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 7 and 13 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 12 already define the vibration actuator as being configured to…operate as a vibration sensor. Claim 7 then requires “wherein the sound compensation apparatus comprises a vibration sensor configured to detect the sound waves in the working fluid of the working fluid circuit,” which is indefinite. Similarly, claim 13 requires “measuring a vibration signal emitted by the vibration actuator in the equalizing container or the working fluid container using a vibration sensor,” which is also indefiinte. It is unclear if the vibration sensor of claims 7 and is a structure provided in addition to the vibration actuator of claims 1 and 12 that is configured to “operate as a vibration sensor” or if Applicant is introducing an additional structure vibration sensor in addition to the vibration actuator of claims 1 and 12. There does not appear to be disclosure for either of these scenarios. For the rejection, the Examiner will interpret claims 7 and 13 as referring to the portion of the vibration actuator of claim which “operates as a vibration sensor”.
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 1-3, 6-8, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landel (DE69117571T2).
With respect to claim 1, Landel teaches a sound compensation apparatus (device of Figure 5) comprising: a working fluid circuit through which a working fluid flows (a novel method for damping acoustic waves in a circulating fluid circuit, [0001]; [0005]-[0008]) and configured to cool with the working fluid (pumps or fans… ventilated or air-conditioned, [0002]); and a vibration actuator (Figure 5, defined by actuation unit formed by adjacent ones of #12/13, similar to Applicant’s vibration sensor/actuator “unit” described in the Specification, [0031]) configured to at least partially compensate for sound waves in the working fluid ([0038], [0044]) and operate as a vibration sensor ([0046]-[0047]); wherein the working fluid circuit comprises: an equalizing container for the working fluid and/or a working fluid container (equalizing container or working fluid container defined by walls of tube #C) for the working fluid, wherein the vibration actuator (12/13) is mounted directly to a respective working fluid retaining wall (could be portion of #c having #12/13 attached) of the equalizing container or to the working fluid container (C). It is noted that the housing/horn shaped structures of elements #12/13, directing sound to/from movable elements #12/13 is considered to be a part of the vibration actuator, such that it is mounted directly to the equalizing container/working fluid container #C.
With respect to claim 2, Landel teaches further comprising an electric machine ([0044] (the measuring elements #13 are then processed by a control element #14, [0047]; pumps or fans, [0002] lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 3, Landel teaches wherein the working fluid circuit comprises at least one working fluid circuit section configured to cool one or more of: a battery, a battery housing, an inverter, an electric machine ([0002]), an electric motor ([0002]), power electronics ([0002]), and a battery charging system.
With respect to claim 6, Landel teaches wherein the vibration actuator (12/13) is an electromechanical vibration actuator [0044].
With respect to claim 7, Landel teaches wherein the sound compensation apparatus comprises a vibration sensor (13) configured to detect the sound waves in the working fluid of the working fluid circuit ([0046]-[0047]).
With respect to claim 8, Landel teaches wherein the sound compensation apparatus is configured such that the vibration actuator (12/13) can be operated based on the sound waves detected by a vibration sensor (13).
With respect to claim 12, Landel teaches a method for sound compensation (method necessitated by the product structure of device of Figure 5) by an apparatus (apparatus of Figure 5) having a working fluid circuit through which a working fluid flows (a novel method for damping acoustic waves in a circulating fluid circuit, [0001]; [0005]-[0008]) and configured to cool with the working fluid (pumps or fans… ventilated or air-conditioned, [0002]); and a vibration actuator (Figure 5, defined by actuation unit formed by adjacent ones of #12/13, similar to Applicant’s vibration sensor/actuator “unit” described in the Specification, [0031]) configured to at least partially compensate for sound waves in the working fluid ([0038], [0044]) and operate as a vibration sensor ([0046]-[0047]) wherein the working fluid circuit comprises: an equalizing container for the working fluid and/or a working fluid container (equalizing container or working fluid container defined by walls of tube #C) for the working fluid, wherein the vibration actuator (12/13) is coupled to the equalizing container or to the working fluid container (C), comprising sensing vibration via the vibration actuator (12/13) configured to at least partially compensate for sound waves in the working fluid ([0038], [0044]) and operate as a vibration sensor (via portion #13); and producing destructive interference to at least partially compensate for sound waves in the working fluid by the vibration actuator ([i.e. antiphase with the sound pressure – [0038]).
With respect to claim 15, Landel teaches wherein the vibration actuator (12/13) is operated as a function of the sound waves detected by the vibration sensor (13), and wherein the at least partial compensation of sound waves in the working fluid is destructive interference ([i.e. antiphase with the sound pressure – [0038]).
With respect to claim 16, Landel teaches wherein the equalizing container and/or the working fluid container (equalizing container or working fluid container defined by walls of tube #C) is a resonating body for the vibration actuator (12/13 - [0038]-[0044]).
With respect to claim 17, Landel teaches wherein the vibration actuator (12/13) is arranged inside or outside the equalizing container and/or the working fluid container (walls of #C).
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 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landel (DE69117571T2).
With respect to claim 4, Landel teaches the sound compensation apparatus of claim 1.
Although not explicitly stated, it is considered obvious over Landel that the electric machine comprises a cooling jacket that forms one of the at least one working fluid circuit section (sections 1, 2 and 3 of Figure 1; the pipe circuit, [0035] lines 1-8) or a further working fluid circuit section of the working fluid circuit. This is considered obvious as it is known in the art and clear from the prior art that the sections of the circuit can be used as a cooling jacket to condition the room.
With respect to claim 18, Landel teaches the sound compensation apparatus of claim 1. Landel further teaches wherein the equalizing container (C) is produced from an obvious, but unspecified material and the vibration actuator (12/13) comprises a housing made from an obvious, but unspecified material that is cohesively joined to the equalizing container (C).
Landel fails to explicitly teach wherein the obvious, but unspecified materials are plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the equalizing container is produced from a plastic and the vibration actuator comprises a housing made from plastic that is cohesively joined to the equalizing container, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, plastic would have been a well known and obviouds rigid material to form the container #C from.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landel (DE69117571T2) in view of Augst (DE102009057981A1).
With respect to claim 10, Landel teaches the sound compensation apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Landel fails to explicitly teach wherein the sound compensation apparatus is configured to generate a passer-by warning signal and/or an animal dispelling signal.
However, Augst, in a related field of endeavor, does teach wherein the sound compensation apparatus is configured to generate a passer-by warning signal (the vibration generating means are selected such that the vibrations are amplified in certain directions, in particular in certain spatial parts in the surroundings of the vehicle, [0018-0019]; [0033]) and/or an animal dispelling signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Landel, with the apparatus of Augst, such that it could be used to provide a sound to passersby, as an alert to either the passer-by or to the driver (Augst, this can improve accident statistics because acoustic perceptibility measures for perception positions where the probability of a road user being present or a collision occurring particularly high or from which a vehicle is acoustically difficult to hear are amplified in order to warn road users efficiently, [0033]).
wherein the equalizing container is produced from a plastic and the vibration actuator comprises a housing made from plastic that is cohesively joined to the equalizing container.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landel (DE69117571T2) in view of Vanderveen (US 2002/0071571 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Landel teaches a sound compensation apparatus (device of Figure 5) comprising: a working fluid circuit through which a working fluid flows (a novel method for damping acoustic waves in a circulating fluid circuit, [0001]; [0005]-[0008]) and configured to cool with the working fluid (pumps or fans… ventilated or air-conditioned, [0002]); and a vibration actuator (Figure 5, defined by actuation unit formed by adjacent ones of #12/13, similar to Applicant’s vibration sensor/actuator “unit” described in the Specification, [0031]) configured to at least partially compensate for sound waves in the working fluid ([0038], [0044]) and operate as a vibration sensor ([0046]-[0047]); wherein the working fluid circuit comprises: an equalizing container for the working fluid and/or a working fluid container (equalizing container or working fluid container defined by walls of tube #C) for the working fluid, wherein the vibration actuator (12/13) is mounted directly to a respective working fluid retaining wall (call portion of #c having #12/13 attached) of the equalizing container or to the working fluid container (C). It is noted that the housing/horn shaped structures of elements #12/13, directing sound to/from movable elements #12/13 is considered to be a part of the vibration actuator, such that it is mounted directly to the equalizing container/working fluid container #C.
Landel fails to teach a vehicle having at least one sound compensation apparatus.
However, Vanderveen, in the same field of endeavor, does teach a vehicle (Vanderveen, [0005] lines 1-10) having at least one sound compensation apparatus (Vanderveen, Speaker #26 of Figure 1 is controlled by control unit #31 and generates a noise canceling sound which flows out of inlet #30 and inlet #34. Thus, as known, canceling sound #38 is propagated out of two inlets to attenuate engine noise #42, [0019] lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to incorporate the active noise cancellation system of Landel into the vehicle system and storage volumes as in Vanderveen, as Landel explicitly calls for its usage in fluid circuit systems as in Vanderveen (Landel, [0001]-[0002]). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ 2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landel (DE69117571T2) in view of Doshi (US 4,599,892).
With respect to claim 13, Landel teaches the method for sound compensation according to claim 12, including measuring a vibration signal emitted by the vibration actuator (12/13) in the equalizing container or the working fluid container (C) using a vibration sensor (13).
Landel fails to teach wherein it further comprising: measuring a vibration signal emitted by the vibration actuator in the equalizing container or the working fluid container using a vibration sensor; and determining a working fluid level in the equalizing container or the working fluid container based on the measured vibration signal.
However, Doshi, in a related field of endeavor, does teach measuring a vibration signal emitted by the vibration actuator in the equalizing container or the working fluid container using a vibration sensor (a transducer 214 changes the acoustical 45 vibrations in the enclosure 216 to electrical energy and communicates the electrical output to a lock-in amplifier 224 which in turn communicates its output to a divider 238…a pick up transducer 244 may be positioned in one or both reference cavities to detect acoustical vibrations in each respective reference cavity, Col 7, Lines 45-55); and determining a working fluid level in the equalizing container or the working fluid container based on the measured vibration signal (acoustically measuring a volume of liquid or solid within an enclosed chamber, Col. 4, Lines 28-30; The output thus is a direct readout of the volume of the material to be measured 220, Col 8, Lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Landel, with the apparatus of Doshi, such that the acoustic transducer could also be used to determine the volume of the liquid within the chambers of the modified structure when liquid containers volumes and tanks are not readily visually accessible.
With respect to claim 14, Landel teaches the sound compensation apparatus as claimed in claim 7.
Landel fails to teach wherein the detected sound waves in the working fluid are used to determine a fluid level in the equalizing container or to the working fluid container.
However, Doshi, in a related field of endeavor, does teach wherein the detected sound waves in the working fluid ((a transducer 214 changes the acoustical 45 vibrations in the enclosure 216 to electrical energy and communicates the electrical output to a lock-in amplifier 224 which in turn communicates its output to a divider 238…a pick up transducer 244 may be positioned in one or both reference cavities to detect acoustical vibrations in each respective reference cavity, Col 7, Lines 45-55) are used to determine a fluid level in the equalizing container or to the working fluid container (acoustically measuring a volume of liquid or solid within an enclosed chamber, Col. 4, Lines 28-30; The output thus is a direct readout of the volume of the material to be measured 220, Col 8, Lines 25-28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Landel, with the apparatus of Doshi, such that the acoustic transducer could also be used to determine the volume of the liquid within the chambers of the modified structure when liquid containers volumes and tanks are not readily visually accessible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner considers Landel and the obvious combination with Augst, Vanderveen and Doshi to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Landel does not teach “that the vibration actuator is configured such that the vibration actuator can be operated as a vibration sensor," the Examiner disagrees. It is noted that at least independent claims 1, 11 and 12 do not provide any structure for what constitutes a vibration actuator that is configured such that the vibration actuator can be operated as a vibration sensor. There is nothing in the claims to prevents the interpretation of either a pair of elements #12/13, or the entire structure of elements #12/13 in Figure 5 as being “a vibration actuator configured to at least partially compensate for sound waves in the working fluid and operate as a vibration sensor.” In fact, as noted in the rejection, Applicant’s own disclosure (see Specification [0031]) contemplates a “unit” formed from a vibration actuator and vibration sensor pair in the same way as the Examiner interprets Landel. Therefor, the rejection is deemed proper and maintained.
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