DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a first waveform acquisition unit in claim 1;
a second waveform acquisition unit in claim 1;
a setting unit in claim 1;
a correction unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP 2018-5081 A) (along with translation provided in IDS dated January 18th, 2024) in view of Tobishima (JP 5-188978 A) (along with translation provided in IDS dated January 18th, 2024) and Swinbanks (US 4171465).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsubishi discloses a noise reduction device (generically 40 of figures 1 and 3) comprising:
a first waveform acquisition unit (41 of figures 1 and 3) configured to acquire, based on a reference signal that is obtained by detecting vibration at a first position of a wall surface (wall 12) of an exhaust duct of a gas turbine, a first waveform representing vibration of the exhaust duct (paragraph [0033], paragraph numbers are from translation);
an vibration unit (42 of figures 1 and 3) that is attached to a second position (see figure 1b), the vibration unit (42) configured to apply, at the second position of the exhaust duct, vibration at a target frequency to the second position of the exhaust duct (paragraph [0034]);
a second waveform acquisition unit (43 of figures 1 and 3) configured to acquire, based on a measurement signal obtained by measuring a rotation pulse (in and out of piezoelectric element) of the vibration unit (paragraph [0035]); and
a correction unit (44 of figures 1 and 3) configured to achieve a predetermined relationship (opposite phase) between first waveform and the second waveform (see at least paragraphs [0037] to [0038] and [0042]).
Mitsubishi does not disclose the unbalanced motor, wherein the detecting and vibration happen on the same wall surface, or the setting and correction units as claimed.
Tobishima discloses a noise reduction device (see at least figure 3) comprising:
a first waveform acquisition unit (6 of figure 3) configured to acquire, based on a reference signal that is obtained by detecting vibration (vibration of sieve machine 4) at a first position (position of machine 4), a first waveform representing vibration at the first position (output of 6 or A input to A/D converter 19, paragraphs [0012] and [0014]);
an unbalanced motor (motor 13, at least periodically unbalanced to create the known vibration, see at least the abstract) configured to apply, at a second position (position of machine 5), vibration at a target frequency designated for the system (paragraph [0014]);
a second waveform acquisition unit (7 of figure 3) configured to acquire, based on a measurement signal obtained by measuring a rotation pulse of the unbalanced motor, a second waveform representing rotation of the unbalanced motor (see abstract and paragraphs [0012] and [0014]);
a setting unit (part of unit 20 that determines delta f and delta P) configured to set the target frequency based on the first waveform (setting the target frequency for the second waveform, what to be same as first waveform, see paragraph [0018] and figure 5, also see paragraph [0016] and [0017]); and
a correction unit (part of unit that determines control amount delta C and delta D) configured to correct the target frequency, to achieve a predetermined phase difference (180 degrees see paragraph [0019]) between the first waveform and the second waveform (paragraphs [0018] and [0019] and figure 6, also see paragraphs [0016] and [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the unbalanced motors, setting unit and correction unit of Tobishima in the system of Mitsubishi for the benefit of providing a robust vibrating element which is able to vibrate large masses, and controlling the system to vibrate in such a manner as to have a resultant low total system vibration, thereby disturbing nearby population less. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tobishima with Mitsubishi, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Swinbanks discloses a noise reduction device (see at least figure 1) comprising detecting vibration (via 6) at a first position of a wall surface (inner wall of duct 3 at position of 6, see figure 1, column 2 lines 14-28) of an duct (3), and applying, at a second position of the wall surface of the duct (inner wall of duct 3 at position of 1, see figure 1, column 2 lines 14-28, column 1 lines 60-62, column, column 3 lines 18-21), vibration (via sound source 1, column 3 lines 18-32) to the second position of the wall surface of the duct (inner wall of duct 3 at position of 1, see figure 1, column 2 lines 14-28, column 1 lines 60-62, column, column 3 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the detection and vibration on the same surface of Swinbanks in the system of Mitsubishi and Tobishima for the benefit of minimizing variables and more directly applying the cancelling nosie, thereby requiring less calculations, as well as allowing for a more streamlined duct. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Swinbanks with Mitsubishi and Tobishima, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Tobishima discloses wherein when a phase difference between the first waveform and the second waveform is not the predetermined phase difference, the correction unit corrects the target frequency by adding a predetermined correction amount (adding phase in the amount delta P, paragraphs [0016] to [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Tobishima discloses wherein when the predetermined phase difference is achieved between the first waveform and the second waveform, the correction unit sets a correction amount for the target frequency to zero (control amounts delta C and delta D would be zero, paragraphs [0016] to [0019]).
Claim 4 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected in an analogous manner to claim 1 given that although Mitsubishi does not expressly disclose the use of a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a program, it was well known that general-purpose computers could be used to perform signal processing or circuit simulation. The benefit of using such would have been cheaper, faster implementation and reuse of resources. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the operations on a computer via a program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In general applicant argues that the amendments to the previous claims are not found in prior art.
Specifically applicant argues “Accordingly, Mitsubishi fails to disclose or teach a structure that can apply vibration directly to the wall surface of the exhaust duct, and as such, Mitsubishi necessarily fails to teach ‘an unbalanced motor that is attached to a second position of the wall surface of the exhaust duct, the unbalanced motor being configured to apply, at the second position of the wall surface of the exhaust duct, vibration at a target frequency to the second position of the wall surface of the exhaust duct,’ as required by the above-noted features of claim 1” (see applicant’s arguments dated September 12, 2025, page 5), and “Accordingly, Tobishima fails to teach that the motor 13 applies vibration directly to a vibration source, e.g., the vibration screen machine 4, and as such, Tobishima fails to teach ‘an unbalanced motor that is attached to a second position of the wall surface of the exhaust duct, the unbalanced motor being configured to apply, at the second position of the wall surface of the exhaust duct, vibration at a target frequency to the second position of the wall surface of the exhaust duct,’ as required by the above-noted features of claim 1” (see applicant’s arguments dated September 12, 2025, page 6).
The examiner agrees neither Mitsubishi, nor Tobishima, nor the combination teach such a limitation. A new ground of rejection has been established as 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 DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695