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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/26 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-22, independent claims 1 and 11 require “wherein dimensions of the beams are selected based on a mass ratio of the vibration attenuation device to the primary structure;” and “wherein dimensions of the beams are selected based on a mass ratio of the resonator to the piping system,” respectively, which renders the claims indefinite. Claims 1 and 11 are apparatus claims, but the indefinite limitations referenced above amount to a method of selecting dimensions of the beams. It is unclear from the disclosure what the “dimensions” of the beams is referring to. Further, it is unclear what mass ratio value is being used so as to “select” dimensions of the beam. Are the beam “dimensions” selected so as to obtain a particular frequency response?, or are they merely selected to adequately support the masses? Are there other factors in addition to the mass ratio to consider when selecting the dimensions of the beam? Which “dimensions” of the beam are being selected? Do the “dimensions” include just the length, width or thickness of the beams, or some combination of length/width/thickness. Can the “dimensions” also include different or specified shapes/geometries? It is unclear from the claims what the term “dimensions” encompasses, let alone how the “dimensions” are “selected” based on the claimed mass ratio. What outcome is the claim language seeking to achieve by selecting the dimensions based on the claimed mass ratio, such as tuning, providing adequate structural support, or something else? The Examiner will interpret any reference having a vibration attenuation/resonator for suppressing vibration structure that includes a beam with a dimension, and a device having a vibration/resonator attenuation system having the general structure of beams attached to a primary structure/piping system and weights attached to the beams, as obviously having a mass ratio of the vibration structure/piping system, such that it is obvious that the beam dimensions are “selected” based on said mass ratio of vibration attenuation device/resonator to a primary structure/piping system. In other words, if a prior art reference includes a similar device that includes a mass ratio of a similar vibration attenuation device/resonator to a primary structure/piping, and also includes similar beams having “dimensions,” it will be considered obvious that the “dimensions” of the beams are “selected” based on the mass ratio of vibration attenuation device/resonator to a primary structure/piping system. Since it is unclear what the term “dimension” means, any one or combination of length/width/thickness/diameter, as well as geometric/shape components will be considered to be included in the term “dimension”. Applicant must amend or clarify the indefinite claim language.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the limitation “wherein the vibration attenuation device/resonator comprises three or more beams,” is indefinite. Claims 1 and 11 already establish that the device comprises four beams, so it is unclear how the device can than be required to “comprises three or more beams.” Claims 7 and 16 fail to further limit claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubert (3,314,503).
With respect to claim 1, Neubert teaches a vibration attenuation device (Figures 1-2, #14/16/17/18/20) for a primary structure (10), comprising: a plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b) configured to be attached to the primary structure (10); a plurality of beams (18) mounted on each of the plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b); and a plurality of weight materials (20) attached to the beams (18), wherein the plurality of beams (18) comprises four beams (defined by pair of beams #18a and pair of beams #18b, extending in the up/down/left/right directions as seen in Figure 1; could also be defined by beam pairs #18c and #18d) arranged as two beams along a first transverse direction and two beams along a second transverse direction (each of pairs #18a and #18b, or respective pairs #18c/18d, constitute two beams as claimed, in the same way as Applicant’s beams in Figure 2 of the disclosure), and wherein it is considered obvious that dimensions of the beams (18a/b or 18c/d) are selected based on a mass ratio of the vibration attenuation device (14/16/17/18/20) to the primary structure (10). As discussed in the 112b rejection above, because Neubert includes beams (18a/b or 18c/d) having “dimensions”, as well a vibration attenuation device (14/16/17/18/20) to the primary structure (10) that inherently has a mass ratio, it is considered to be obvious that “that dimensions of the beams are selected based on a mass ratio of the vibration attenuation device to the primary structure.”
With respect to claim 2, Neubert teaches wherein the primary structure (10) comprises at least one of a pipe, a rod or a shaft (Col. 1, Lines 57-58).
With respect to claim 3, Neubert teaches wherein the plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b) comprises a pair of semi-rings (14a/b).
With respect to claim 4, Neubert teaches wherein the pair of semi-rings (14a/b) are connected to each other through a fastener (16) to form a ring shape.
With respect to claim 5, Neubert teaches wherein each of the beams (18a/b or 18c/d) includes a first end attached to the plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b) and a second end opposite to the first end (clearly seen in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, Neubert teaches wherein the plurality of weight materials (20) are attached to the second end of the beams (18a/b). Note that the weights #20 can be adjusted to any position on the beam #18a/b/c/d, including a second end as denoted with weight #20d (Col. 2, Lines 16-32).
With respect to claim 7, Neubert teaches wherein the vibration attenuation device comprises three or more beams (18).
With respect to claim 9, Neubert teaches wherein the vibration attenuation device is configured to create a bandgap to the primary structure (10).
With respect to claim 10, Neubert teaches wherein the bandgap is a frequency region, and vibrations are attenuated in the frequency region (Col. 2, Lines 16-46). Note that the weights are positioned to vibrate at a particular frequency so as to damp vibrations of pipe #10, in a manner similar to Applicant’s device.
With respect to claim 11, Neubert teaches resonator (Figures 1-2, #14/16/17/18/20) for suppressing vibration in a piping system (defined by pipe #10), comprising: a plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b) configured to be attached to a pipe (10); a plurality of beams (18) mounted on each of the plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b); and a plurality of weight materials (20) attached to the beams (18), wherein the plurality of beams (18) comprises four beams (defined by pair of beams #18a and pair of beams #18b, extending in the up/down/left/right directions as seen in Figure 1; could also be defined by beam pairs #18c and #18d) arranged as two beams along a first transverse direction and two beams along a second transverse direction (each of pairs #18a and #18b, or respective pairs #18c/18d, constitute two beams as claimed, in the same way as Applicant’s beams in Figure 2 of the disclosure), and wherein it is considered obvious that dimensions of the beams (18a/b or 18c/d) are selected based on a mass ratio of the resonator (14/16/17/18/20) to the piping system (10). As discussed in the 112b rejection above, because Neubert includes beams (18a/b or 18c/d) having “dimensions”, as well a resonator (14/16/17/18/20) to the piping system (10) that inherently has a mass ratio, it is considered to be obvious that “that dimensions of the beams are selected based on a mass ratio of the resonator to the piping system.” Further, it is noted that the device is a resonator in the same way as Applicant’s
With respect to claim 12, Neubert teaches wherein the resonator (device of Figures 1-2) is a three dimensional resonator (clearly seen in Figure 1-2).
With respect to claim 13, Neubert teaches wherein the resonator (device of Figures 1-2) has a symmetric shape (clearly seen in Figure 1-2).
With respect to claim 14, Neubert teaches wherein the plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b) comprises a pair of semi-rings (14a/b).
With respect to claim 15, Neubert teaches wherein the pair of semi-rings (14a/b) are connected to each other through a fastener (16) to form a ring shape.
With respect to claim 16, Neubert teaches wherein the resonator comprises three or more beams (18).
With respect to claim 18, Neubert teaches wherein the resonator (device of Figures 1-2) is configured to form a bandgap to the pipe (10), and wherein the bandgap is a frequency region, and vibrations of the pipe are attenuated in the frequency region (Col. 2, Lines 16-46). Note that the weights are positioned to vibrate at a particular frequency so as to damp vibrations of pipe #10, in a manner similar to Applicant’s device.
With respect to claim 19, Neubert teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of weight materials (20) are configured to form a bandgap at a different radial distance than at least one other of the plurality of weight materials (20).
With respect to claim 20, Neubert teaches wherein each of the beams (18a/b or 18a/c) includes a first end attached to the plurality of connectors (14a/17a and 14b/17b) and a second end opposite to the first end (clearly seen in Figure 1), wherein the plurality of weight materials (20) are attached to the second end of the beams (18a/b or 18a/c), and wherein at least one of the plurality of weight materials (20) are configured to form a bandgap at a different radial distance than at least one other of the plurality of weight materials (20). Note that the weights #20 can be adjusted to any position on the beam #18, including a second end as denoted with weight #20d, and said positions will vibrate and form a bandgap at different frequencies (Col. 2, Lines 16-46).
With respect to claims 21 and 22, Neubert teaches devices of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Neubert further teaches and obvious, but unspecified mass ratio of the vibration attenuation device/resonator (14/16/17/18/20) to the primary structure/piping system (10).
Neubert fails to teach wherein the mass ratio is 0.2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the mass ratio is 0.2, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, because the frequcy response of the vibration attenuation device/resonator is in part determined by the mass of the vibration attenuation device/resonator and the resulting mass ratio of the vibration attenuation device/resonator to the primary structure/piping system, altering or defining a specific mass ratio will serve to tune the device, rending it a results effective variable, as is well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers it to be obvious that Neubert teaches all of the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
