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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 3 and 7-8 cancelled. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama (US 9,694,626 B2) in view of Park (KR 102273933 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamiyama (US 9,694,626 B2) discloses an acoustic structure (Fig. 10A) comprising:
at least one coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprising (Col. 5, Lines 10-35; Col. 13; See resonators 10a-b; Fig. 10A):
an inner wall with a first end and a second end oppositely disposed from the second end (Inner wall W with first end A and second end B in Examiner Annotated Kamiyama Fig. 10A);
a first oblong shaped Helmholtz resonator comprising (Rectangle shaped 10a);
a first inner volume on one side of and partially defined by the inner wall (First inner volume SC1);
a first side wall spaced apart from and extending generally parallel to the inner wall (First side wall C parallel to inner wall W),
a first neck wall extending perpendicular from the second end of the inner wall (First neck wall D perpendicular from second end B of inner wall W), and
a first neck opening, proximal the second end and distal the first end of the inner wall, between the first neck wall and the first side wall, between the first neck wall and the first side wall (First neck opening 18a, proximal second end B and distal first end A of inner wall W, between first neck wall D and first side wall C ); and
a second oblong shaped Helmholtz resonator comprising a second inner volume on another side of and partially defined by the inner wall, a second side wall, a second neck wall, and a second neck opening, such that the at least one coupled pair of Helmholtz resonators has two-fold rotational symmetry about a length direction of the inner wall (See same features A-E in resonator 10b. 10a and 10b symmetric about X-direction of inner wall W of Fig. 10a).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Kamiyama Fig. 10A
Kamiyama fails to explicitly disclose the first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator as rectangular and the second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator as rectangular. However, Park (KR 102273933 B1) teaches the first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator as rectangular and the second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator as rectangular (Examiner Annotated Park Fig. 5: Coupled chamber 121 left and right of inner wall A with width 110mm and thickness 120mm; Para. 0051). Park and Kamiyama are in similar fields comprising resonators. Modifying Kamiyama with teachings of Park would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Kamiyama as modified by Park.
PNG
media_image2.png
859
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Park Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 2, Kamiyama as modified by Park discloses the acoustic structure according to claim 1, wherein the first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator comprises a first flange, proximal to the second end of the inner wall and extending from the first side wall and between the first neck opening and the first neck wall, and the second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator comprises a second flange neck proximal to the first end of the inner wall and extending from the second side wall and between the second neck opening and the second neck wall (In Examiner Annotated Kamiyama Fig. 10A: First flange E proximal to second end B of inner wall W extending from first side wall C and between first neck opening 18a and first neck wall D. See same features A-E in resonator 10b).
Kamiyama as modified by Park fail to explicitly disclose the first flange extending from the first side wall towards the inner wall, and the second flange extending from the second side wall towards the inner wall (Flange of E extends away instead of towards inner wall W). However, Park further teaches first flange extending from the first side wall towards the inner wall, and a second flange extending from the second side wall towards the inner wall (Examiner Annotated Park Fig. 5: Flange 110a extends towards inner wall A; Para. 0050-0051). Modifying Kamiyama as modified by Park with additional teachings of Park would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first flange extending from the first side wall towards the inner wall, and the second flange extending from the second side wall towards the inner wall for the purpose of minimizing the acoustic structure’s size.
Regarding Claim 4, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 1, wherein the first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator and the second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator each have a width dimension that is greater than a thickness dimension (Examiner Annotated Park Fig. 5: Coupled chamber 121 left and right of inner wall A with width 110mm and thickness 120mm; Para. 0051).
Claim 5, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 1, wherein:
the first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator comprises a first end wall extending from and in direct contact with the first end of the inner wall and the first side wall spaced apart from the inner wall (In Examiner Annotated Kamiyama Fig. 10A: Resonator 10a with first end wall F extending from first end A of inner wall W and spaced from inner wall W); and
the second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonator comprises a second end wall extending from and in direct contact with the second end of the inner wall and the second side wall spaced apart from the inner wall (See same features A-E in resonator 10b).
Regarding Claim 6, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Claim 6 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 1, wherein the at least one coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprises a plurality of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators spaced apart from (See four pairs of 10 in Fig. 12A, with each 10 as coupled pair 10a-b). Kamiyama as modified by Park fail to explicitly disclose a plurality of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators spaced apart from and aligned parallel with each other. However, Park further teaches wherein the at least one coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprises a plurality of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators spaced apart from and aligned parallel with each other (In Park Fig. 10: Six pairs of 100 spaced apart and parallel within a single row. Park: Column 160 with coupled pairs of resonators 100 parallel/vertically spaced apart by layers 162a-d in Fig. 9; Para. 0070-0071,0083). Modifying Kamiyama as modified by Park with additional teachings of Park would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the at least one coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprises a plurality of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators spaced apart from and aligned parallel with each other for the purpose of forming a soundproof wall (Park: Para. 0083).
Regarding Claim 10, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators define a column of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (In Examiner Annotated Kamiyama Fig. 10A: Resonators 10a stacked on top of 10b being a column with two rows).
Regarding Claim 11, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 10, wherein the column of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators is a plurality of two-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (See four pairs of 10 in Fig. 12A, with each 10 as coupled pair 10a-b).
Regarding Claim 15, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, with Kamiyama additionally disclosing at least one column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (In Examiner Annotated Kamiyama Fig. 10A: Resonators 10a stacked on top of 10b being a column with two rows), each of the coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (rejected similarly as claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 4. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 11. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 18, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 15. Kamiyama as modified by Park fail to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprises (See four pairs of 10 in Fig. 12A, with each 10 as coupled pair 10a-b) a column of three-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators. However, Park further teaches the at least one column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprises a column of three-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (Park: Column 160 with three coupled pair of resonators 100 vertically spaced apart by layers 162a-d in Fig. 9; Para. 0070-0071,0083). Modifying Kamiyama as modified by Park with additional teachings of Park would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the at least one column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprises a column of three-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators for the purpose of forming a soundproof wall (Park: Para. 0083).
Regarding Claim 19, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, with Kamiyama additionally disclosing a column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (In Examiner Annotated Kamiyama Fig. 10A: Resonators 10a stacked on top of 10b being a column with two rows). Except, Kamiyama fails to explicitly disclose as a plurality, the following in bold: a column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprising:
a plurality of spaced apart inner walls;
a plurality of first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonators having a plurality of respective first inner volumes on one side of and partially defined by a respective inner wall; and
a plurality of second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonators having a plurality of respective second inner volumes on another side of and partially defined by the respective inner wall.
However, Park (KR 102273933 B1) teaches: a column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (Park: Column 160 with coupled pair of resonators 100 vertically spaced apart by layers 162a-d in Fig. 9; Para. 0070-0071,0083) comprising: a plurality of spaced apart inner walls; a plurality of first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonators having a plurality of respective first inner volumes on one side of and partially defined by a respective inner wall; and a plurality of second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonators having a plurality of respective second inner volumes on another side of and partially defined by the respective inner wall (In Examiner Annotated Park Fig. 5: Inner wall A, first resonator left of A, second resonator right of A; Para. 0051. Each inner wall A vertically spaced apart by 162a-d).
Kamiyama and Park are in similar fields comprising resonators. Modifying Kamiyama with teachings of Park would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a column of spaced apart coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators comprising: a plurality of spaced apart inner walls; a plurality of first oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonators having a plurality of respective first inner volumes on one side of and partially defined by a respective inner wall; and a plurality of second oblong rectangular shaped Helmholtz resonators having a plurality of respective second inner volumes on another side of and partially defined by the respective inner wall for the purpose of forming a soundproof wall (Park: Para. 0083).
Regarding Claim 20, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 4. Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama (US 9,694,626 B2) in view of Park (KR 102273933 B1) and Ikeda et al. (JP-2012062701-A).
Regarding Claim 12, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 11. Kamiyama as modified by Park fails to explicitly disclose wherein individual two-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (See four pairs of 10 in Fig. 12A, with each 10 as coupled pair 10a-b) are directly attached to each other. However, Ikeda et al. (JP 2012-062701 A) teaches wherein individual two-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators are directly attached to each other (Ikeda: Coupled pair 30D and 30H directly attached to 30C and 30G in Fig. 19; Para. 0085). Ikeda et al., Park, and Kamiyama are in similar fields comprising resonators. Modifying Kamiyama as modified by Park with teachings of Ikeda et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein individual two-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators are directly attached to each other for the purpose of conserving space.
Regarding Claim 13, Kamiyama as modified by Park disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 10. Kamiyama as modified by Park fails to explicitly disclose wherein the column of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (See four pairs of 10 in Fig. 12A, with each 10 as coupled pair 10a-b) is a plurality of three-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators. However, Ikeda et al. (JP 2012-062701 A) teaches wherein the column of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators is a plurality of three-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators (Ikeda: Coupled pair 30D and 30H; 30C and 30G; and 30B and 30F in Fig. 19; Para. 0085). Ikeda et al., Park, and Kamiyama are in similar fields comprising resonators. Modifying Kamiyama as modified by Park with teachings of Ikeda et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the column of coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators is a plurality of three-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators for the purpose of expanding the desired frequency range (Ikeda: Para. 0085).
Regarding Claim 14, Kamiyama as modified by Park and Ikeda et al. disclose the acoustic structure according to claim 13, wherein individual three-pack coupled pair of oblong Helmholtz resonators are directly attached to each other (Ikeda: See Coupled pair 30D and 30H; 30C and 30G; and 30B and 30F in Fig. 19; Para. 0085).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR-102052618-B1 and CN-112750417-A teach coupled pair Helmholtz resonators.
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 JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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, 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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights