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 8, 17 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a third container wherein the third container is positioned in between the first container or the second container” is unclear. It is not clear how the third container can be between a singular container as the claim requires it to be between the first container “or” second container. The claim would provide clarity if the recitation required the third container to be between the first container and second container.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the dampeners" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that “the dampeners” is referring to the “particles for particle impact damping” as recited in claim 1. However, “the dampeners” could also be interpreted as other structure of the damping device recited in claim 1. Claim 1 appears to show support for “the damping particles” and not “the dampeners”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein the second volume is not substantially the same as the first volume” is not clear. It is not clear what is encompassed by “not substantially the same”. It is not clear how “the same” and “substantially the same” are distinguished. How close to the same does the volume have to be to be considered the same, substantially the same, or not substantially the same? Does the requirement of being not substantially the same include the size of the containers, the shape of the containers, the volume of the containers, or all of the above?
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 1-2, 5-12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated Barefoot (US-20170323627).
Regarding claim 1, Barefoot discloses a particle damping assembly (501, at least fig 10), the assembly comprising: a housing (502); a plurality of containers (at least 1005, 1006, 1007) positioned within the housing (fig 10), the plurality of containers configured to hold a plurality of particles ([0032], at least unsintered powder in internal cavities 1005, 1006 and 1007) for particle impact damping of vibrations ([0006], line 4 and [0034] incorporated vibration damping); and one or more sizes of particles (at least one, unsintered powder), each size of particle (12) held within the plurality of containers (11, figs 1-8).
Regarding claim 2, Barefoot discloses wherein the plurality of containers (1005, 1006, 1007) comprises a first container (fig 10, 1005), and a second container (fig 10, 1006) wherein the first container is stacked on top of the second container (fig 10).
Regarding claim 5, Barefoot discloses a third container (1007), wherein the third container is positioned in adjacent the first container (1005) and the second container (1006).
Regarding claim 6, Barefoot discloses wherein the plurality of containers comprises a first container and a second container (1005 and 1006 or 1007) wherein the first container and the second container are positioned side-by-side each other (fig 10).
Regarding claim 7, Barefoot discloses a third container (1007 or 1006) wherein the third container is positioned adjacent either the first container or the second container (fig 10).
Regarding claim 8, Barefoot discloses a third container (1007 or 1006) wherein the third container is positioned in between the first container or the second container (fig 10, wherein at least a portion of 1006 or 1007 is between 1005 and the other of 1006/1007).
Regarding claim 9, Barefoot discloses an insert (fig 10, at least 1004 or 503) positioned between a first container (1005, 1006, or 1007) and a second container (the other of either 1007, 1006, or 1005) of the plurality of containers (fig 10).
Regarding claim 10, Barefoot discloses an insert (fig 10, at least 503) positioned between a surface of a housing of a component of a sound system (fig 11, at least speaker housing 1101) and at least one of the plurality of containers (figs 10 and 11, 1005, 1006, and/or 1007).
Regarding claim 11, Barefoot discloses wherein at least one of the containers of the plurality of containers is formed from aluminum, stainless steel, or plastic ([0002] and [0031]), at least plastic, metal, ceramic, glass, or any other material that can be sintered).
Regarding claim 12, Barefoot discloses wherein the particles are formed from at least one of steel, iron, tungsten, glass, and ceramic ([0002] and [0006], at least plastic, metal, ceramic, glass, plastic foam, sand, lead shot, fiberglass, water, or any other material that can be sintered).
Regarding claim 16, Barefoot discloses wherein the housing comprises a machined metal housing (at least [0002] and [0007-0008] at least machined by the SLS method) or a stainless-steel main housing.
Regarding claim 18, Barefoot discloses an assembly for dampening vibration in a sound system (figs 10-11).
Regarding claim 19, Barefoot discloses wherein a first container (1005, 1006, or 1007) of the plurality of containers defines a first volume (fig 10, cavity) and a second container (another of 1005, 1006, or 1007) of the plurality of containers defines a second volume (fig 10 cavity), wherein the second volume is not substantially the same as the first volume (fig s wherein at least 1005, 1006, or 1007 do not have the same shapes or volumes).
Regarding claim 20, Barefoot discloses wherein the housing (502) defines a first surface (fig 10), wherein the first surface is provided with a sealing portion (fig 10 and at least [0034] wherein the fabrication method provides the damping material to be sealed inside and therefore a sealing portion of 502).
Claims 1-9, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated Brown (US-2417347).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a particle damping assembly (at least figs 1-8), the assembly comprising: a housing (10 and/or 22); a plurality of containers (11) positioned within the housing (figs 1-8), the plurality of containers configured to hold a plurality of particles (12) for particle impact damping of vibrations (col. 1, lines 22-35, particle vibration damping); and one or more sizes of particles (col. 3, lines 48-72, at least metallic shot, granulated metal and fine powder), each size of particle (12) held within the plurality of containers (11, figs 1-8).
Regarding claim 2, Brown discloses wherein the plurality of containers (11, at least fig 2) comprises a first container (fig 2, at least one of the radially inner most pie shaped sections 11, enclosed by 17 and 18), and a second container (fig 2, at least one of the pie shaped sections 11 radially outside of the inner most layer) wherein the first container is stacked on top of the second container (at least radially stacked on top of each other). Since no frame of reference has been established, the claim does not necessarily require wherein top and bottom are in reference to a vertical axis of an annular element. It has been interpreted that the compartments 11, enclosed by 17 and 18, are radially stacked on top of each other in a radial or concentric direction.
Regarding claim 3, Brown discloses wherein wherein the plurality of containers comprises a third container (fig 2, the third concentric layer which is at least one of the pie shaped sections 11 radially outside of the inner most layer, and the adjacent second layer) wherein the second container is stacked on top of the third container (at least radially stacked on top of each other). Since no frame of reference has been established, the claim does not necessarily require wherein top and bottom are in reference to a vertical axis of an annular element. It has been interpreted that the compartments 11, enclosed by 17 and 18, are radially stacked on top of each other in a radial or concentric direction.
Regarding claim 4, Brown discloses wherein the plurality of containers comprises a fourth container (fig 2, the fourth outermost concentric layer which is at least one of the pie shaped sections 11 radially outside of the inner most layer, and the adjacent second layer, and the third concentric layer) wherein the third container is stacked on top of the fourth container (at least radially stacked on top of each other). Since no frame of reference has been established, the claim does not necessarily require wherein top and bottom are in reference to a vertical axis of an annular element. It has been interpreted that the compartments 11, enclosed by 17 and 18, are radially stacked on top of each other in a radial or concentric direction.
Regarding claim 5, Brown discloses a third container (fig 2, 11), wherein the third container is positioned in adjacent the first container and the second container (fig 2, at least one of the compartments 11 in an adjacent pie section (the pie section referred to in claim 2) separated by 18).
Regarding claims 6-8, figure 2 of Brown has been interpreted wherein damper (10) is sectioned off in to eight pie shaped (18) sections, each having four concentric layers (17) of compartments (11) containing damping particles (12).
Regarding claim 6, Brown discloses wherein the plurality of containers comprises a first container and a second container (at least fig 2 at least two of the pie shaped (18) sections 11 arranged in 4 concentric layers (17)) wherein the first container and the second container are positioned side-by-side each other (fig 2 at least wherein compartments 11 are adjacently arranged in a pie shaped sections 18).
Regarding claim 7, Brown discloses a third container wherein the third container is positioned adjacent either the first container or the second container (at least fig 2 wherein at least two of the pie shaped (18) sections are arranged in 4 concentric layers (17) and a third of the eight of pie shaped sections is at least a third container 11).
Regarding claim 8, Brown discloses a third container wherein the third container is positioned in between the first container or the second container (at least fig 2 wherein at least two of the pie shaped (18) sections arranged not adjacent each other have been interpreted as the first and second containers and the third container is positioned in between and adjacent the first and second pie shaped sections (18)).
Regarding claim 9, Brown discloses an insert (at least one of dividers 17 or 18) positioned between a first container (11) and a second container (11) of the plurality of containers (fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, Brown discloses wherein the particles are formed from at least one of steel, iron, tungsten, glass, and ceramic (col. 5, lines 19-21, at least iron, steel or nickel).
Regarding claim 13, Brown discloses wherein the particles have a size in a range of about 0.0001 millimeters to about 4.0 millimeters (at least col. 3, lines 60-71. Given the broad range of sizes it has been interpreted that metallic shot is generally 0.1 mm to 2.5mm and 200 mesh powder is about 0.074mm)
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses wherein the particles comprise multi-frequency impact dampening particles (at least col. 3, lines 58-62, at least a broad range of frequencies).
Regarding claim 15, Brown discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of containers comprises a ring-shaped container (at least figs 2 and 4 at least the concentric layers 17, and fig 6 at least a spiral ring shape) containing the particle impact dampeners (12).
Regarding claim 17, Brown discloses wherein the dampeners comprise a particle size ranging from about 0.0001 millimeters to about 4.0 millimeters (at least col. 3, lines 60-71. Given the broad range of sizes it has been interpreted that metallic shot is generally 0.1 mm to 2.5mm and 200 mesh powder is about 0.074mm).
Regarding claim 19, Brown discloses wherein a first container (11) of the plurality of containers defines a first volume (at least figs 2 and 4) and a second container (11) of the plurality of containers defines a second volume, wherein the second volume is not substantially the same as the first volume (fig 2 and 4 at least wherein the second container is in a different concentric layer and is therefore a different size).
Regarding claim 20, Brown discloses wherein the housing (10 or 22) defines a first surface (15 or 14), wherein the first surface is provided with a sealing portion (col. 3, line 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, 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, 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.
/JAMES K HSIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 3616