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 § 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 6 and 20 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. Claims 1 and 11, from which claims 6 and 20 depend, respectively, each requires “wherein at least one weight material of the plurality of weight materials is disposed in a middle section of one of the plurality of beams.” Claims 6 and 20 then require that the weight materials are attached to the second end of the beams. It is unclear how the weight could be disposed in both a middle section and to the second end of a beam. Further, the disclosure does not contemplate a beam having two weights such that one weight could be disposed in a middle section of the beam and the other weight located at the second end. Applicant must amend or clarify the claim language.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one weight material of the plurality of weight materials is disposed in a middle section of one of the plurality of beams of claims 1 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neubert (3,314,503).
With respect to claim 1, Neubert teaches a vibration attenuation device (Figures 1-2) 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 at least one weight material (20a/b) of the plurality of weight materials (20) is disposed in a middle section of one of the plurality of beams (18).
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 (18) 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 (18). Note that the weights #20 can be adjusted to any position on the beam #18, 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) 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 at least one weight material (20a/b) of the plurality of weight materials (20) is disposed in a middle section of one of the plurality of beams (18). Note 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 (18) 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 (18), 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20have 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 Neubert to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
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 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
Prosecution Insights