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 § 102
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.
1.Claims 1-2,6, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Richardson (US5457291).
With respect to claim 1 Richardson discloses (see figures 4 and 5) a system comprising:
A unit cell of a metasurface configured for sound absorption within a narrowband frequency range, the unit cell having dimension s that are deep subwavelength values related to a wavelength of an incoming acoustic wave that is within the narrowband frequency range, the unit cell comprising:
An air cavity (see figure 5) within a solid supporting structure (42), the air cavity comprising a chamber (see R ) and a neck port (see P), wherein the chamber has a first volume with a first width dimension, wherein the neck port has a second volume with a second width dimension that is narrower than the first width dimension, wherein the neck port extends though the solid supporting structure and is coupled to the chamber to expose the incoming acoustic wave to air in the chamber and wherein the first volume and the second volume determine a resonant frequency of the unit cell to resonate the unit cell at the resonant frequency, to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave when exposed to the incoming acoustic wave.
With respect to claim 2 Richardson further discloses wherein the air cavity, the neck port and the solid supporting structure form a Helmholtz resonator (col 2 lines 25-35).
With respect to claim 6 Richardson (see figure 4) further discloses wherein the unit cell is incorporated into a metasurface comprising an array of unit cells.
With respect to claim 16 Richardson discloses a meta surface comprising:
A base structure and a group of respective unit cells (see figure 4) contained by the base structure,
Wherein the respective unit cells comprise respective Helmholtz resonators comprising respective air chambers coupled to respective neck ports that extend to a surface of the base structure to facilitate air flow to the respective air chambers (see figure 5, see chamber R and neck P),
Wherein the respective unit cells are configured with respective deep subwavelength dimensions relative to wavelengths of incoming acoustic waves having specific frequency value within a narrowband frequency range, and
Wherein the deep subwavelength dimensions are selected to resonate the respective unit cells at the specific frequency value to collectively phase cancel the incoming acoustic waves when exposed to the incoming acoustic waves (device is taught as Helmholtz resonator in column 2).
With respect to claim 17 Richardson further discloses (figure 4) wherein the respective unit cells are evenly distributed in an array pattern within the base structure.
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.
2.Claim(s) 3-5,7-10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US5457291).
With respect to claims 3 and 18 Richardson discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the resonator chamber is cylindrical. The use of a cylindrical resonator chamber would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing. The use of any shape of resonator chamber that is known in the art including cylindrical, hexacomb square or the taught spherical shape would have been an obvious matter as the chamber shapes are functional equivalents of one another. The volume of chamber being the factor to determine the frequency response the shape used would have been obvious to select.
With respect to claim 4 Richardson further discloses wherein the neck port is a circular cylinder dimension with the second width dimension and a second height dimension and wherein the second volume is based on the second height dimension and a second circular area corresponding to the second width dimension (shown as a cylinder as such these parameters will determine the volume).
With respect to claim 5 Richardson as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the first width dimension is on the order of less than one tenth of the wavelength of the incoming acoustic wave. The selection of such a value would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill based on the teachings of the resonator being a Helmotz resonator and the space available and frequency to be attenuated. Further it has been held that discovering an 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).
With respect to claims 7-10 and 19 Richardson discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the use of the device to silence noise proximate to a server or rack thereof. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
3. Claims 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US5457291) in view of Alter (US20240190102).
With respect to claim 11 Richardson discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the use of a three dimensional printer to form the device.
The use of additive manufacturing process such as 3d printing in the manufacture of acoustic attenuating components are known in the art from at least Alter paragraph 154.
The use of additive manufacturing such as 3d printing is known in the art to provide complex structures with little waste and to do so in a rapid fashion.
With respect to claim 12 Richardson as modified discloses a method comprising:
obtaining by a system comprising a processor (the language of the claim is broad enough to cover both the manual calculations by a human or that of an automated process using a computer per se. The use of such automation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as complex calculations are conventionally accomplished by computer) a frequency value representative of a frequency of an acoustic wave to cancel;
determining by the system, dimensions of a unit cell that resonates at the frequency value, wherein the dimensions of the unit cell comprise deep subwavelength values relative to a wavelength of the acoustic wave to cancel; and
controlling by a system a device to constructure the unit cell (a 3d printer as taught by Alter), the unit cell when constructed comprising a solid structure, an air chamber encased in the solid structure (see figure 4 of Richardson) and a hollow neck port (port P in figure 5 of Richardson) that extends through the solid structure and is coupled to the air chamber (R in figure 5) to expose the chamber to air.
It would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill to use a 3d printer and associated steps to from the device as claimed as 3d printers are known to form rapidly with little waste.
With respect to claim 13 Richardson as modified further discloses wherein the neck port is a right circular cylinder (see figure 5 of Richardson) and wherein determine the dimensions of the unit cell comprises determining a neck port height and radius (as would be the known parameters to determine the volume of the neck port to one of ordinary skill)>
With respect to claim 14 Richardson as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the chamber as being a right circular cylinder. The use of a cylindrical resonator chamber would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing. The use of any shape of resonator chamber that is known in the art including cylindrical, hexacomb square or the taught spherical shape would have been an obvious matter as the chamber shapes are functional equivalents of one another. The volume of chamber being the factor to determine the frequency response the shape used would have been obvious to select.
With respect to claim 15 Richardson as modified further discloses the controlling of the device to construct the unit cell comprises communicating by the system with a three dimensional printer (see again Alter).
With respect to claim 20 Richardson as modified further discloses the use of a high thermal conductivity material (see para 154 of Alter which teaches aluminum powder). The material will necessarily conduct heat from a source to am ambient environment including in the case of the intended use of a server.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang (US11862136) discloses an acoustic metamaterial unit; Su (US11555280) discloses a sound absorbing structure having a semi cylindrical cavity; Winkler (US20220366886) discloses an aircraft acoustic panel formed by additive manufacturing; Koga (US11168474) discloses a sound insulator with cylindrical body; Jara Rodelgo (US20190168445) discloses a 3d printed structure and process thereof; Ishida (US9767783) discloses a resonator of cylindrical body; and Wilson (US9343059) discloses a resonator structure having multiple shapes of resonant cavity.
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