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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, denoted by Figures 1-2 in the reply filed on 11/10/25 is acknowledged. Applicant indicated that claims 1-6 read on elected Species I, however, the Examiner disagrees and notes that only claims 1-4 read on the elected Species.
Claim 5 requires “wherein the adjustment part is constituted by an expansion/contraction device configured to apply a force in an expansion/contraction direction which increases or decreases tension of the variable elastic membrane,” which is describing expansion/contraction device #40, which is only included as part of non-elected Species II, denoted by Figure 5 (see Specification, Page 5, Line 15-Page 6, Line 6; Page 16, Line 15-Page 17, Line 22).
Claim 6 requires “a plurality of the resonance tubes having different lengths, wherein the respective variable elastic membrane and the respective adjustment part corresponding to each of the resonance tubes are provided,” which is only included as part of non-elected Species V, denoted by Figure 9 (see Specification, Page 22, Line 10-Page 23, Line 18).
Because claims 5 and 6 are each directed toward non-elected Species, they are considered withdrawn and will not be examined on the merits. Claims 1-4 are directed toward elected Species I and have been examined on the merits.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawatari (2007/0044747) in view of McKnight (8,616,330).
With respect to claim 1, Sawatari teaches a sound absorbing device (Figures 1-2 and 5-7, [0058], [0068]-[0069], [0073]) for a moving body (defined by vehicle in which the device of Figures 1-2 and 5-7 is part of, see abstract and [0012]) comprising: a resonance tube (2/3 – [0073]), in which one end portion of a pipeline (define by end of tube #2/3 facing #100) is disposed to face an indoor space (interior space denoted by opposing side of dashboard #100 that defines a vehicle interior – [0072]); an elastic membrane (4) in which one surface (surface of #4 facing toward #100) is disposed so as to face the indoor space (100) and in which other surface (surface of #4 facing away from #100) is disposed so as to face an internal space of other end portion of the resonance tube (2/3).
Sawatari fails to teach wherein the elastic membrane is a variable elastic membrane and an adjustment part configured to adjust an elastic modulus of the variable elastic membrane.
McKnight teaches a similar elastic membrane (Figure 1-2, #110/210), in the same field of endeavor, that is designed to vibrate at a tuned frequency, wherein the elastic membrane (110) is a variable elastic membrane and an adjustment part (defined device for applying voltage to said membrane, Col. 2, Lines 40-55; Col. 2, Line 65-Col. 3, Line 13, similar to Applicant’s adjustment part) configured to adjust an elastic modulus of the variable elastic membrane (Col. 2, Line 36-Col. 3, Line 63).
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 Sawatari, with the apparatus of McKnight so as to provide a tunable membrane that has a wider band of noise attenuation because it is tailorable to various environmental conditions, improving upon the structures effectiveness to mitigate variable tonal noise sources (See McKnight, Col. 9, Lines 30-38), as compared to the Sawatari device, which is not tunable and requires multiple differently tuned membranes/resonance tubes (See Sawatari Figures 8-9) in order to target multiple or different frequencies.
With respect to claim 2, Sawatari and McKnight teach further comprising a frequency detection part (McKnight, defined by unspecified control circuit which detects an operational change, Col. 8, Line 54-Col. 9, Line 2) configured to detect a frequency of noise (McKnight, i.e. engine noise spectrum changes as a function of RPM, Col. 8, Line 54-Col. 9, Line 2), wherein the adjustment part increases or decreases the elastic modulus of the variable elastic membrane (McKnight, Col. 3, Lines 2-13) according to the frequency of the noise detected by the frequency detection part.
With respect to claim 3, Sawatari and McKnight teach wherein the adjustment part (McKnight, defined by device for applying voltage to said membrane, Col. 2, Lines 40-55; Col. 2, Line 65-Col. 3, Line 13) increases the elastic modulus of the variable elastic membrane as the frequency of the noise detected by the frequency detection part increases, and decreases the elastic modulus of the variable elastic membrane as the frequency of the noise detected by the frequency detection part decreases (McKnight, seen in Figure 7). While this is shown in Figure 7, it is considered well known that a membrane with increased tension will have a natural vibration frequency higher than that of similar membrane with less tension.
With respect to claim 4, Sawatari and McKnight teach wherein the variable elastic membrane is formed of a material capable of adjusting a membrane thickness according to a stimulus from outside (via stretching or tensioning the membrane via tensioner #250 or other disclosed tensioning structure - Col. 2, Line 36-Col. 3, Line 63, in the same way as Applicant’s, see Specification, Page 16, Lines 15-25), and the adjustment part (defined by device for applying voltage to said membrane, Col. 2, Lines 40-55; Col. 2, Line 65-Col. 3, Line 13) is configured to apply a stimulus to the variable elastic membrane that increases or decreases a membrane thickness. It is further noted, that Applicant’s disclosure describes piezoelectric film and piezoelectric ceramics, which are also taught by McKnight (Col. 2, Lines 40-50), as being a material capable of increasing or decreasing a membrane thickness by receiving a stimulus (voltage) from the outside (See Specification, Page 8, Line 25-Page 9, Line 4), therefore, in addition to the tensioning/stretching taught by McKnight for adjusting a film thickness, it is also considered obvious that the piezoelectric film/ceramics of McKnight, which have a voltage applied thereto, are also capable of having their thickness adjusted as claimed in the same way as Appicant’s.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
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