (US 2013/0337223), and Johnson (US 2004/0163888).
Herrera teaches a method of manufacturing an acoustic panel (10) for sound attenuation, the acoustic panel including a septumized cellular core, the method comprising: providing a cellular hexagonal core (12) with a plurality of cells (18), wherein a septum (20) divides the core into inner chambers (22) and outer chambers (24), wherein the septum is made from metal and includes one or more perforations (28) within each of the cells (See Figures; col. 3, lines 10-52). The metal septum and perforations form the septumized core and read on the instantly claimed at least one perforated metal sheet and passages, respectively. Where a single perforation is utilized, centers of each passage are necessarily spaced by a distance corresponding to a width of each cell as claimed. The plurality of cells of the core read on the instantly claimed adjoining acoustic cells, and the inner and outer chambers read on the instantly claimed honeycomb cells on opposing sides of a perforated metal sheet. Herrera discloses that the panel may be assembled by any of a variety of techniques, including but not limited to adhesive bonding, welding, brazing, or sintering (See col. 4, lines 35-41).
Herrera does not expressly disclose a thermoplastic cellular core as claimed.
Regarding the use of thermoplastic material for the cellular hexagonal core, Quesada teaches an acoustic panel (20) comprising a cellular core (26), wherein the cellular core may be made from a thermoplastic polymer (See Figures; [0044]; [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a thermoplastic polymer to form the cellular hexagonal core (12) of Herrera since Quesada teaches that thermoplastic polymers were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose (See [0066]).
Herrera does not expressly disclose how the cellular core and septum are formed and attached to one another. In particular, Herrera does not expressly disclose providing separate cellular cores for each of the inner chambers and the outer chambers, stacking the separate cellular cores on either side of the perforated metal septum, and performing a thermoplastic welding step while pressure is applied to fuse the cellular cores and perforated metal septum together as claimed.
Aten teaches an acoustic panel (28) comprising a first cellular core (58), a second cellular core (60), and a septum (62) sandwiched between the first and second cellular cores (See Figures; [0040]-[0043]). Aten teaches that the cellular cores and the septum may be bonded by welding or fusing (See [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to stack a first cellular core, a septum, and a second cellular core and to fuse or weld the cores and septum together to form the septumized core of Herrera because Aten teaches that such techniques were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for forming septumized cores in acoustic panels (See Figures; [0043]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand that the terms “fusing” and “welding” used by Aten to include thermoplastic welding in which thermoplastic polymer is softened or melted and urged into contact with other components (which may or may not also be thermoplastic) such that the thermoplastic polymer and any other components are fixedly connected upon cooling.
The teachings of Jung illustrate that thermoplastic welding was conventional in the prior art at the time of filing such that one of ordinary skill would have understood the fusing and welding generally disclosed by Aten to include such a technique. More specifically, Jung teaches a method of making a sandwich structure, the method comprising stacking a thermoplastic honeycomb core (110), conductive materials (140) such as metal, and thermoplastic skin sheets (120,130), and heating the stack while applying pressure such that the thermoplastic materials melt, wherein the components of the sandwich structure are welded together upon cooling (See Figures; [0047]-[0055]).
In the proposed combination, the perforated metal septum of Herrera acts as the conductive material taught by Jung and is heated to melt the thermoplastic cellular cores on opposing sides thereof.
Regarding the limitations requiring that the passage is off-center with respect to the cell, Herrera teaches that a single passage may be present in each cell (See col. 3, lines 43-46) but only shows a multi-passage embodiment in the figures. Herrera does not expressly disclose where the single passage lies within the cell.
Johnson teaches an acoustic barrier unit (102) comprising a first honeycomb core layer (122), a metal septum (142), and a second honeycomb core layer (162), wherein the metal septum includes a single perforation (152) in each honeycomb cell of the acoustic barrier unit (See Figs. 3-4; [0030]-[0031]). Regarding the placement of the perforation, Johnson states “the acoustic engineer can vary the number, size, and distribution of the perforations (152) to achieve the desired acoustic effects” (See [0031]). Therefore the position of the perforation is a routine matter of design choice which is within ordinary skill in the art. Because Johnson teaches that an acoustic engineer (i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic panel design/manufacture) can readily determine a desired position of a perforation to achieve desired acoustic effects, the selection of such a position in the instant claims does not patentably distinguish the instantly claimed method from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, the thermoplastic welding step taught by Jung involves pressing the stack with a roller, as detailed above. Such pressure application with a roller inherently requires relative movement between the roller and the stack, including the perforated metal sheet. This may be performed only in three ways, by moving the roller relative to a stationary stack, moving the stack under a roller which is held fixed in a translational direction but still allowed to rotate, or moving both the roller and the stack in opposing directions. Since there are only three discrete possibilities, all of which yield the same predictable result, the use of any one of these three arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. In the two arrangements where the stack is moved, the stack must be somehow be moved in a translational direction relative to the roller. Any such movement would necessarily either push or pull the stack, and either action provides a predictable result and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 3, Aten teaches that the components of the acoustic panel, including the septum (62), may be made from polymer material…metal (e.g. sheet metal)…or a combination of any two or more of the foregoing materials (See [0046]). A combination of metal and polymeric material for the septum meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the melting and bonding of thermoplastic materials taught by Jung inherently requires heating to the instantly claimed temperatures for the thermoplastic to perform as described.
Regarding claim 6, the welding of Jung is induction welding as claimed (See [0054]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 7, the duplication of parts has no patentable significance where no new or unexpected result is achieved. In this case, the presence of an additional septum yields a predictable result of offering further attenuation of sound waves traveling through the acoustic panel. The position of any perforation on such a septum is also a routine matter of design choice for the same reasons detailed above with respect to the off-center perforation in claim 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Herrera teaches that various dimensions of the panel including sizes of cells (18), the height of each of the inner and outer chambers (D,D2) and the resulting total height of the panel can be readily selected can be selected to tune the core (12) to acoustic waves having a particular frequency or range of frequencies (See col. 3, lines 21-38). Therefore the selection of the particular dimensions claimed would be a routine matter of design choice, and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily determine such dimensions based on size and acoustic requirements of a particular application.
Regarding claim 10, the selection of a particular size and shape of the perforations in a septum is a routine matter of design choice which is within ordinary skill in the art based upon Johnson’s teaching that “the acoustic engineer can vary the number, size, and distribution of the perforations (152) to achieve the desired acoustic effects” (See [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Herrera teaches an acoustically transparent outer face layer (32) and a reflective back sheet (26) (See Figures; col. 3, lines 32-63), which read on the instantly acoustically transparent skin and acoustically reflective skin, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, the perforated metal septum of Herrera is identical to the instantly claimed perforated metal sheet and is used in an identical manner. It is reasonable to conclude that the properties of the layer, including acoustic resistance, would be substantially the same in order to provide suitable sound attenuation properties in the panel. Applicant has not asserted that the particular acoustic resistance claimed is novel or provides any new or unexpected result. Instead, it appears that such a property is merely selected to achieve desired acoustic properties in a predictable manner. Therefore the claimed acoustic resistance value fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Quesada teaches that the cellular core (26) may include fiber reinforcement (See [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a fiber reinforced thermoplastic polymer to form the cellular hexagonal core (12) of Herrera since Quesada teaches that fiber-reinforced thermoplastic polymers were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose (See [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, the selection of a particular rolling pressure for bonding is a routine matter of design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. A pressure would be selected in the method taught by Jung to encourage full contact between layers without damaging any components or squeezing out excessive amounts of the melted thermoplastic. Applicant has not asserted that the claimed pressure provides any new or unexpected result. Instead, it appears that such a pressure is merely selected to be suitable for bonding in a predictable manner. Therefore the claimed bonding pressure fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Herrera teaches that the septum may include a plurality of perforations in each cell (See Figures; col. 3, lines 43-52), which meets the claim.
Claim 4 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 8,820,477) in view of Quesada (US 2022/0199064), Aten (US 2020/0199866), Jung (US 2013/0337223), and Johnson (US 2004/0163888), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franzoi (US 2013/0171407).
Herrera, Quesada, Aten, Jung, and Johnson combine to teach a method of manufacturing an acoustic panel for sound attenuation, wherein the acoustic panel includes a septumized cellular core, as detailed above.
Herrera, Quesada, Aten, Jung, and Johnson do not expressly disclose impregnating a cellular center with a thermoplastic resin prior to stacking.
Franzoi teaches a method of making an acoustic core panel (10) comprising a first honeycomb core (12b), a second honeycomb core (12a), and a septum mesh (18) therebetween, the method comprising filling each honeycomb cell (34) of the first honeycomb layer (12b) with a thermoplastic foam (32) (See Figures; [0029]-[0032]; [0042]). The filling step reads on the instantly claimed step of impregnating a cellular center.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform a step of filling cells with thermoplastic foam in the method taught by Herrera, Quesada, Aten, Jung, and Johnson. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Franzoi that to do so would predictably improve sound absorption (See [0009]) and provide the acoustic panel with improved sound transmission loss (See [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746