DETAILED ACTION
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
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 1-10, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 9,222,229).
Re claims 1, 16 and 17, Chang et al. teach a vibration attenuation system, comprising: a load bearing layer (130) having a first density and a first stiffness; a non-load bearing layer (110) having a second density and a second stiffness; and a rigid beam connector (120, 175) having a third density and a third stiffness, the rigid beam connector couples the load bearing layer to the non-load bearing layer. (Fig. 1A, 1C) Although Chang et al. do not teach wherein the third density is different from each of the first density and the second density Chang et al. teach wherein the facesheets and core are designed based on the desired application. (Column 11, lines 42-62) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the density of the components based on the desired application and sound attenuation characteristics as taught by Chang et al.
Re claim 2, Although Chang et al. do not teach wherein the third stiffness is greater than each of the first stiffness and the second stiffness, Chang et al. teach wherein the facesheets and core are designed based on the desired application. (Column 10, lines 54-63, Column 11, lines 42-62) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the stiffness of the components based on the desired application and sound attenuation characteristics as taught by Chang et al.
Re claim 3, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein the third density is less than each of the first density and the second density. See above Re claim 1 and the cited sections in Chang et al.
Re claim 4, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein the load bearing layer (130) is a substantially flat-surfaced plate.
Re claim 5, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein a surface of the load bearing layer (730e) includes a taper. (Fig. 7E)
Re claim 6, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein the surface of the load bearing layer (730e) includes a plurality of tapers. (Fig. 7E)
Re claim 7, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein a terminal end of the rigid beam connector (750e) is coupled to an apex of the taper. (Fig. 7E)
Re claim 8, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein the non-load bearing layer (110) is a substantially flat-surfaced plate. (Fig. 1A, 1C)
Re claim 9, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein a surface of the non-load bearing layer (110) includes a substantially concave surface. (Fig. 7E, Column 10, lines 59-63)
Re claim 10, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein the non-load bearing layer includes a primary non-load bearing layer (110) and a secondary non-load bearing layer, the primary non-load bearing layer is substantially disposed between the load bearing layer (130) and the secondary non-load bearing layer. See Column 10, lines 39-43 which discloses wherein the face sheets can be coated with a reflected layer to reflect heat.
Re claim 12, Chang et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the non-load bearing layer (110) is flexible. Chang et al. teach wherein the face sheets may be tailored to control stiffness and can be comprised of a variety of materials including polymers, ceramic, composites and paper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a flexible non-load bearing layer based on the desired characteristics.
Re claims 13 and 20, Chang et al. as modified teach a viscoelastic layer (975dc) coupled to the non-load bearing layer (910a), the viscoelastic layer is configured to attenuate localized energy in the non-load bearing layer. (Fig. 9D)
Re claim 14, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein the viscoelastic layer is constructed from at least one of rubber and polyurethane.
Re claim 18, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein a surface of the load bearing layer (730e) includes a taper, the step of transferring the vibration includes directing the vibration to an apex of the taper. (Fig. 7E)
Re claim 19, Chang et al. as modified teach wherein a surface of the non-load bearing layer (710e) includes a substantially concave surface, the step of transferring the vibration includes directing the vibration to a bottom-most point of the concave surface. (Fig. 7E)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ji et al. and Yu et al. teach similar vibration attenuation systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWJanuary 20, 2026