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
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 requires “wherein the two or more resonant channels are identical,” which is indefinite. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and claim 6 ultimately depends from claim 1. Claim 1 establishes that “a plurality of distinct resonant channels having a different resonant frequency,” and claim 6 then requires “wherein each of the plurality of repeating cells has two or more resonant channels.” Claim 7 then sets up a scenario where the repeating cells include two or more resonant channels, where the resonant channels are required to be both “distinct resonant channels having a different resonant frequency” as in claim 1, and also “wherein the two or more resonant channels are identical, as required by claim 7.” The device cannot have two resonant channels that are both identical and have different resonant frequencies, as two identical resonant channels will have the same resonant frequency. Because claim 7 conflicts with the claims from which it depends, the Examiner will consider any prior art that reads on claim 6 to also read on claim 7 in the same way as Applicant’s device.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao (CN 114562751 B – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Long (CN 110895923 B).
With respect to claim 1, Qiao teaches an acoustic structure (Figures 1-4, #1) comprising: a broadband acoustic scatterer comprising a plurality of repeating cells (each “repeating cell” comprising a pair of adjacent different sized channels #12, as clearly seen in Figure 2) each comprising a plurality of distinct resonant channels (defined by each of larger and smaller channels #12 within each repeating cell) having a different resonant frequency (inherent to different size channels #12 within each repeating cell) such that the broadband acoustic scatterer is an angle independent acoustic absorber (via cylindrical shape and repeating cell configuration in the same way as Applicant’s).
Qiao fails to teach and foam extending along an outer surface of the broadband acoustic scatterer.
Long teaches a similar broadband acoustic scatterer (Figures 1-4) comprising a plurality of similar cells (1/2) with a corresponding plurality of distinct resonant channels (1/2) and foam (4) extending along an outer surface of the broadband acoustic scatterer, such that the inclusion of the foam material provides broadband absorption, as opposed to the narrow band absorption of the singe or two frequency a scatterer lacking foam (see Long translation, page 1, Background and Summary sections).
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 Qiao, with the apparatus of Long to as to provide broadband absorption of the scatterer device by inclusion of an outer foam layer.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Qiao and Long teaches wherein the plurality of resonant channels (Qiao, #12, when combined with Long, #1/2) each comprise an open end (Qiao, #2, when combined with Long, see unlabeled opening, denoted by width #W) and a terminal end (note Long teaches a terminal end on inner side of resonators, as an alternative to Qiao, when combined), and the foam (Long, #4) comprises a single piece of foam located at the open ends of the plurality of resonant channels (Long, #1/2, when combined with Qiao, #12’).
Qiao and Long fail to explicitly teach wherein the foam comprises discrete pieces of foam located at the open ends of the plurality of resonant channels.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the foam comprises discrete pieces of foam located at the open ends of the plurality of resonant channels., since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In this case, forming the foam layer of a plurality of discrete pieces as opposed to a single piece would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Qiao and Long teach wherein the obviously discrete pieces of foam (Long, #4, see obviousness of discrete pieces of foam detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above) are positioned within the open ends of the plurality of resonant channels (Long, #1/2, when combined with Qiao, #12). The Examiner considers the arrangement of Long to show this limitation. Further, regarding the specific location of the foam with respect to the open ends (within vs. directly covering), it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 4, Long teaches wherein the foam (4) extends continuously along the outer surface of the broadband acoustic scatterer (Qiao, #1when combined).
With respect to claim 5, Long teaches wherein the foam (4) is a sleeve of foam positioned on the outer surface of the broadband acoustic scatterer (Qiao, #1when combined).
With respect to claim 6, Qiao teaches wherein each of the plurality of repeating cells (each “repeating cell” comprising a pair of adjacent different sized channels #12, as clearly seen in Figure 2) has two or more resonant channels (12).
With respect to claim 7, Qiao teaches wherein it is obvious that the two or more resonant channels (12) are identical resonant channels in the same way as Appellant’s, and as discussed in the 112b rejection of claim 7 above.
With respect to claim 8, Qiao teaches wherein the two or more resonant channels (defined by pair of adjacent different size channels #12) are distinct resonant channels.
With respect to claim 9, Qiao teaches wherein the plurality of repeating cells (each “repeating cell” comprising a pair of adjacent different sized channels #12, as clearly seen in Figure 2) are triangular prism shaped and positioned about a central axis of the broadband acoustic scatterer (1), and the broadband acoustic (1) scatterer is cylindrical shaped.
With respect to claim 10, Qiao teaches further comprising a cover plate (defined by one of #2004) attached to an end of the broadband acoustic scatterer (1).
With respect to claim 11, Qiao teaches further comprising another cover plate (defined by other of #2004) attached to another end of the broadband acoustic scatterer (1).
With respect to claim 12, Qiao teaches further comprising a first cover plate (defined by one of #2004) attached to a first end of the broadband acoustic scatterer (1) and a second cover plate (defined by other of #2004) attached a second opposing end of the broadband acoustic scatterer.
With respect to claim 13, Qiao and Long teach the acoustic structure of claim 1. Qiao further teaches wherein the number of channels is variable and by changing the number of channels (among other changeable values/characteristics) “the structure of the noise reduction element can be adjusted to perform noise reduction processing on sound waves of different frequencies (see translation, [n0044]-[n0046]).
Qiao and Long fail to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of repeating cells is four repeating cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of repeating cells is four repeating cells, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, Qiao recognizes the number of channels as being a results effective variable, so as to desirably “to perform noise reduction processing on sound waves of different frequencies.” Therefore, increasing the number of channels per repeating cell from two to four would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the device.
Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 14, Qiao teaches wherein the plurality of repeating cells (each “repeating cell” comprising pair of adjacent different sized channels #12, as clearly seen in Figure 2) are identical repeating cells.
15. (Original) The acoustic structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of repeating cells comprises a first set of repeating cells and a second set of repeating cells that are not identical to the first set of repeating cells.
With respect to claim 15, Qiao and Long teach the acoustic structure of claim 1. Qiao further teaches wherein the plurality of repeating cells (each “repeating cell” comprising a pair of adjacent different sized channels #12, as clearly seen in Figure 2) comprises a first set of repeating cells (defined by one set of a larger and smaller one of channels #12) and a second set of repeating cells (defined by one set of a larger and smaller one of channels #12), and further wherein the dimensions of the channel and components within the channels are variable and by changing channel cross-sectional area and/or number of baffles #11 and folds of the channel, “the structure of the noise reduction element can be adjusted to perform noise reduction processing on sound waves of different frequencies (see translation, [n0044]-[n0046]).
Qiao and Long fail to explicitly teach a second set of repeating cells that are not identical to the first set of repeating cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the second set of repeating cells that are not identical (i.e. are different in some way) to the first set of repeating cells, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, Qiao recognizes the dimensions of the channel and components within the channels as being variable and by changing channel cross-sectional area and/or number of baffles #11 and folds of the channel as being a results effective variable, so as to desirably “to perform noise reduction processing on sound waves of different frequencies.” Therefore, forming the second set of repeating cells such that they are not identical to the first set of repeating cells would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the device.
With respect to claim 16, Qiao teaches an acoustic structure (Figures 1-4, #1) comprising: a plurality of broadband acoustic scatterers (note structure #100 in Figures 3-4 includes three of the broadband accouter scatterer devices #1) each comprising a plurality of repeating cells (each “ repeating cell” comprising a pair of adjacent different sized channels #12, as clearly seen in Figure 2), and each of the plurality of repeating cells comprising a plurality of distinct resonant channels (defined by each of larger and smaller channels #12 within each repeating cell) having a different resonant frequency (inherent to different size channels #12 within each repeating cell) such that the plurality of broadband acoustic scatterers are angle independent acoustic scatterers (via cylindrical shape and repeating cell configuration in the same way as Applicant’s).
Qiao fails to teach and foam extending along an outer surface of at least one of the plurality of broadband acoustic scatterers.
Long teaches a similar broadband acoustic scatterer (Figures 1-4) comprising a plurality of similar cells (1/2) with a corresponding plurality of distinct resonant channels (1/2) and foam (4) extending along an outer surface of the acoustic scatterer, such that the inclusion of the foam material provides broadband absorption, as opposed to the narrow band absorption of the singe or two frequency a scatterer lacking foam (see Long translation, page 1, Background and Summary sections).
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 Qiao, with the apparatus of Long to as to provide broadband absorption of the scatterer device by inclusion of an outer foam layer.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Qiao and Long teach wherein the plurality of distinct resonant channels (Qiao, #12, when combined with Long, #1/2) each comprise an open end (Qiao, #2, when combined with Long, see unlabeled opening, denoted by width #W) and a terminal end (note Long teaches a terminal end on inner side of resonators, as an alternative to Qiao, when combined), and the foam (Long, #4) is a single piece of foam located at the open ends of the plurality of distinct resonant channels (Long, #1/2, when combined with Qiao, #12) of the broadband plurality of acoustic scatterers (Qiao, #1/100).
Qiao and Long fail to explicitly teach wherein the foam comprises discrete pieces of foam located at the open ends of the plurality of resonant channels.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the foam comprises discrete pieces of foam located at the open ends of the plurality of resonant channels., since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In this case, forming the foam layer of a plurality of discrete pieces as opposed to a single piece would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 18, Long teaches wherein the foam (4) extends continuously along the outer surface of the acoustic scatterer at least one of the plurality of broadband acoustic scatterers (Qiao, #1/100, when combined).
With respect to claim 19, Qiao teaches an acoustic structure (Figures 1-4, #1) comprising: a cylindrical shaped broadband acoustic scatterer for frequencies within an unspecified, but obvious variable range (see translation, [n0044]-[n0046]), the cylindrical shaped broadband acoustic scatterer comprising a plurality of repeating cells (each “ repeating cell” comprising a pair of adjacent different sized channels #12, as clearly seen in Figure 2) each comprising a plurality of distinct resonant channels (defined by each of larger and smaller channels #12 within each repeating cell) having a different resonant frequency (inherent to different size channels #12 within each repeating cell) such that the cylindrical shaped broadband acoustic scatterer is an angle independent acoustic absorber (via cylindrical shape and repeating cell configuration in the same way as Applicant’s); and two cover plates (each of #2004) attached to opposing ends of the cylindrical shaped broadband acoustic scatterer (1)
Qiao fails to teach wherein broadband acoustic scatterer is for frequencies between 750 Hz and 950 Hz, and foam extending along an outer surface of the broadband acoustic scatterer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein broadband acoustic scatterer is for frequencies between 750 Hz and 950 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Qiao teaches wherein the resonant channels are variable and can be tuned to desired frequencies by adjusting various characteristics of the device (see translation, [n0044]-[n0046]), and tuning to a particular frequency range, include 750Hz to 950 Hz would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attenuate sounds within the desired frequency range.
Long teaches a similar broadband acoustic scatterer (Figures 1-4) comprising a plurality of similar cells (1/2) with a corresponding plurality of distinct resonant channels (1/2) and foam (4) extending along an outer surface of the broadband acoustic scatterer, such that the inclusion of the foam material provides broadband absorption, as opposed to the narrow band absorption of the singe or two frequency a scatterer lacking foam (see Long translation, page 1, Background and Summary sections).
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 Qiao, with the apparatus of Long to as to provide broadband absorption of the scatterer device by inclusion of an outer foam layer.
With respect to claim 20, Long teaches wherein the foam (4) extending along the outer surface of the cylindrical shaped broadband acoustic scatterer (scatterer of Figure 2, when combined with Qiao, #1) is selected from the group consisting of discrete pieces of foam extending across open ends of the plurality of distinct resonant channels and a sleeve of foam (4) extending continuously along the outer surface of the cylindrical shaped acoustic scatterer (clearly seen in Figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. The Examiner considers the obvious combination of Qiao and Long to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant, as detailed above.
Conclusion
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 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