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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0200084 to Desjoyeaux et al. (D1) in view of US 4,035,535 to Taylor(T1).
In Re Claim 1:
D1 teaches:
An acoustic panel (Fig. 2, 12) with resonators for a nacelle (Fig. 1, 10) of an aircraft propulsion unit, the acoustic panel comprising: [Title notes aircraft and acoustic panel, Figures noted show the features of acoustic panel in a nacelle.]
Acoustic cells ((Fig. 2, 28) adjoining one another in a plane T orthogonal to an acoustic propagation direction of the sound waves(L) in order to form a cellular core, each acoustic cell comprising an enclosure(30) extending along a main axis(L) parallel to the acoustic propagation axis of the sound saves and, inside the enclosure, at least one partial obstacle(36, 38) that extends from a wall(30) of the enclosure in a transverse manner(T) that is orthogonal to the main axis, said at least one partial obstacle comprising at least one edge rigidly attached to a wall of the enclosure and an internal passage(42) that is off center with respect to the central axis of the enclosure parallel to or coincident with the main axis(L) of the enclosure in order to increase the length of the path(F) travelled by the sound waves through the acoustic cell, further comprising at least one drainage orifice [Page 4, ¶88-109 lay out the general structure above shown in Figs. 2-4 in various forms of parallel (2-3) and coincident(4) partial obstacles. While drainage orifices are unlabeled, Page 4, ¶96-98 notes the partial obstacles, such as (38) noted in ¶98, may include one or two orifices on said obstacles, for draining liquids as noted on ¶97.]
D1 does not teach:
Said at least one drainage orifice is adjacent to an edge rigidly attached to a wall of the enclosure and has an elongate shape extending to the edge of the partial obstacle with which it is associated, the drainage orifice being laterally open on said wall of the enclosure rigidly attached to said edge with which the drainage orifice is associated.
T1 teaches:
When providing a drainage slot for fluid it is known that said orifices can be elongated slots(28) that extend to the junction of the wall and the sheet the wall extends from. [Col. 2, ll. 46-56.] These slots enable the passage of fluid that has adhered to the walls, and in particular such fluid adheres in globules to the transverse walls(16a) (Examiner notes these are the walls the rigid ends of the partial obstructions of D1 are affixed to.). [Col. 3, ll. 6-16.]
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 D1 which is silent as to the shape and orientation of the orifices in each partial obstacle, to utilize elongated orifices which extend to the attachment wall the wall is formed from, as taught by T1, with the expectation of successfully providing a known in the art method of forming the orifices to which D1 is silent as to the shape of, which would be expected to perform successfully, and would extend to the wall as known in the art to allow for passage of fluid passing along said wall. [Col. 2, ll. 46-56, Col. 3, ll. 6-16.] This would yield, the at least one drainage orifice is adjacent to an edge rigidly attached to a wall of the enclosure and has an elongate shape extending to the edge of the partial obstacle with which it is associated, the drainage orifice being laterally open on said wall of the enclosure rigidly attached to said edge with which the drainage orifice is associated.
In Re Claims 2-5 and 12-15:
D1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein:
(Claim 2) the at least one partial obstacle comprises a cutout(D1, Fig. 7-8, 46,48) off-centre with respect to the central axis of the enclosure, the cutout forming the off-center internal passage. [D1, Fig. 7-8 show off center portions(46,48) for the passage of sound that are off central to the internal passage and per Pager 5, ¶115-117 the septum can include perforations, i.e. cut out portions.]
(Claim 3) said at least one partial obstacle comprises a free edge(D1, Fig. 2-5b, 40) spaced apart from a wall of the enclosure, the off-center internal passage being formed between the free edge and the wall of the enclosure facing said free edge. [D1, Fig. 2-5b Page 4, ¶97-100 disclose a free end of the partial walls spaced from the enclosing wall.]
(Claim 4) claim 3, said free edge of the partial obstacle is opposite an edge rigidly attached to the enclosure wall. [D1, See Fig. 5a-b, which shows the partial obstacles extend from a rigid wall to the opposite free end.]
(Claim 5) said at least one partial obstacle comprises a plurality of edge rigidly attached to a wall of the enclosure along the entire length of the corresponding wall, said length extending in a direction orthogonal to the axis(L) of the acoustic propagation, and said at least one partial obstacle comprising at least two drainage orifices. [D1, Fig. 5a-5b shows a plurality of the walls of each partition(38, 36) attached to rigid walls along the T axis, which is orthogonal to the axis of propagation(L). Fig. 7 and 8 shows walls with perforations, wherein the walls extend all the way to the opposing wall as seen in Fig. 7 and 8, Page 5, ¶114-116 note the septum portion (46) of the obstacle(36) extends from the free edge(40) all the way to the enclosure wall. D1 also notes the orifices can number multiples, Page 4, ¶96-98 notes the partial obstacles, such as (38) noted in ¶98, may include one or two orifices on said obstacles, for draining liquids as noted on ¶97.]
(Claim 12) an acoustical porous skin (D1, Fig. 6, 22) and an acoustically opaque skin(26), the cellular core being interposed along the main axis (L) between the acoustically porous skin and the acoustically opaque skin and each enclosure of the cellular core comprises at least two drainage notches. [D1, Page 4, ¶96 notes two to four drainage orifices located in the walls(30) of the cells in the immediate vicinity of the rear end(34) of the core against the rear skin(26).] As noted in the modification of claim 1, T1 provides for said notches in multiple walls, and provides that (immediate vicinity) can be touching the adjacent wall as disclosed by T1 in claim 1 above, and seen in (T1, Fig. 2, 28), with multiple slots one in each wall 16a.)]
(Claim 13) at least one acoustic cell comprises a first partial obstacle, (D1, Fig. 2-4, 36), and a second partial obstacle(38) being offset along the main axis, the passage delimited by the free edge(40) of the first partial obstacle and the passage delimited by the free edge of the second partial obstacle being radially offset in order to form a baffle provided to increase the length of the path travelled by the sound waves(F) through the associated acoustic cell. [D1, Fig. 2-4 shows the free edges overlap as discussed in Page 4, ¶98-105.]
(Claim 14) a nacelle (D1, Fig. 1, 10) for an aircraft propulsion unit comprising at least one acoustic panel(12) according to claim 1. [Examiner refers to Fig. 1 of D1 which shows many panels. Title notes acoustic panel and nacelles.]
(Claim 15) a method of manufacturing an acoustic panel according to claim 1, wherein said at least one partial obstacle is made from at least one ribbon, the method, comprising: [Pages 6-8, ¶144-159 disclose a method of using ribbons to form a partial obstacle series.]
Perforating the ribbon to form at least one drainage orifice, [Per D1, Page 4, ¶96, when there are orifices formed in the partial obstacle or walls for drainage it is by perforation, this would also be applicable to forming those parts from plates or ribbons, further, when a septum is present in the obstacle (also formable by ribbon) as disclosed Page 5, ¶116 this can include multi-perforations. Page 9, ¶212-213 notes when forming baffles, there can include opening/cutouts in the ribbons, i.e. a perforation.]
Fastening the at least one ribbon to at least one first plate, and fastening a second plate to the first plate by respective nodal portions, [Page 9, ¶208-224 note nodal portions on plates for fastening to each other and ribbons. Page 7-8, all paragraphs lay out manners of fastening nodal portions of ribbons and plates.]
Forming step in which non-nodal portions of the first and second plates are shaped such that each non-nodal portion of the first plate constitutes, together with a respective non-nodal portion of the second plate, said peripheral wall delimiting a corresponding acoustic cell of the cellular core, and such that apportion of said at least one ribbon forms said at least one partial obstacle in this acoustic cell, said at least one partial obstacle comprising at least one drainage orifice. [See Claim one for partial obstacles having drainage orifices, see Fig. 14-25 and Pages 7-9 for disclosure of forming plates to create a cell containing a ribbon of partial obstacles.]
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and T1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0164998 to Maffre et al. (M1).
In Re Claim 6:
D1 as modified by T1 in claim 1 teaches:
The acoustic panel according to claim 5, (See rejection of claim 5) wherein each of said edges rigidly attached to a wall of the enclosure along the entire length of the corresponding wall, (See claim 5 for example septums of Fig. 6-7 of D1.].
D1 as modified above is silent to:
Each of said rigid edges comprises at least one drainage orifice.
M1 teaches:
It is known in the art of acoustic chambers of nacelles, [Title, Abstract, figure 2) than when you have an obstacle (Fig. 8, 36) dividing an acoustic cell(34) into two portions, with an acoustic passage/cutout/septum(50), to provide a series of drainage holes(62), for example numbering 4-12 distributed evenly along the circumference near where the obstacle wall attaches to the cell. Figure 10 illustrates this particularly well. This even locating permits water gathering at any particular portion of the wall to quickly drain before it can accumulate and affect the flow, and is achieved by selecting small sizes of the drainage. [Page 3, ¶65-77.] It is noted similar to teachings of T1, these orifices can extend to the attaching wall and vicinity, [¶69-70.] The sizing and placement can ensure quick fluid drainage and no matter the orientation of the airplane and thus the particular cell along its path, one of the holes will be at a lowest point of the cell for faster drain.
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 drainage orifices of D1, to be for example, 12 evenly spaced small orifices along the perimeter of the partial obstacle of D1, as taught by M1, with the expectation of ensuring more rapid draining of the water, with a minimum impact on the acoustic and sound due to a selected for small sizing, and ensure no matter the plane orientation water is near a bottommost point of the partial cell for draining, Page 3, ¶65-77. This would yield six walls of the hexagonal system of D1, and 12 orifices evenly spaced, thus each wall would have at least one if not two orifices depending upon the alignment.
In Re Claim 7:
D1 as modified by T1 in claim 1 teaches:
The acoustic panel according to claim 1, (See rejection of claim 1) wherein said at least one partial obstacle comprises two drainage orifices, [See rejection of claim 1 and 5.]
D1 as modified above is silent to:
Each of said two orifices were adjacent to a same edge rigidly attached to a wall of the enclosure.
M1 teaches:
It is known in the art of acoustic chambers of nacelles, [Title, Abstract, figure 2) than when you have an obstacle (Fig. 8, 36) dividing an acoustic cell(34) into two portions, with an acoustic passage/cutout/septum(50), to provide a series of drainage holes(62), for example numbering 4-12 distributed evenly along the circumference near where the obstacle wall attaches to the cell. Figure 10 illustrates this particularly well. This even locating permits water gathering at any particular portion of the wall to quickly drain before it can accumulate and affect the flow, and is achieved by selecting small sizes of the drainage. [Page 3, ¶65-77.] It is noted similar to teachings of T1, these orifices can extend to the attaching wall and vicinity, [¶69-70.] The sizing and placement can ensure quick fluid drainage and no matter the orientation of the airplane and thus the particular cell along its path, one of the holes will be at a lowest point of the cell for faster drain.
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 drainage orifices of D1, to be for example, 12 evenly spaced small orifices along the perimeter of the partial obstacle of D1, as taught by M1, with the expectation of ensuring more rapid draining of the water, with a minimum impact on the acoustic and sound due to a selected for small sizing, and ensure no matter the plane orientation water is near a bottommost point of the partial cell for draining, Page 3, ¶65-77. This would yield six walls of the hexagonal system of D1, and 12 orifices evenly spaced, thus some of the ridged edge walls would have at least two orifices adjacent the same wall.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and T1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of an optimizable variable and scaling.
In Re Claim 8:
D1 as modified in claim 1 above teaches:
The acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein there is at least one drainage orifice which has a width and a length, and in one example a cross-section of 1 mm2. [See Page 4, ¶96-97.]
D1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
The width greater than 0.1 mm and the length greater than or equal to 0.2 mm.
D1 further teaches:
The relative orifices being small in number and size assists in the cell walls not negatively impacting acoustic independence of the cells, for example, similarly the obstacles are meant to block sound save, where the orifices/free ends are located to cause the sound to travel farther, thus there is a teaching that small orifice sizes is desirable, as long as it still permits the flow of fluid. [Page 4, ¶96-97.] Thus the small size, either length, radius, width, and or cross-section is a results effective variable, whereby a small size is desirable to reduce impact on sound propagation across the wall, while still large enough to permit the draining of fluid. Thus the length, width, radius, and/or cross-sectional area of the drainage orifices, meet the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Based on the teachings above that the dimensions/size of the orifice is a result effective variable based on the desired goal of reducing size to not impact sound propagation across the wall/obstacle, and thus 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 drainage holes to be sized as greater than or equal to 0.1mm in width and greater than or equal to 0.2 mm, while still having a cross-sectional area between 0.05 and 1 mm2. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of drainage holes to be sized as greater than or equal to 0.1mm in width and greater than or equal to 0.2 mm, while still having a cross-sectional area between 0.05 and 1 mm2.
In Re Claim 9:
D1 as modified in claim 1 above teaches:
The acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein there is at least one drainage orifice which has a width and a length, and in one example a cross-section of 1 mm2. [See Page 4, ¶96-97.]
D1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
The cross section of less than 0.5 mm2.
D1 further teaches:
The relative orifices being small in number and size assists in the cell walls not negatively impacting acoustic independence of the cells, for example, similarly the obstacles are meant to block sound save, where the orifices/free ends are located to cause the sound to travel farther, thus there is a teaching that small orifice sizes is desirable, as long as it still permits the flow of fluid. [Page 4, ¶96-97.] Thus the small size, either length, radius, width, and or cross-section is a results effective variable, whereby a small size is desirable to reduce impact on sound propagation across the wall, while still large enough to permit the draining of fluid. Thus the length, width, radius, and/or cross-sectional area of the drainage orifices, meet the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Based on the teachings above that the dimensions/size of the orifice is a result effective variable based on the desired goal of reducing size to not impact sound propagation across the wall/obstacle, and thus 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 drainage holes to be sized with The cross section of less than 0.5 mm2. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of drainage holes to be sized having a The cross section of less than 0.5 mm2.
In Re Claim 10:
D1 as modified in claim 1 above teaches:
The acoustic panel of claim 1, wherein there is at least one drainage orifice which has a width and a length, and in one example a cross-section of 1 mm2. [See Page 4, ¶96-97.]
D1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
The cross section of less than 0.2 mm2.
D1 further teaches:
The relative orifices being small in number and size assists in the cell walls not negatively impacting acoustic independence of the cells, for example, similarly the obstacles are meant to block sound save, where the orifices/free ends are located to cause the sound to travel farther, thus there is a teaching that small orifice sizes is desirable, as long as it still permits the flow of fluid. [Page 4, ¶96-97.] Thus the small size, either length, radius, width, and or cross-section is a results effective variable, whereby a small size is desirable to reduce impact on sound propagation across the wall, while still large enough to permit the draining of fluid. Thus the length, width, radius, and/or cross-sectional area of the drainage orifices, meet the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Based on the teachings above that the dimensions/size of the orifice is a result effective variable based on the desired goal of reducing size to not impact sound propagation across the wall/obstacle, and thus 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 drainage holes to be sized with The cross section of less than 0.2 mm2. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of drainage holes to be sized having a The cross section of less than 0.2 mm2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 110486334 to Hou teaches on Pages 4-5, that drain regions should extend edge to edge in acoustic panels. US 2015/0060194 to Pongratz et al. teaches that cantilevered obstacles dividing an acoustic cell into parts should include near their rigidly attached end a drainage hole(Fig. 10, 62). US 2024/0052780 to Pastouchenko et al. teaches altering the width(Fig. 14, 196) and height(198) of drainage orifices in a cell wall of an acoustic liner to not only allow liquid flow but also attenuate the frequency properties of the various cells on Page 7, ¶61. US 5,823,600 to Iwao teaches the use of a series of elongated slots(Fig. 10A, 105) as an alternative to orifices(Fig. 3A, 45) for drainage of fluid in an acoustic cell wall.
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