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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20220051650) in view of Yang (CN114925594).
With respect to claim 1 Lee discloses (figures 1a and b) a vibration and noise absorber comprising:
A thin wall structure with arbitrary boundary condition ( see figures 1a and b such a thin wall structure is shown); and
At least one meta element (28) attached to an edge of the thin wall structure, the at least one meta element comprising a shape that is a function of an objective function that minimizes a reflection coefficient of flexural waves in the audible frequency range propagating toward and impinging the at least one meta element (any shape would so be formed, any shape will be formed as a function of the function, Lee does not expressly disclose the optimization, but the function would still be applied to the shape in any case).
Lee does not expressly disclose the concept of topology optimization in an acoustic damping system.
Yang discloses a maximizing of a sound and noise reduction by a means which includes the optimization of topology of the structure (see Description).
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Yang to include topology optimization in the considerations for the overall optimization of the structure of Lee so as to maximize the sound damping by taking into account additional parameters.
With respect to claims 2 and 3 Lee as modified discloses the placement of the meta elements such that each is small in comparison to the overall area, while not expressly disclosing less than 95% or less than 90% respectively such a choice would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill as a matter of tuning and optimizing the structure, 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 4 Lee as modified discloses the use of the noise absorber to absorb the waves, while not expressly disclosing the absorption coefficient of 99.9% or higher, this would have been obvious within the optimization. The desired outcome of optimization being to approximate 100% the process of optimization would ultimately arrive at the desired range of 99.9% in the manner claimed. Ut 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 claim 5 Lee as modified further discloses wherein the thin wall structure is a beam (figure 1b).
With respect to claim 6 Lee as modified further discloses wherein the thin wall structure is a 2d panel (see figure 1a).
With respect to claim 8 Lee as modified discloses the placement of the meta elements such that each is small in comparison to the overall area, while not expressly disclosing less than 95% or less than 90% respectively such a choice would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill as a matter of tuning and optimizing the structure, 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 claims 9 and 10 Lee as modified further discloses wherein the meta barrier has an average absorption coefficient, while not disclosing more than 99% and 99.5 % per se it would have been an obvious smatter of tuning of the system to arrive at such a result. 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 11 Lee as modified further discloses a vibration and noise absorber comprising:
A thin wall structure with at least one edge with an arbitrary boundary condition (see figures 1a and b) and
A meta barrier comprising a plurality of meta elements (see figure 1a) attached to the at lest one edge, the meta barrier comprising a topology optimized shape ( see teachings of Yang) that is a function of an objective function that minimizes a reflection coefficient of flexural waves in the audible frequency range propagating towards and impinging the meta barrier.
With respect to claims 12 and 13 Lee as modified discloses the placement of the meta elements such that each is small in comparison to the overall area, while not expressly disclosing less than 95% or less than 90% respectively such a choice would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill as a matter of tuning and optimizing the structure, 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 14 Lee as modified discloses the use of the noise absorber to absorb the waves, while not expressly disclosing the absorption coefficient of 99% or higher, this would have been obvious within the optimization. The desired outcome of optimization being to approximate 100% the process of optimization would ultimately arrive at the desired range of 99% in the manner claimed. 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 claim 15 Lee as modified further discloses wherein the thin wall structure is a 2d panel (see figure 1a).
With respect to claim 16 Lee as modified further discloses wherein the meta barrier is a plurality of spaced apart meta-elements attached to the at least one edge of the 2d panel (see again figure 1a).
With respect to claim 17 Lee as modified discloses the use of the noise absorber to absorb the waves, while not expressly disclosing the absorption coefficient of 99.5% or higher, this would have been obvious within the optimization. The desired outcome of optimization being to approximate 100% the process of optimization would ultimately arrive at the desired range of 99.9% in the manner claimed. Ut 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 claim 18 Lee as modified discloses the vibration and noise absorbing including the thin wall 2d panel (figure 1a) comprising a topology optimized shape (see teachings of Yang), while not expressly disclosing the absorption coefficient of 99.5% or higher, this would have been obvious within the optimization. The desired outcome of optimization being to approximate 100% the process of optimization would ultimately arrive at the desired range of 99.9% in the manner claimed. Ut 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 19 and 20 Lee as modified discloses the placement of the meta elements such that each is small in comparison to the overall area, while not expressly disclosing less than 95% or less than 90% respectively such a choice would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill as a matter of tuning and optimizing the structure, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US20240372530) discloses systems and method for absorbing waves; Lee (US20230349151) discloses a sound absorber; and Boyce (US10808794) discloses a topological damping material.
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