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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 11, 13, 18, and 20 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.
With regards to Claims 2, 11, and 18, the limitation “cross-sectional size of the impedance A x A” is indefinite because meaning of the feature “A x A” is unclear.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted this feature corresponding to a square cross-section (a four-sided shape with equal sides).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for measuring a normal incidence sound absorption coefficient of a non-standard sized sample, comprising the following steps: arranging, next to the non-standard sized sample, a parallel-arranged acoustic material (PAM) having a specific acoustic impedance and a same thickness to form a flat-surface inhomogeneous acoustic impedance sample (IAIS) having a same cross section as an impedance tube; obtaining a relational expression between a surface acoustic impedance of the IAIS and the non-standard sized sample and the PAM by using a parallel relationship between the non-standard sized samples and the PAM; measuring the surface acoustic impedance of the IAIS and a surface acoustic impedance of the PAM; and deriving a surface acoustic impedance of the non-standard sized sample according to the relational expression between the surface acoustic impedance of the IAIS and the non-standard sized sample and the PAM and by using the measured surface acoustic impedances of the IAIS and the PAM, and obtaining the normal incidence sound absorption coefficient of the non-standard sized sample by using real and imaginary parts of the surface acoustic impedance.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claim comprises the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method for measuring a normal incidence sound absorption coefficient of a non-standard sized sample, comprising the following steps: arranging, next to the non-standard sized sample, a parallel-arranged acoustic material (PAM) having a specific acoustic impedance and a same thickness to form a flat-surface inhomogeneous acoustic impedance sample (IAIS) having a same cross section as an impedance tube; measuring the surface acoustic impedance of the IAIS and a surface acoustic impedance of the PAM.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements that generically recite arranging, next to the non-standard sized sample, a parallel-arranged acoustic material (PAM) having a specific acoustic impedance and a same thickness to form a flat-surface inhomogeneous acoustic impedance sample (IAIS) having a same cross section as an impedance tube; measuring the surface acoustic impedance of the IAIS and a surface acoustic impedance of the PAM represent insignificant extra-solution activity of arranging samples to collect necessary data to execute the abstract idea and measuring the data, i.e. mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2, 3, 5-12, and 14-19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea/mathematical relationship steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Please note that the additional elements in Claims 4, 13, and 20 represent meaningful limitations that indicate a practical application.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
Chidhurappa Vamshi et al., “Research on the Effect of Imprecise Size Foam Samples on Acoustic Measurements in Impedance Tube”, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8, Issue-2S11, September 2019, pp. 3045-3049, discloses measuring surface acoustic impedance of a non-standard sized sample (effect of variation in the sample size on their acoustic measurements. Foam sample absorption coefficient and transmission loss for large and small samples with variations in sample dimensions are measured and compare with ideal dimension results. A detailed measured data and analysis are done to understand the effect of undersized and oversized foam samples on absorption coefficient and transmission loss results as a function of frequency. The results show that the variations in sample size has immense effect of measured results, Abstract).
Daniel L. Palumbo et al., “Improvements to the Two-Thickness Method for
Deriving Acoustic Properties of Materials”, NOISE-CON 2004, 2004 July 12 – 14, 9 pages, discloses formulas relating to characteristic of acoustic impedance of the two
samples.
Naoki Kino et al., “Investigation of sample size effects in impedance tube measurements”, Applied Acoustics 68 (2007), pp. 1485–1493, discloses measuring the normal acoustic impedance of a porous material that appropriate size of a sample (smaller than inner diameter of an impedance tube) that avoids effect of air leakage.
Daniel A. Russell, “Absorption Coefficients and Impedance”, Science and Mathematics Department, Kettering University, Flint, MI, 48504, 2013, 6 p.,
“https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/SWR/AbsorptionCoeff.pdf, discloses measuring the absorption coefficients and acoustic impedance of samples of acoustic absorbing materials using a standing wave tube. Another method is using a reverberation room preferrable for determination of absorbing properties that depend on the size of the material.
However, in regards to Claim 1, the claims differ from the closest prior art discussed above, because the art, either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious obtaining a relational expression between a surface acoustic impedance of the IAIS and the non-standard sized sample and the PAM by using a parallel relationship between the non-standard sized samples and the PAM and deriving a surface acoustic impedance of the non-standard sized sample according to the relational expression between the surface acoustic impedance of the IAIS and the non-standard sized sample and the PAM and by using the measured surface acoustic impedances of the IAIS and the PAM, and finally obtaining the normal incidence sound absorption coefficient of the non-standard sized sample by using real and imaginary parts of the surface acoustic impedance, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11, and 18 are allowable as dependent on Claim 1 (see above).
Claims 2, 11, and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863