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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite only “appropriate guidance of the 3D printing process” rather than an express recitation of the use of executing a computer controlled process including the moving of the print head in accordance with a code or other processes, or similar express teaching what manner of guidance is provided. The language as written is too broad to be considered distinctly claiming the method step or the product produced by the process.
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.
Claims 1-8,10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102019115374 (hereinafter Pack) in view of Hammetter (US11195504).
With respect to claim 1 Pack discloses a sound absorbing structure for a sound emission source which emits sounds having an energy spectrum (see figures 1-4 and abstract), wherein an irregular structure constructed from substructures is present (see figures 1-4), said structure having material regions which are formed by the material which at least partially enclose hollow regions (that is to say the valleys as shown) wherein by virtue of the hollow regions the substructures each have a characteristic length lying within a characteristic interval and each have a characteristic density (these parameters are inherently present s the material is presently) wherein the hollow regions are specifically formed by appropriate guidance in such a way that they dissipate sound in a desired suppression range (the spacing is such that it is controlled in the formation, the formation of a device which is controlled to be formed in a selected manner would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Pack does not expressly disclose the use of 3d printing and associated method steps of the 3d printing.
Hammeter discloses the use of 3d printing to form a structure of hollow for the reduction of sounds (see title, abstract figures and column 6).
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 Hammeter to use a 3d printing process to form a sound reduction member having cavities with the device o Pack, to provide control for the formation and to reduce wasted materials.
It would have been further obvious to utilize the sound elements of Pack as modified to form an enclosure for a sound source so as to prevent the sound from escaping in all directions rather than a single direction as provided by a single panel .
With respect to claim 2 Pack as modified further discloses wherein the structure is calculated by an algorithm (see again Hammetter column 6).
With respect to claims 3 and 4 Pack as modified (see Hammetter column 6) discloses the use of an algorithm to determine the optimal placement of the elements. It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the algorithm to select a random distribution so as to prevent the formation of standing wages within the structure due to periodicity. Such is known to be the case in acoustic panels which include the random distribution of mass particles within a matrix system, and would be obvious to apply to the placement of selectively formed elements as well.
With respect to claim 5 Pack as modified further discloses (Hammetter figure 5) in which hollows are designed to overlap and are therefore open to one another in such a way that they form a continuous channel through which a cooling liquid or gas can be guided.
With respect to claim 6 Pack as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the channel is formed with statically sufficient probability in a desired region in that the density of hollow regions whose dimensions are suitable for channel formation is above a percolation threshold. As the hollows are formed to provide a channel, the selection of the density of the hollows with respect to a statistically high enough probability would have been an obvious matter of tuning the structure. Providing elements so as to function optimally would have been understood by one in the art. 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 7 regarding the placement of the structures, the selection of the location based upon testing an optimization are such that one of ordinary skill would arrive at an optimal placement. 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 8 Pack as modified further discloses wherein at least some of the hollow regions are designed in a geometric shape whose orientation and characteristic lengths result in high sound dissipation according to the spatial distribution of the sound emitted by the sound emission source (see again Hammeter column 6 the formation is design to so attenuate).
With respect to claim 10 Pack as modified discloses a printed (Hammetter) sound absorbing enclosure (obvious use of the panel of Pack) for a sound emission source which emits sounds having an energy spectrum, which has an irregular structure constructed of substructures, wherein the substructures each have a characteristic length scale (see figure 5 Hammetter) and density and wherein the substructures are specifically formed by an appropriate guidance of the 3D printing process (Hammetter column 6) and thereby adapted to the frequency spectrum in such a way that they dissipate sound in a desired suppression range of the energy spectrum.
With respect to claim 11 as it regards the selection of an anisotropic emission of sound and the substructure changing along the extension of the enclosure, this would have been well understood by one of ordinary skill so as to prevent the formation of standing waves within the structure.
With respect to claim 12 Pack as modified further discloses (Hammetter figure 5) wherein at least some of the hollow regions are connected to one another in a channel-like manner so that a cooling medium can be guided through them.
With respect to claims 13 and 14 the formation of the enclosure by means of the 3d printing would have been an obvious smatter including the printing on a housing thereof the substructures. This would have been an obvious means of formation so as to allow the housing to properly enclosure the sound source with an appropriate fitment.
With respect to claim 15 with respect to the positive connection of the damping element in such a way that the structure borne sound is weakened in a predetermined frequency (see paragraphs spanning columns 2 an 3 of Hammetter).
With respect to claim 16 the enclosure being used with a roller bearing per se is an intended use of the enclosure of Pack as modified and as such obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further 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 F.2d 1647 (1987).
With respect to claim 17 as the raceway of a rolling body within the bearing system is a formed of enclosure of the rollers of the bearing it is considered that the use of the raceway outer ring is an intended use of the enclosure.
2 claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102019115374 (hereinafter Pack) in view of Hammetter (US11195504) as applied to claim 8 and in further view of AT503479A1 to Ickinger.
Pack as modified by Hammeter discloses the invention as claimed except for the geometric shape being a half-screw shape such that an opening of the half screw is oriented towards the sound emission source and the screw flight converges in the direction of sound propagation.
Ickinger discloses the use of many and various geometric shaped for cavity shape in a sound dampening. From this it would have been obvious to select any known geometric shape so as to form the cavity based upon routine testing. Conical cavities are known in the art as would be understood to meet a screw shape.
It would have been obvious to select any shape for the geometric shape which optimized the sound reduction through routine testing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN210686646u as cited by applicant discloses a roller bearing outer raceway including attenuation feature; Walsh (US11498282 and 11339845 disclose metasurface for sound reducing including computer control of the formation; Pack (US11120783) discloses a composite article of sound reduction; LaPlant (US20210138726) discloses a 3d printing of parts; Wu (US20200109300) discloses an elastomeric shape memory absorber; Stache (US10336433) discloses a fused method of acoustic septa formation; and Kang (US20150184374) discloses an interior sound absorber.
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