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.Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106639632 (hereinafter Liu) in view of Melhart (US8091605).
With respect to claim 1 Liu discloses a sound barrier for reducing electric field distortion, comprising a wall unit (5) and a sound barrier unit (1, 2,3 and associated), wherein:
The sound barrier unit comprises a sound barrier plate and the sound barrier plate from top to bottom comprises an arc shaped part (1) and a vertical part (2) that are integrated, wherein a center of a circle of the arc shaped part points towards an interior of a power facility and a lower face of the vertical wall is arranged on a top of the wall unit (shown to be attached to the upper side thereof, but the attachment to the top surface would constitute only a rearranging of the parts as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill to have been an obvious matter);
An end that is of the arc shaped part and not connected to the vertical part has an arc shaped edge (see figures element 1);
A curvature radius of the arc shaped part is a multiple of the heigh of the wall unit and protrudes form the ground and a centering angle of the arc shaped part is in a range of curvature.
While not expressly disclosing the multiple of the height as being within the range of 0.084 H and 0.094 H or the range of the curvature as being from 100 to 140 degrees, it would have been an obvious matter to select such values as 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.
Liu does not disclose an inclined part, which is tilted away from the power facility from top to bottom and is tangent to the arch shaped part.
Melhart discloses a sound barrier including a vertical part (16) and an inclined part (14).
It would have been an obvious to combine the teachings of Melhart to provide sound deflection by means of the inclined part with the device of Liu including both the vertical and the curved portions to further enhance the sound reduction by providing a greater amount of surfaces for sound deflection back toward the sound source and thus away from the ambient environment.
While not expressly disclosing integrally formed, as the elements are combined or thus integrated they would have been obvious to integrally form so as to reduce installation steps.
With respect to claim 2 Liu as modified by Melhart further discloses wherein the sound barrier unit further comprises a sound absorption layer (Melhart column 2 discloses the panels including such materials as fiberglass which is known to act as a sound absorber. The use of a sound absorber to attenuate the higher frequency sounds would have been obvious to combine with the low frequency reflection and redirection as accomplished by the wall, the vertical, the inclined and the arc surfaces as taught) and a side face of the sound absorption layer is attached to an inner side of the vertical part and an inner side that is of the wall unit and close to the power facility.
With respect to claim 3 Liu as modified by Melhart further discloses wherein a lower end of the vertical part is provided with a slot for receiving components of the sound absorbing structure (see Liu figure 2) that is attached to the wall unit, and forms an integral structure with the sound barrier plate and the sound absorption layer is arranged in the sound absorption slot (the slot is taught to house components of the sound reding member it would have been obvious to apply this teaching to the fitting of the sound absorption layer per se);
The lower end face of the vertical part and the sound absorption layer slot are respectively connected to a top surface and an inner wall side of the wall unit by using a bolt (see bolt attachment in Liu, regarding the placement such a selection would be only rearrangement of the parts) and the sound absorption layer is tightly attaches to the inner side of the vertical part and the sound absorption layer slot (that is to say there is no teaching that the attachment must be loose as such one of ordinary skill would understand the attachment to be tight so as to positively retain the components and reduce movement ands thus reduce fatigue stresses).
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106639632 (hereinafter Liu) in view of Melhart (US8091605) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of CN113585939 (hereinafter Wang).
With respect to claim 4 Liu as modified by Melhart further discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the vertical part and the top of the wall unit are sealed with a sound insulation material and an anticorrosion layer is arranged between the vertical part and the top of the wall unit.
Wang discloses the use of rubber sound insulation structures which are used for both sound reduction and for sealing effects. AsS rubber is a material which is known to be use din such sealing structures as gaskets it is considered that the rubber will serve as a water blocking member and thus an anticorrosion layer in the sense as meant by the claimed structure of the instant invention.
It would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Wang to provide a material which both sealed against corrosion and further enhanced sound reduction with the device of Liu. The motivation for doing so would be to enhance both the sound reduction and the durability of the device.
3.Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106639632 (hereinafter Liu) in view of Melhart (US8091605) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of CN104805930 (hereinafter Miao).
With respect to claim 5 Liu as modified by Melhart discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the sound absorption layer is wrapped with a wire mesh and the metal wire mesh is connected to the sound barrier plate.
Miao discloses the use of a mesh (element 6) for the prevention of the escape of radiation. As described the mesh would be understood by one of ordinary skill to be formed of a metal material as such materials are known in the art to prevent the escape of radiation, particularly the escape of stray electrons.
It would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Miao to use the known structure of the mesh with the device of Liu to reduce the escape of stray electrons and thus improve the safety to passersby.
With respect to claim 6 While Liu as modified does not expressly disclose the inclusion of the metal downs lead, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need for such and thus understand the presence thereof. One would recognize that all such structures intended to gather stray electrons need to be grounded so as to provide the electrons with a path allowing for the completion of the circuit through a pathway other than a passerby. This grounding effect is implicit and well recognized. The connection to the ground of the power facility would have been understood as the logical electrical pathway and as the references all specify that tyer are in accordance with local codes and regulation this connection is implied.
With respect to claim 7 Liu as modified further discloses wherein a lower end of the wall has an inverted T structure (see base of Miao). While not expressly disclosing the T shape as being buried it is known in the art to place such wall base structures underground to enhance the stability thereof (such conventional structures are shown at least in Wang and other sources) .
Regarding the specific ratios of the respective element dimensions it would have been an obvious smatter of selecting values which provided the optimal stability.
With respect to claim claim8 and the inclusion of the reserved channel it is considered that the inclusion of such a channel would have been obvious given the conventional nature of the reserved channel. Such channels are know to provide a pathway for water away from the bottom of the wall so as to enhance the stability of the wall structure.
4.Claims 9-12 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106639632 (hereinafter Liu) in view of Melhart (US8091605) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Bindea (US20190123580).
With respect to claim 9 Liu as modified by Melhart discloses the invention of claim 1, further disclosing the sound barrier system further comprises a security device (barbed wire 4 is shown) arranged on a side o the wall unit away from the power facility.
Liu as modified does not disclose an online monitoring device.
Bindea discloses the use of discloses (para 58) the use of an online monitoring system (in re online see para 57 whereby the connection of the smart meter is such that SMS or emails are possible to provide information to the customer whose usage is being monitored).
It would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide online monitoring of the power generation system as such monitoring is known on the downstream portions of the grid. The monitoring of the upstream portion of the grid would allow for the power station to be quickly assessed to determine where problems were occurring (see also para 32 of Bindea).
With respect to claim 10 Liu as modified by Bindea further discloses wherein the monitoring includes the collection of data and the transmission of data which is monitored. The use of a display screen per se as a monitoring means for the administrator (see para 32) would have been an obvious matter. Regarding the measuring of the sound waves this would allow for the monitoring of the system for faults within transformers prior to the transformer completely failing, in a known manner. The use of a sound monitor to measure such faults would have been an obvious matter. The use of a foldable sound meter per se would have been only the selection of a specific type of monitoring equipment which is known to be use din the field and the be deployable simply with a reduced amount of space needed for such monitor.
With respect to claim 11 regarding the connection of the measuring means to an energy supply this is implicit in the teahcings of smart electronics (see par 57 of Bindea), regardgn the connection of the security means this would have been an obvious means of electrifying the wire to both provide deterrence to contacting the wire and to allow for the measuring of a loss of connection which would serve as an alert that the wire had been disconnected or severed. Such would have been an obvious s use of known technologies in the art of security.
With respect to claim 12 Liu further discloses wherein both the security device and the energy supply pipeline are arranged on top of the wall unit (see figure 1 of Liu the security device is so shown in the fork of the barbed wire, the barbed wire being energized the pipeline is necessarily also so placed.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chattell (US10424286) discloses an acoustic curtain; Kowalczyszyn (US9088107) discloses a housing for containing electronic components; Stark (US7574833) discloses an acoustic device; Suzuki (US6810991) discloses an enfolding sound barrier; Shima (US5739482) discloses a soundproof wall; Jenne (US5069011) discloses a portable acoustic structure; Lerner (US4750586) discloses a multi tubular acoustic baffle; Glaesener (US4358090) discloses a sound barrier.
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