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 § 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.
1.Claim(s) 1,5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (US20120266745).
With respect to claim 1 Warren discloses a manufacturing method of a noise reduction module, the noise reduction module is provided to attenuate low-frequency noise, the manufacturing method comprises:
Substrate preparation (implicit as the substrate is present it must necessarily be prepared and provided): substrate preparation of functional layers comprising a sound absorbing layer (see para 79 panel is capable of sound absorption) and an encapsulation layer of rubber or polyurethane (see layers 186 and 196, para 175);
Functional layer fabrication: mixing sound-absorbing materials in a substrate material to constitute the sound-absorbing layer and constituting the encapsulation layer by the substrate material, the sound absorbing material is selected from at least one of mica powder, alumina, zinc oxide, and barium sulfate (see para 175 see also description of bonding material 16 as described in paragraph 49);
Encapsulation: externally encapsulating the sound absorbing layer by the encapsulation layer (seer order of layers as shown in figure 26), in order to make the noise reduction module absorb incoming sound wave energy by the sound absorbing layer.
While not expressly disclosing the use of the device underwater, as the device is sealed by the encapsulation layer this use would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. The device would still function as intended and as such the use in such a manner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As it regards the use of the materials specifically described with the embodiment of figure 1 in the use of bonding material 16 mixed with the sound absorbing granular material this would have been obvious to use in the embodiment of figure 26 so as to make the installation of the sound absorbing material consistent and easily controlled.
With respect to claim 5 regarding the selection of the rubber material as such rubber materials are known in the art and would serve in the sound absorber as a functional equivalent to the polyurethane layer taught by Warren it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to select any type of rubber based upon any desired parameter such as cost, weight, durability etc. This would be within the skill of one in the art. Further it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 6 Warren discloses a noise reduction module (see figure 26) used to attenuate underwater low frequency noise (as is an obvious intended use of the panel which is taught to absorb sound in para 79) comprising a plurality of function layers, each functional layer constituted by rubber or polyurethane as a substrate material, comprising:
A sound absorbing layer constituted by mixing sound absorbing materials in the substrate material (the bonding media 16 as described in embodiment of figure 1 binds the ceramic filler and thus serves as the substrate loaded with the sound absorbing materials see paragraph 49.) the sound absorbing material is selected from at least one of mica powder, alumina, zinc oxide, and barium sulfate (paragraph 79 discloses sound absorption, paragraph 175 discloses material selection), the sound absorbing layer is used to absorb incoming sound wave energy; and
An encapsulation layer (see layers 186 and 196 in figure 26 see also order of layers in figure 26), the encapsulation layer is for externally encapsulating the sound absorbing layer.
As it regards the use of the materials specifically described with the embodiment of figure 1 in the use of bonding material 16 mixed with the sound absorbing granular material this would have been obvious to use in the embodiment of figure 26 so as to make the installation of the sound absorbing material consistent and easily controlled.
While not expressly disclosing the use of the device underwater, as the device is sealed by the encapsulation layer this use would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. The device would still function as intended and as such the use in such a manner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claims 2-4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (US20120266745) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Spero (US7205043) and Hosoi (US20180124501).
With respect to claims 2 and 7 Warren as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the step of functional layer fabrication further comprises configuring a foaming structure in the substrate material to constitute a reflective layer, and in the step of encapsulation the reflective layer is superimposed between the encapsulation layer and the sound-absorbing layer, and the reflective layer reflects incoming sound wave energy.
Spero discloses the use of a sound reduction element of foam material loaded with mass particles to absorb sound in an underwater environment (see abstract and column 1).
Spero does not expressly disclose a foamed structure for reflecting sounds per se. It is known from at least the teachings of Hosoi (para 18) that foam density has a direct impact on sound reflections. The selection of the foam properties to increase or recue sound reflection would have been understood from this teaching.
As it is known in the art to control the foam properties to control sound reflections it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Hosoi and Spero with the device of Warren to enhance the sound reduction properties.
With respect to claims 3 and 8 Warren as modified discloses wherein the step of functional layer fabrication comprises configuring the substrate material as a hollow structure or filling with a counterweight material with a specific gravity higher than that of the ambient environment (implicitly seawater in the case of Spero, see high density granular elements of Spero) as it regards the arrangement of the layers, there are numerous layers taught by Warren (embodiment of 26) their arrangement would have been obvious based upon routine testing so as to determine the optimal arrangement. Further 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 Warren as modified further discloses (see para 57-60) the use of a multitude of different sizes, shapes and materials for the granular sound absorption materials. Regarding the specific selection of the claimed ranges for the percentages by weight of the respective materials, such would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill. The use of the materials s disclosed, the use of multiple materials is disclosed, one of ordinary skill would from there be able to determine the best mix of materials based upon routine testing. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 9 Warren as modified discloses the invention as claimed except the specifically claimed thickness and specific gravities as claimed. The selection of such values would have been obvious given that it is known in the art that such parameters would have a direct impact on the acoustic properties of the device. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
3.Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (US20120266745 in view of Spero (US7205043) and Hosoi (US20180124501) as applied to claim 7 and in further view of Elmer (WO2009121336).
With respect to claim 10 Warren as modified discloses the noise reduction module of claim 7 but does not disclose the noise reduction screen for low frequency noise of pile-driving of offshore wind turbines during underwater construction, comprising:
A suspended system, disposed around the pile driving template according to the shape and size of the pile, the plurality of noise reduction modules are arranged geometrically in the suspended system and disposed around the pile driving template.
Elmer discloses the use of an acoustic screening mechanism around a pile to attenuate the sound thereof (abstract and figures). The use of the acoustic screening mechanism during the construction of the acoustic turbine pile driving process would be only an intended use of a screening of an acoustic sound source in an underwater environment that is known to have a noise component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Elmer to use a sound screening device around the pile of an underwater structure with the panels of Warren as modified so as to provide sound reduction around the pile of an underwater structure. It would have further have been obvious to use such a noise reduction structure during the construction thereof as construction is known to be a process of high noise.
With respect to claim 11 as it regards the specific arrangement of the sound panels such that they alternate between walls of lateral and longitudinal arrangements and having a space therebetween this would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alternating arrangement of surfaces, such is known in the art of placement of sound reduction panels so as to prevent sound waves from forming standing waves.
With respect to claim 12 as it regards the suspended system having multiple sets of suspension section along a perimeter of two bases above and below the pile driving template, each set of suspension sections is in a group of two on the two bases and is positioned opposite to each other up and down, multiple suspension components surround the two bases and are connected between each set of suspension sections, each noise reduction module has a plurality of suspension apertures and can be reassembled between any two adjacent suspension components (see Elmer figure 1 for suspension and placement, see paragraph 83 of Warren for apertures for attaching panels to suspension means).
With respect to claim 13 Warren as modified further discloses a noise reduction screen for attenuating low frequency noise of a pile driving of offshore wind turbines during underwater construction (an obvious use of the sound reduction members as taught by Warren as modified) comprising:
A plurality of noise reduction modules according to claim 8 and
A suspended system (see Elmer figure 1) disposed around the pile driving template according to the shape and size of the pile, the plurality of noise reduction modules are geometrically arranged in the suspended system and disposed around the pile driving template.
With respect to claim 14 Warren as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of noise reduction modules are alternately arranged in lateral or longitudinal direction and there is an empty space between two adjacent noise reduction panels (such an arrangement of panels is known in the art to prevent the formation of standing waves).
With respect to claim 15 Warren as modified further discloses wherein the suspended system is provided with multiple sets of suspension sections along a perimeter of two bases above and below the pile driving template (see Elmer figure 1 for above and below see also figures 2-6 for surrounding a pile) each set of suspension sections is in a group of two on the bases and is positioned opposite to each other up and down, multiple suspension components surround the two bases and are connected between each set of suspension section, each noise reduction module has a plurality of suspension apertures (see Warren para 83) and can be reassembled between any two adjacent suspension components.
With respect to claim 16 Warren as modified further discloses a plurality of nosie reduction modules according to claim 9 and A suspended system (see Elmer figure 1) disposed around the pile driving template according to the shape and size of the pile, the plurality of noise reduction modules are geometrically arranged in the suspended system and disposed around the pile driving template.
With respect to claim 17 Warren as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of noise reduction modules are alternately arranged in lateral or longitudinal direction and there is an empty space between two adjacent noise reduction panels (such an arrangement of panels is known in the art to prevent the formation of standing waves).
With respect to claim 8 Warren as modified further discloses wherein the suspended system is provided with multiple sets of suspension sections along a perimeter of two bases above and below the pile driving template (see Elmer figure 1 for above and below see also figures 2-6 for surrounding a pile) each set of suspension sections is in a group of two on the bases and is positioned opposite to each other up and down, multiple suspension components surround the two bases and are connected between each set of suspension section, each noise reduction module has a plurality of suspension apertures (see Warren para 83) and can be reassembled between any two adjacent suspension components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith (US10900222) discloses a special lightweight assembly of acoustic panels whereby adjacent panels alternate between lateral and longitudinal arrangement; Sand (US20240151031) discloses an insulating and construction element; Schneider (US11891832) discloses a system of arrangement of horizontal and vertical acoustic fill panels; Waxin (US20180354429) discloses a method for producing an acoustic panel; Mori (US20110067949) discloses a soundproof cover; Sevik (US5444668) discloses an acoustic element for underwater; Dougherty (US4027486) discloses an adjustable breakwater; and Parks (US3022632) discloses a breakwater of different values and parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 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) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837