DETAILED ACTION
Amended claims filed on 25 August 2025 are being examined. Claims 11-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 12 May 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For reference, In Guerci, a microphone captures sound produced by the fan and converts it to an electrical signal. The electrical signal is input in to the band pass filter which has a center frequency equal to the product of fan speed and the number of fan blades, and it attenuates signals that are not the primary harmonic of the rotating fan blades (Guerci, c 5 34-43). That filtered signal is sent to an amplifier and speaker array to produce maximum destructive interferences with the sound produces by the rotating fan blades (Abstract).
Applicant argues on page 2 of the remarks.
That while Guerci uses a reference signal obtained from the rotational speed and number of blades of a fan, where a bandpass filter is adjusted depending on the reference frequency. That Guerci does not disclose or suggest any optimization of the bandpass filter.
The argument is not persuasive; in Guerci fan speed can be variable, and the resultant noise cancelled signal can be phase shifted in accordance with speed (Guerci, c 4 ln 2-8). The phase shifting as speed changes meets the plain meaning of the term optimization, where optimization is the modification of something to better meet a particular goal. In this case, applicant doesn’t disclose a specific meaning of “optimization.” However, applicant does disclose an example of optimization that occurs via adjustments to phase and amplitude (Applicant’s published spec, par 0055). Therefore, the phase shifting of Guerci meets the plain meaning and applicant’ example of optimization.
Applicant argues that Guerci teaching using the primary harmonic (c 5 ln 43-47) teaches away from optimization of the bandpass filter. The argument is not persuasive; the band pass filter is centered on a number equal to the product of fan speed and the number of fan blades. The fan speed can be variable, and the resultant noise cancelled signal can be phase shifted according to the variable fan speed (Guerci, c 4 ln 2-8), this continual adjustment for variable speed meets the plain meaning of optimization.
The phase shifting and adjustment for destructive interference with noise is in accord with applicant’s disclosed form of optimization. Applicant’s published application describes the optimization for obtaining a destructive interference (Applicant’s published application, par 0022). Applicant’s published application discloses that optimization occurs via adjustments to phase and amplitude (Applicant’s published application, par 0055).
Applicant further argues that the base reference Crouse does not disclose an adaptive filter that subsequently filters a reference signal for minimization (where the reference signal is from the rotational speed of the pump). The office doesn’t dispute this point. This argument is in agreement with the previous final office action, where the office action states that Crouse was silent regarding the above elements (Non-Final Office Action, page 6). The limitations were addressed by a combination of Crouse in view of Guerci. Guerci was cited as teaching the reference signal generated based upon speed and the adaptation of that reference signal to minimize noise.
Applicant is arguing unclaimed subject matter when they conclude that there is no reference signal that is generated directly from the rotational speed and optimized by a filter (page 2 of remarks). The claims do not recite that “a reference signal” is “optimized by a filter.” Rather the claims recite that the “controller unit is adapted to continuously optimize the adaptive filter.” There is no other recitation of the term “optimize” in claim 1. The claim language therefore say that the filter is optimized, and the claims do not say that the reference signal is optimized as applicant has argued.
Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, the office will address whether the “a reference signal” is “optimized by a filter.”
The rejection cites Crouse’s “transfer function” as the “adaptive filter” (Non Final Rejection page 6). In Crouse, the transfer function contains phase information (Crouse, c 6 ln 35-36) so that the controller can correctly create the destructive synthesized waveform detected by sensors and driving the actuator (Crouse, c 6 ln 31-48). The destructive wave signal is adjusted (Crouse, c 6 ln 41) to find the appropriate null signal to drive the actuator and create the nulling signal of pressure pulses (Crouse, c 6 ln 44-46).
The rejection cites Guerci for “a reference signal” from the rotational speed of the pump (Guerci’s reference fan speed signal, c 4 ln 3-5, See pg 7 of Non-Final Rejection). Wherein, in Guerci the “reference signal” (Guerci, reference fan speed signal) includes phase shifting for variable speed (Guerci, c 4 ln 2) which modifies a sensed signal from sensors (Guerci, abstract) which creates the destructive waveform.
The combination of Crouse and Guerci would lead to a predictable result that the reference signal from the rotational speed of the pump (Guerci’s reference fan speed signal, c 4 ln 3-5, See pg 7 of Non-Final Rejection) can be optimized by the filter (Crouse’s transfer function to set and adjust the null signal produced by the controller to drive actuator to minimize error, c 6 ln 40-49). In both Guerci and Crouse a sensed signal is used to create a destructive waveform where that destructive wave form is phase shifted. In Guerci, the phase shifting is for variable speed (Guerci, c 4 ln 2), while in Crouse, the phase shifting is modified to correct phase lag detected with the error sensor (Crouse, c 6 ln 35-37).
Therefore, both Guerci and Crouse are modifying a sensed signal using phase information in order to produce and optimize a destructive waveform. It is reasonable that the phase shifting is capable of being used together for producing the destructive waveform in the same way in the combination. It is reasonable to conclude that Crouse’s transfer function using the phase shifting can be further modified by the phase shifting taught by Guerci’s variable speed signal and continue to function as intended when creating the destructive reverse waveform signal.
Therefore the rejection of claims 11 and 19 under Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
INVOKED
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“pressure fluctuation generator” in claims 11 and 19 where “pressure fluctuation generator” is functional language, and neither claim recites sufficient structure to accomplish said function. Claims 14-18 and 20 include sufficient structure to accomplish said function, and the 112(f) interpretation will not be applied to those claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse (US 4,750,523) as evidenced by Ehmann (US 2006/0130919) in view of Guerci (US 5,448,645).
Regarding claim 11, Crouse disclose a device for active reduction of pressure fluctuations in a hydrodynamic system comprising (fig 2, abstract): a pump (fan pump 10, c 3 ln 34), a pressure fluctuation generator (attenuator 29, c 3 ln 52), at least one pressure sensor (18a-c, c 3 ln 47) and a controller unit (20, c 3 ln 61), wherein the controller unit is adapted to control the pressure fluctuation generator and receive a pressure fluctuation signal from the pressure sensor (c 3 ln 59-64), … and to control the pressure fluctuation generator with the control signal (signal to actuator 30, c 3 ln 64, the reversed synthesized waveform signal 44 to amplifier and actuator, c 4 ln 60-65, 68), wherein the controller unit is adapted to continuously optimize (error system continual refines the waveform, c 5 ln 9-24, c 6 ln 20 – c 7 ln 10) [an] adaptive filter (transfer function between the input sensor and error sensor, with phase information which adjusts the synthesized waveform, c 6 ln 31-40) to minimize the pressure fluctuation signal (c 6 ln 60-62).
Crouse is silent on wherein the rotational speed of the pump can be captured and is receivable by the controller unit, wherein the controller unit is adapted to generate a reference signal from the rotational speed of the pump, generate the control signal from the reference signal by means of an adaptive filter.
Nevertheless, Crouse teaches a model of pressure pulsations (c 1 ln 55, c 2 ln 15, c 7 ln 40-43) which produces composite synthesized waveform, which is adjusted by the transfer function in order to further null pressure pulses.
Ehmann teaches an analogous device for reducing pressure pulses in a hydraulic line (par 0006) caused by a pump (par 0003, 0018), where anti-noise methods are used to generate the antiphase waveform to reduce vibrations and noise (par 0007, 0012). Ehmann therefore evidences that active noise suppression technologies are analogous to the problem of pressure pulse reduction in Crouse.
Guerci teaches a fan with an active fan blade noise cancellation system where a controller measures fan speed directly (c 4 ln 4-5) in order to generate a control signal for noise cancellation that matches the sound waves produced by the rotating fan blades (c 3 ln 30-34) in order to produces an out of phase destructive interference to cancel noise (c 3 ln 40-43).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure pulse control of the fan pump of Crouse by incorporating the direct speed measurement of a fan pump as taught by Guerci in order to create a noise cancellation signal that matches variable fan speed (Guerci, c 4 ln 2-9) and cancels the pressure pulse (Guerci, c 4 ln 61) produced by the rotating fan blades (Guerci, c 3 ln 22, 29).
The combination of Crouse in view of Guerci therefore makes obvious wherein the rotational speed of the pump (Guerci, direct measure speed of fan, c 4 ln 4-5) can be captured and is receivable by the controller unit (obvious that Crouse control receives signal to improve the pressure cancelling waveform), wherein the controller unit is adapted to generate a reference signal (Guerci, reference fan speed signal, c 4 ln 3-5) from the rotational speed of the pump (obvious that Crouse control improves the pressure cancelling waveform to adjust for pressure waves created by fan speed directly), generate a control signal from the reference signal (Guerci, the frequency response of the noise cancelling signal is shifted in order to maintain noise cancellation, c 4 ln 5-8).
Regarding claim 19, Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci, teaches a method for active reduction of pressure fluctuations in a hydrodynamic system (Crouse, abstract) by means of a device according to claim 11, wherein the controller unit receives a pressure fluctuation signal from the pressure sensor (Crouse, 18a-c, c 3 ln 47), wherein the rotational speed of the pump is captured and received by the controller unit (obvious direct measurement of fan speed under Guerci, c 4 ln 4-5), wherein the controller unit generates a reference signal from the rotational speed of the pump (Guerci, reference fan speed signal, c 4 ln 3-5), wherein the controller unit generates a control signal from the reference signal (Guerci, the frequency response of the noise cancelling signal is shifted in order to maintain noise cancellation, c 4 ln 5-8) by means of an adaptive filter (Crouse, transfer function between the input sensor and error sensor, with phase information which adjusts the synthesized waveform, c 6 ln 31-40), and controls the pressure fluctuation generator with the control signal (Crouse, c 3 ln 59-64), wherein the controller unit continuously optimizes the adaptive filter to minimize the pressure fluctuation signal (Crouse, c 6 ln 60-62).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci in view of Sommerfeldt (US 2003/0219132).
Regarding claim 12, Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the pump comprises a constant number of blades (Crouse’s fan 10 implicitly has a constant number of blades, as constant fan blades are conventional).
The combination is silent on the controller unit is adapted to generate a reference signal comprising a first amplitude peak at a first frequency corresponding to the rotational speed multiplied by the number of blades.
Nevertheless, Guerci teaches that the primary noise cancelling is done at a center frequency for the primary harmonic of the rotating fan blades (c 3 ln 25-30).
Sommerfeldt teaches an active noise suppression system for an analogous fan (par 0006) where the cancelling acoustic signal (par 0007) for the fan’s blade passage frequency is calculated by multiplying the number of fan blades by the shaft speed of the fan (par 0006).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the calculation of the frequency of fan blade speed of Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci by using a conventional calculation taught by Sommerfeldt for the expected result of calculating fan blade speed based on fan rotation speed and the number of blades on the fan.
As a result the combination meets the controller unit is adapted to generate a reference signal (Crouse, pressure cancelling waveform) comprising a first amplitude peak (Guerci, frequency of the harmonic for fan blades) at a first frequency corresponding to the rotational speed multiplied by the number of blades (Sommerfeldt calculation of fan blade passage frequency).
Regarding claim 13 , Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci in view of Sommerfeldt teaches the device according to claim 12, wherein the controller unit is adapted to generate a reference signal comprising (Crouse, pressure cancelling waveform), in addition to the first amplitude peak at the first frequency (Guerci, frequency of the first harmonic of the fan blades, c 3 ln 29-30), at least one further amplitude peak at a further frequency (Sommerfeldt, conventional to create the cancelling sound wave from several harmonics of the blade passage frequency, par 0006, 0009; it is desirable to attenuate the higher harmonics of the blade passage frequency, par 0011), wherein the at least one further frequency corresponds to an integer multiple of the first frequency (Sommerfeldt, the noise cancelling harmonics are integer multiples of the blade passage frequency, par 0006).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Geddes (US 5,233,137)
Regarding claim 14, Crouse teaches a pressure fluctuation generator for generating pressure fluctuations in a hydrodynamic system (fig 2, abstract), comprising: an oscillator (diaphragm 32, c 4 ln 4) and an actuator (actuator 30, c 3 ln 54-58), wherein the oscillator comprises a source area (the actuating face of the actuator 30) facing a pressure compartment of the hydrodynamic system and to which a static pressure of the hydrodynamic system is applied (pressure of pulp stock which is created by fan pump 10, c 3 ln 34-35), wherein the oscillator is connected to the actuator (connected via ram 31, c 4 ln 4), wherein the actuator is adapted to oscillate the source area by means of a control signal (signal to actuator 30, c 3 ln 64, the reversed synthesized waveform 44 signal to amplifier and actuator, c 4 ln 60-65, 68) to apply pressure fluctuations to the hydrodynamic system.
Crouse is silent on wherein the pressure fluctuation generator comprises a back pressure chamber separated from the pressure compartment of the hydrodynamic system and from the ambient pressure, and the oscillator faces the back pressure chamber at backside of the source area, wherein the back pressure chamber is gas-filled and a back pressure is present in the back pressure chamber which is matched to the static pressure in the pressure compartment.
Ehmann teaches an analogous device for reducing pressure pulses in a hydraulic line (par 0006) caused by a pump (par 0003, 0018), where anti-noise methods are used to generate the antiphase waveform to reduce vibrations and noise (par 0007, 0012). Ehmann therefore evidences that active noise suppression technologies are analogous to the problem of pressure pulse reduction in Crouse.
Geddes teaches an active noise cancellation apparatus (abstract) wherein a pressure fluctuation generator (transducer arrangement 20 in housing 58, c 4 ln 11) with an oscillator (acoustically permeable membrane 38, c 5 ln 11-12), wherein the oscillator comprises a source area (transducer diaphragms 22 and 24, c 4 ln 54, 59) and an actuator (transducer loudspeakers, c 3 ln 43-45, c 4 ln 40-54), comprises a back pressure chamber (chamber 98, 100 around transducer 30, c 6 ln 17; and chambers 92 and 94 around transducer 28, c 6 ln 19-20) separated from the pressure compartment of the hydrodynamic system (separated by membranes 38)…, and the oscillator faces the back pressure chamber at backside of the source area (fig 2 shows backside of diaphragms 22 and 24 are chambers 92 and 100), wherein the back pressure chamber is gas-filled (implicitly chambers 92/100 are gas filled in order to provide a medium for the conventional loudspeakers to transmit sound, c 4 ln 40-41) and a back pressure is present in the back pressure chamber which is matched to the static pressure in the pressure compartment (the pressure pulses from the speaker are 180 out of phase with the pulse on the other side, and thereby cancel the pulse, c 2 ln 50-56; the out of phase cancelling of pressure pulses meets the limitation because the pulses match both by being precisely 180 degrees out of phase, and also match by being of roughly equal magnitude in order to cancel each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute oscillator and actuator of Crouse with the transducer arrangement 20 and housing 58 of Geddes for the expected result of reducing pressure pulses with an active noise cancellation system.
Geddes is silent that the back pressure chamber is separated from ambient pressure.
Nevertheless, Geddes discloses that transducers must protected from environmental conditions (c 1 ln 60-62) such as humidity (c 1 ln 56, c 2 ln 17) in order to prevent adversely affecting the transducer coil bonding, glue, or securing means (c 1 ln 53-54).
The office is taking official notice that atmospheric air in earth’s environment has humidity (MPEP 2144.03).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that protection from humid environmental conditions would reasonably include protection from the humidity of atmospheric air.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transducer housing (58) of Crouse in view of Geddes by sealing the transducer housing against the humidity of atmospheric air in order to prevent the degrading of the transducers due to humidity (Geddes, c 1 ln 53-54), which is suggested by Geddes similarly sealing transducer chambers (Geddes, 92, 94, 98, and 100) against the humidity of exhaust gases.
As a result of the modification, Crouse in view of Geddes meets the limitation the back pressure chamber (92, 94, 98, and 100) is separated from ambient pressure (obvious that atmospheric air is blocked, inherently its pressure is also blocked).
Regarding claim 15, Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Geddes teaches the pressure fluctuation generator according to claim 14, wherein the oscillator is a piston (Geddes, acoustically permeable membrane 38 is disk shaped and closely fit with the cylindrical wall 59, c 5 ln 59-63, the membrane 38 meets the plain meaning of piston under a BRI, See definition of piston, “Piston.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piston. Accessed 1 May. 2025.).
Regarding claim 16, Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Geddes teaches the pressure fluctuation generator according to claim 14, wherein the oscillator is a diaphragm (Geddes, acoustically permeable membrane 38, c 5 ln 11-12; this membrane meets the plain meaning of diaphragm, which is a think sheet of material forming a partition).
Regarding claim 17, Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Geddes teaches the pressure fluctuation generator according to claim 14, wherein the actuator is a Lorentz actuator (Geddes, transducer loudspeakers, c 3 ln 43-45, c 4 ln 40-54; applicant discloses that the Lorentz actuator is a loudspeaker with a voice coil, applicant’s published application, par 0035).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Geddes in view of Slapak (US 2010/0028134).
Regarding claim 18, Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Geddes teaches the pressure fluctuation generator according to claim 14.
The combination is silent on the actuator is a piezoelectric actuator.
Slapak teaches an active noise control (abstract) for a fan pump where the actuator is a piezoelectric speaker (par 0172).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the conventional speaker of the combination (Geddes loudspeaker, c 3 ln 43-45) with a piezoelectric speaker taught by Slapak, for the predictable result of providing a speaker actuator for an active noise control.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci in view of Geddes in view of Kruger (US 9,206,717) in view of Munch (US 5,785,815).
Regarding claim 20, Crouse as evidenced by Ehmann in view of Guerci teaches the method according to claim 19, comprising the use of a pressure fluctuation generator for generating pressure fluctuations in a hydrodynamic system (Crouse, fig 2, abstract), comprising: an oscillator (Crouse, diaphragm 32, c 4 ln 4) and an actuator (Crouse, actuator 30, c 3 ln 54-55), wherein the oscillator comprises a source area (the actuating face of actuator 30) facing a pressure compartment of the hydrodynamic system and to which a static pressure of the hydrodynamic system is applied (Crouse, pressure of pulp stock which is created by fan pump 10, c 3 ln 34-35), wherein the oscillator is connected to the actuator (Course, connected via ram 31, c 4 ln 3), wherein the actuator is adapted to oscillate the source area by means of a control signal (Crouse, signal to actuator 30, c 3 ln 64, the reversed synthesized waveform 44 signal to amplifier and actuator, c 4 ln 60-65, 68) to apply pressure fluctuations to the hydrodynamic system…. wherein a first pressure sensors (Crouse, pressure sensors 18a-c, c 3 ln 44) measure the static pressure in the hydrodynamic system (Crouse, sensors monitor pressure in the pipe to measure pulsations, c 3 ln 44-51).
Crouse is silent on wherein the pressure fluctuation generator comprises a back pressure chamber separated from the pressure compartment of the hydrodynamic system and from the ambient pressure, and the oscillator faces the back pressure chamber at backside of the source area, wherein the back pressure chamber is gas-filled and a back pressure is present in the back pressure chamber which is matched to the static pressure in the pressure compartment…. on a second pressure sensor measuring pressure in the back pressure chamber and wherein the controller unit controls at least one valve connected to the back pressure chamber and adjusts the back pressure in the back pressure chamber to the static pressure in the hydrodynamic system.
Geddes teaches an active noise cancellation apparatus (abstract) wherein a pressure fluctuation generator (transducer arrangement 20 in housing 58, c 4 ln 11) with an oscillator (acoustically permeable membrane 38, c 5 ln 11-12), wherein the oscillator comprises a source area (transducer diaphragms 22 and 24, c 4 ln 54, 59) and an actuator (transducer loudspeakers, c 3 ln 43-45, c 4 ln 40-54)… wherein the pressure fluctuation generator comprises a back pressure chamber (Geddes, chamber 98, 100 around transducer 30, c 6 ln 17; and chambers 92 and 94 around transducer 28, c 6 ln 19-20) separated from the pressure compartment of the hydrodynamic system (Geddes, separated by membranes 38) and from ambient pressure (Geddes, obvious that atmospheric air is blocked to protect against humidity, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that inherently any pressure of a blocked gas is also blocked), and the oscillator faces the back pressure chamber at backside of the source area (Geddes, fig 2 shows backside of diaphragms 22 and 24 are chambers 92 and 100), wherein the back pressure chamber is gas-filled (Geddes, implicitly chambers 92/100 are gas filled in order to provide a medium for the conventional loudspeakers to transmit sound, c 4 ln 40-41) and a back pressure is present in the back pressure chamber which is matched to the static pressure in the pressure compartment (Geddes, the pressure pulses from the speaker are 180 out of phase with the pulse on the other side, and thereby cancel the pulse, c 2 ln 50-56; the out of phase cancelling of pressure pulses meets the limitation because the pulses match both by being precisely 180 degrees out of phase, and also match by being of roughly equal magnitude in order to cancel each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute oscillator and actuator of Crouse with the transducer arrangement 20 and housing 58 of Geddes for the expected result of reducing pressure pulses with an active noise cancellation system.
The combination is silent on a second pressure sensor measuring pressure in the back pressure chamber and wherein the controller unit controls at least one valve connected to the back pressure chamber and adjusts the back pressure in the back pressure chamber to the static pressure in the hydrodynamic system.
Kruger teaches an active noise sound cancellation device (abstract) comprising an analogous speaker (fig 10, 11) and back pressure chamber (13), with a pressure sensor measuring pressure in the back pressure chamber (sensor system 35, c 12 ln 65, which is depicted with a pressure sensor 36, c 11 ln 50) and wherein the controller unit controls at least one pump (conveying device 47 connected to controller 33, c 12 ln 50) connected to the back pressure chamber and adjusts the back pressure in the back pressure chamber to the static pressure in the hydrodynamic system (fig 10, pressure difference can be corrected in order to remove undesired static membrane deflection, c 12 l 55-65). Furthermore, Kruger also teaches that the figure 10, pressure equalization opening 40 is optional and can be dispensed with (c 13 ln 17-21), which is analogous to the isolated backing chamber of the previous combination.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the backpressure chamber of the combination by adding the backpressure control of Kruger in order to reduce undesired membrane deflection (Kruger, c 12 ln 57) and thereby improve the generation of counter sound enabling the device to be used at any desired position relative to the noise source (c 7 ln 5-10)
Kruger is silent on the conveying device (47) being a valve. Kruger instead indicates with an example that the conveying device can by a pump (c 12 ln 52).
Munch teaches an analogous active pressure pulse dampening system (abstract) where a controller (fig 4, 19) controls a valve (23) to manage a pressure of a supplied fluid (c 5 ln 53-56). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the pump managing fluid flow (Kruger, 47) into the chamber of the prior art combination with the valve (23) and input fluid of Munch for the predictable result of being controlled to provide a pressurized fluid feed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746