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 February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 6 of the Arguments, that Cazpla (C1) does not disclose the alleged connection of the inner skin and outer skin, via the flange. Applicant makes this argument, apparently based upon a direct connection position, since the Examiner has clearly established in the prior rejection of November 7, 2025, that the elements are connected indirectly, by the flange, through additional elements that extend from the flange. Applicant provides no support for a narrowed position of direct connection, and makes no argument or reference to the previously established position by the office as to the nature of connection required by the Instant Application nor the indirect connection argued and presented on Pages 3-4 of the previous non-final. Absent addressing the offices previous wherein the examiner notes, the clear disclosure of Applicant’s instant specification where the flank(34) allegedly connects the inner and outer skin, in spite of a fully annular groove (35) in some embodiments, that is filled by two 180 degree intervening shroud elements such as in Instant Application Figures 3 and 5, which per the Instant specification still meet the limitation of the flank connecting the first and second skin, via the intervening shroud element touching the inner skin and the flank, while the Examiner’s intervening shroud elements of C1 which do the same between the flank and the inner skin, are allegedly NOT connecting. With regards to newly amended claims 11 see the newly added rejection below. With regards to Applicant’s allegedly supported claim 13, Examiner finds no recitation of the alleged feature in the written disclosure and only a few embodiments of the figures apparently support the feature, leading examiner to determining a lack of criticality and design choice rejection would be suitable as noted below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by US 11,975,858 to Cazpla et al. (C1).
In Re Claim 1:
C1 shows:
An acoustic panel(unlabeled) comprising: [Col. 5, line 5, notes there is at least one acoustic panel in the first annular duct(Fig. 7, 78).]
A first skin(86) and a second skin (90) extending on either side of an acoustic core (88), the acoustic panel also having a flank (100) connecting the first skin and the second skin, [Figures 7 shows that element 100 connects second skin (90) to first skin(86) via fastening bits(124, 114, 120). This is connecting in so far as it has been defined in the specification, given, Examiner notes the Instant Application (IA) specification, there are scenarios where the opening in the first skin(IA, 31) is annular describing an annular groove/cavity (IA, 35), and as such the connection must go through intervening elements such as a shroud (IA, 38), See IA Fig. 3 and 5, and Instant Specification Pages 7-8, ¶58 notes the opening is annular and the groove is annular, to be closed by contact of the intervening shroud (IA, 38). Instant Application ¶77 notes the annular opening can be a 360 degree ring therefore a complete separation of flank(IA 43) and first skin save through intervening connecting elements. Instant Specification has granted only one figure that shows the extent of the closing shroud(38) and thus the nature of the opening, and that is IA Figure 3, which appears to show the element 38 extends the turn of each 180 degree arc without break and similarly open cavity(36).]
One of the first skin and the second skin includes an opening leading to a cavity made in the acoustic core, the flank delimiting the cavity jointly with the acoustic core, [Figure 7 shows , that first skin(86) ends axially before second skin(90 which extends through element(100.2) to Flank 100. It can be seen in Fig. 7, that flank acoustic cores extend in regions where the fasteners(120, 124) are not present, reinforced by Fig. 8.such that orthogonally extending flank element(100) forms a right hand side of the cavity holding the fastener end(104.2) and the left hand side is delimited by acoustic element(88).]
A first fastening component(Fig. 7, 124) extending into the cavity in an immediate vicinity of an inner face of the flank. [Fig. 7, shows lefthand face of flank(100) contacts the right hand face of fastener(124) which further extends into the cavity with additional fastener elements(114, 120).]
In Re Claims 2-3, 6-8, and 10:
C1 shows:
The acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein:
Examiner’s Note, Annotated C1 Figure 7 below is provided to aid in labelling in dependent claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated C1 Figure 7
(Claim 2) the acoustic panel is shaped as a sector of a part of revolution. [Per Col. 5, ll. 5-16, each of the left and right panels in Figure 7, can be one of many panels in their respective ducts, i.e. they can extend less than the full cylindrical circle, and thus define a partial revolution.]
(Claim 3) claim 2, the opening is a portion of a ring sector, and the first fastening component is a counter-flange sector. [Per Claim 2, above the panels are a portion of a sector, and thus the opening is not fully annular but only for the portion of revolution of the acoustic panel, and further only extends a portion of the axial length, the rest being covered by skin(86). As seen in Annotated C1 Figure 7, element (124) is a counter flange to flange(102) and (100).]
(Claim 6) the flank extends orthogonally to at least one of the first skin and/or to the second skin. [Figure 7, shows Flank (100) where it receives fastener(104), is orthogonal to the first and second skins.]
(Claim 7)the fastening component comprising a first shroud (112, 120) which extends into the opening to come in continuity of the first skin. [Annotated C1 Figure 7 shows the continuity/contact with the shroud and first skin.]
(Claim 8) a flange(102) of an element wherein the flank comprises an outer face opposite the inner face, the outer face being in contact with a connecting face of the flange, a second fastening component(104) extending through the flange and the flank to cooperate with the first fastening component to apply a bearing force to the flange on the flank. [See Annotated C1 Figure 7.]
(Claim 10) a nacelle (Fig. 5, 66) including an assembly of an acoustic panel according to claim 8. [See Col. 4, ll. 52-61.]
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of US 2017/0321739 to Manem et al. (M1).
In Re Claim 4:
C1 teaches:
The acoustic panel according to claim 3, wherein the counter-flange sector is present. [See Claim 3.]
C1 further teaches:
The bolt head and thread head can be on either rend. [C1, Col. 5, ll. 25-37 notes first and second ends of the bolt can have stops in the form of head at one end and nut at the other.]
C1 does not teach:
The counter-flange (124) has a threaded portion.
M1 teaches:
It is well-known in the assembly and attachment of elements to a flange by attaching a clinch nut to the flange to capture the fastening. [Page 3, ¶36.] This permits an efficient method of attaching the elements blindly for faster and easily assembly. [Page 3, ¶36.]
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 C1 counter-flange fastener bolt, to include a first end clinch nut, as taught by M1, which is attached to the counter-flange surface, with the expectation of successfully providing an easy and blind assembly of the securing elements to speed up and ease assembly. [Page 3, ¶36.]
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of US 2008/0078612 to Strunk (S1).
In Re Claim 5:
C1 teaches:
The acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein there is an opening.
C1 does not teach:
At least one of the opening is circular and/or the first fastening component is a barrel nut.
C1 further teaches:
The first fastening component can be element (104) which fastens (124) to (112) to (120).
S1 teaches:
When attaching acoustic panels(Fig. 2,32) to a flange, it is known to use a barrel nut(64) to aid in tightening as a known in the art alternative. [Page 2, ¶27.]
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 invention of C1, to replace the fastener bolt, with a barrel nut as taught by S1, as a known in the art alternative method of securing the acoustic panel to the flange with an expectation of success. [Page 2, ¶27.] This would yield the limitation of a barrel nut as the first fastening component.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of US 9,702,375 to Costa et al. (C2).
In Re Claim 9:
C1 teaches:
An assembly comprising an acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein:
a flange(102) of an element(92) wherein the flank comprises an outer face opposite the inner face, the outer face being in contact with a connecting face of the flange, a second fastening component(104) extending through the flange and the flank to cooperate with the first fastening component to apply a bearing force to the flange on the flank and wherein the element includes a second shroud(112) that extends into the opening. [See Annotated C1 Figure 7, and Per C1 Col. 6, line 55, to Col. 7, line 9, the element (120) can contact the right hand side(92) instead of element 86.]
C1 does not teach:
Wherein when the embodiment of Figure 7 is directed to the right hand acoustic panel, the shroud element comes into continuity with the first skin.
C1 further teaches:
The gap between skin and shrouds should be as small as possible. [Col. 6, ll. 33-45.]
C2 teaches:
When an acoustic panel(Fig. 4, 44) is next to an aerodynamic surface(30) of an adjacent surface in the fluid flow, it is well-known to minimize the gap, but there should be a gap due to machining tolerances, but this gap can be sealed with a compliant seal(102) to prevent flow leakage and disruption. [Col. 6, ll. 32 -63.]
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 invention of C1 to utilize a compliant seal to establish continuity between the first skin and the second shroud, as taught by C2, with the expectation of successfully using the compliant seal(102) to prevent flow leakage and disruption. [Col. 6, ll. 32 -63.] This would yield the limitation of continuity between the second shroud and the first skin.
In Re Claim 11:
C1 as modified by C2 further teaches:
A propulsion unit comprising a turbojet and a nacelle including an assembly of an acoustic panel according to claim 9. [C1, Fig. 4 shows the shroud of a propulsion unit of an aircraft as noted in the abstract, comprising a turbojet(Col. 1, ll. 40-42) and nacelle (title Col. 1, ll. 40-42) including an assembly of an acoustic panel according to claim 9, per the rejection of claim 9.]
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of a Design Choice.
C1 teaches:
The acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein a radial length of the inner face of the flank appears to be similar to that of the acoustic core though exact values are not provided, [See C1 Figure 7, wherein the radial extent of 88, the panel and the extent of the flank(100) inner face would appear to be of similar size with each other or with either the core of the flank just larger than the.
Examiner notes a lack of apparent criticality to the claimed feature of relative radial length and thickness, supported by the following: The examiner has searched the specification for reference to “a radial length of the inner face of the flank is greater than a radial thickness of the acoustic core” or even just length or thickness. Thickness occurs once, ¶8 of the instant specification with regards to thickness of the skin, not even a note on the whole panel, and absent any reference to a flank. Length is noted to occur twice in ¶16 with axial length of the cavity or rivet, both axial direction not radial, again with no mention of the flank or overall acoustic panel extent. The examiner has further searched for some alleged alternative synonym or concept, tying core and flank dimensions, but has not immediately found it, If applicant believes it is present, the Examiner asks that in a future response applicant provide clearer indication of the alleged support for the feature. Turning to the Instant Application Figures, examiner notes the core and a flank that connects the inner and outer skins is only present in 4-14, and some of those, (Fig. 13 and 14) the flank inner face length, and acoustic volume appear roughly equal, In Fig. 6, 7, and 12 it would appear flank 34 is smaller than the full acoustic panel thickness, [Examiner notes in Fig. 12, there are two flanks 34, however the larger leftmost one does not connect the inner and outer skins therefore cannot be the flank as claimed.] and only in the embodiments of 4-5 and 8-11 does it appear the flank is longer in length on its inner surface than the acoustic panel. As there is no express advantage or even recitation of the claimed feature in the written specification, and the feature is apparently directly opposite, or at least not present in five of the eleven figures showing the features of the invention portion being claimed, the examiner can find no indication of criticality of the alleged relative length and thickness.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the extended region in C1 Figure 7, and the flank that extends in said region, to be larger than the acoustic core thickness, because Applicant has not specifically disclosed that the relative inner face flank length and the acoustic core thickness provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Furthermore it would appear Applicant’s invention considers the feature interchangeable with the inverse (smaller) or an equal relationship of the values, without any express indication of preference or inventiveness of the length to core limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the prior art formation of equal lengths given two of Applicant’s embodiment features show that, and it would appear that this is shown in the prior art, or with smaller size relationship, as is shown in other embodiments of the applicant and might be argued is present in the prior art given exact measurements are not provided. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the flank of the prior art C1, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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 of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is Clear in the C1 reference, that the cavity must be on the radially inner side to accommodate the intervening panels which are attached against the outer skin surface to provide an inner air surface path for the nacelle. To reverse the feature would involve changing the manner of securing, and replace the shroud with a rigidly connected inner air surface which would be against the express desires of C1, therefore one would not be guided toward modifying the reference to reverse the location of the cavity openings.
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 JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights