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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the boundary of “the interval is 660 mm or less” includes at least 0 mm which is not consistent with the claimed interval of “160mm to 3760 mm” in claim 7. Applicant should amend claim 8 to define a lower boundary that is consistent with the limitation defined in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 14 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (hereafter Suzuki; US 20200206777 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an active noise control system comprising:
a structure (11); and
a plurality of piezoelectric speakers (actuator 14s function as speakers that generate signal with frequency range, Figs. 8, 4 and 7(B), e.g.) disposed on a surface of the structure (11), wherein the piezoelectric speakers (14s) each have a radiation surface extending along a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the first direction being a direction along which centers of the radiation surfaces of the piezoelectric speakers are arranged so that the piezoelectric speakers are adjacent to each other (see Fig. 8, for the two left most 14s, first directions correspond to the side with the shortest lines), and
the radiation surface of each of the piezoelectric speakers is shorter in a dimension in the first direction than in a dimension in the second direction.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki discloses that the radiation surface of each of the piezoelectric speakers (14s) extends along a first direction (parallel to the shortest lines) and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the first direction being a direction along an interval at which the centers of the radiation surfaces of the adjacent piezoelectric speakers are arranged, and
the radiation surface of each of the piezoelectric speakers has a dimension in the second direction longer than the interval.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki shows a plurality of error microphones (15 in Fig. 8), a controller (17).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki shows at least one reference microphones (15 in Fig. 8), a controller (17).
Claims 1, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita (JP 2005003777; the rejection below is based on translation accompanying IDS filed by application).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Morita discloses an active noise control system (“Subject of the Invention”) comprising:
a structure (10, 12 in Figs. 1 and 2); and
a plurality of piezoelectric speakers (28s in Figs. 1 and 2; [0019]), wherein the piezoelectric speakers (18s/28s) each have a radiation surface extending along a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (see Fig. 1, [0023]), the first direction being a direction along which centers of the radiation surfaces of the piezoelectric speakers are arranged so that the piezoelectric speakers are adjacent to each other (see Fig. 1, for the two 18s on the top, e.g.), and
the radiation surface of each of the piezoelectric speakers is shorter in a dimension in the first direction than in a dimension in the second direction.
Regarding claim 11, Morita discloses a plurality of error microphones (one for each 18 as shown in Figs. 2 and 3); and a controller (32), wherein the controller controls sound to be output from the piezoelectric speakers by using the error microphones.
Regarding claim 12, Morita discloses that the piezoelectric speakers (18s) and the error microphones (30, [0023]) are associated one-to-one with each other (see Fig. 2), and
the controller (32) controls sound to be output from each of the piezoelectric speakers by using the error microphone associated with the piezoelectric speaker.
Regarding claim 13, Morita discloses that the controller has a plurality of noise control filters (one DSP for each 32 as shown in Fig. 3), the piezoelectric speakers (18s) and the noise control filters (DSPs in 32s; [0026]) are associated one-to-one with each other, and the controller controls sound to be output from each of the piezoelectric speakers by using the noise control filter associated with the piezoelectric speaker.
Regarding claim 14, Morita discloses at least one reference microphone (30, [0023]); and a controller (32), wherein the controller controls sound to be output from each of the piezoelectric speakers by using the at least one reference microphone.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki fails to show the claimed structure of the piezo speaker. However, Suzuki teaches a general piezo speaker. One skilled in the art would have expected that any well known design, such as the one with a piezo film and an interposed layer of porous body and/or a resin layer, could be used without generating any unexpected result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki by utilizing well known piezo speaker structure, such as the one with a piezo film and an interposed layer of porous body and/or a resin layer, because it is considered as a matter of design preference.
Claims 1 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akishita (JP2004036299(A), the rejection below is based on translation accompany IDS filed by applicant).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Akishita discloses an active noise control system comprising:
a structure (102 in Fig. 1); and
a plurality of piezoelectric speakers (101 with 103s piezo actuators function as piezo speakers; see and last 4 lines of p. 1, end of p. 3 and p. 5) disposed on a surface of the structure (102) and the piezoelectric speaker are adjacent to each other (for example the two 101 on the left of Fig. 4).
Akishita fails to explicitly show that centers of radiation surfaces of the piezoelectric speakers are arranged at an interval of 160 mm to 3760 mm. Akishita teaches that the size of the panel and number of piezo speakers are not fixed and could be adjusted (p. 3). One example provided in Akishita is the 1m by 1m panel (101). The claimed dimension is met from the center of one 101 to the center of the adjacent 101. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akishita by adjusting the number of piezo speakers on the panel, placement of the piezo speakers and the size of the panel in order to find the best solution for attenuating the noise, including distance between centers of the piezo speaker is 660 mm or less.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Akishita discloses an active noise control system comprising:
a structure (102); and
a plurality of piezoelectric speakers (101s with piezo actuators 103 function as piezo speakers; see and last 4 lines of p. 1, end of p. 3 and p. 5) disposed on a surface of the structure (102), wherein the piezoelectric speakers (101 with 103s) each have a radiation surface extending along a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the first direction being a direction along which centers of the radiation surfaces of the piezoelectric speakers are arranged so that the piezoelectric speakers are adjacent to each other (see Fig. 4, for the two left most 101s, first directions correspond to the side with the lines next to each other).
Akishita fails to show that the radiation surface of each of the piezoelectric speakers is shorter in a dimension in the first direction than in a dimension in the second direction. However, Akishita teaches that the shape of the piezo speaker is preferably rectangular an the dimensions could be adjusted (lines 106-107 of p. 3). This teaching indicates that one could adjust the dimension of a shape (such as the width and length of a rectangle). The claimed dimension is one of well known rectangle with unequal width and length. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akishita by testing and designing piezo speakers (101 with piezo actuators 103) with various shapes and dimensions, including well known rectangle with unequal width and length, in order to find the best size for the specific application.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, with the modification as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the claimed dimension is met from the center of one 101 (the top left panel 101) with 1 m side length to the center of the adjacent and below 101 with the 1m side length.
Regarding claim 11, Akishita shows a plurality of error microphones (102s in Fig. 1) and a controller (41).
Regarding claim 12, Akishita teaches one-to-one relationship between the piezo speaker and the error microphone (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Akishita shows at least one reference microphones (102 in Fig. 1), a controller (41).
Regarding claim 13, Akishita shows a controller (41 for each 101 in Fig. 4)
the controller has a plurality of noise control filters (each 41 has a control filter),
the piezoelectric speakers (101 with piezo actuator 103s) and the noise control filters (e.g., top most 101 in Fig. 4) are associated one-to-one with each other, and
the controller (41 for top most 101 in Fig. 4) controls sound to be output from each of the piezoelectric speakers by using the noise control filter associated with the piezoelectric speaker (actuators on top most 101 in Fig. 4).
Claims 2-8, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, each radiation surface of the piezo speaker (18) can be divided into three regions as claimed. The top most piezo speakers (18) are adjacent to each other along the first direction. Morita fails to explicitly show that, in a period, the phase of the adjacent piezo speakers are having opposite phase to each other. Since Morita teaches that the piezo speakers are mounted on the curved structure (10) and each piezo speaker is individually controlled (by 32), the phase of sound waves from each piezo speaker does not need to be synchronized with each other, but could be opposite to each other, with phase difference in 90o, or other variation. There is always a given combination of angles or incidence, phase and wavelength, for a sound wave that is incident on adjacent piezo speakers (28). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita by adjusting the anti-sound wave generation from each piezo speaker as needed, including at a period when they are in opposite phase, in order to cancel the corresponding noise detected by the corresponding sensor.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed one piezo speaker reads on the left most vertical column, its first region reads on the top most 18, its third region reads on the center 18 and its second region reads on the bottom 18. With the same reasoning stated above with respect to claims 2 and 3 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita by adjusting the anti-sound wave generation from each piezo speaker as needed, including at a period when the first and third regions are in opposite phase, and the first and second regions are in same phase in order to cancel the corresponding noise detected by the corresponding sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Morita fails to show the claimed directivity of sound waves from first, second and third regions. Examiner takes Official Notice that beamforming technique for noise control is notoriously well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita by utilizing well known beamforming technique for controlling the direction of the anti-noise in order to provide a precise noise control.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 10, Morita fails to show the claimed dimension. In view of the teaching of Morita, the intended application is for controlling external noise of aircraft and the dimension of each piezo speaker (18) is not being strictly limited. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita by trying various size of piezo speaker (18), including one with shorter length around 0.5 m, in order to determine the most cost effective piezo speakers (18) to be mounted on the interior of aircraft for cancelling external noise entering the cabinet.
Regarding claim 15, Morita discloses that the piezoelectric speakers (18s) each have: a piezoelectric film (28); and an interposed layer (20, [0024]) disposed between the piezoelectric film (28) and the structure (10). Morita fails to show that the interposed layer is a porous body layer and/or a resin layer. However, Morita teaches a general material (20) for passively absorbing high frequency noise. Examiner takes Official Notice that a porous body for providing such function is notoriously well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita by utilizing well known high frequency absorbing material, such as porous kind, in order to passively reducing high frequency noise.
Regarding claim 16, Morita fails to show the claimed dimension. In view of the teaching of Morita, the intended application is for controlling external noise of aircraft and the dimension of each piezo speaker (18) is not being strictly limited. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Morita by trying various size of piezo speaker (18), in order to determine the most cost effective piezo speakers (18) to be mounted on the interior of aircraft for cancelling external noise with upper frequency limit entering the cabinet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/PING LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695