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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 5, 6, 8-13 and 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation of “the sound wave reception range in a depression angle direction with respect to a reference plane including the rotor blade is 50˚ or less.” It is unclear as to what is meant by this limitation and how it would be employed in the device since no “sound wave reception range has been previously disclosed or defined. Additionally, it seems as though that depression angle is 50 degrees or less and it is not clear as to how the reception range would only include the sounds within the angle claimed as all audible sound which arrives to the sensor would seemingly be picked up, not matter what angle it comes in from.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites similar limitations to that of claim 5 with regard to the sound wave reception range in “an elevation angle” which presents similar issues.
Regarding claim 8, on page 5, beginning on line 3, the limitation is written in a conditional form of when/then. It is unclear if these limitations are required by the claim since the maximum distance is not being positively recited and therefore the following width is not necessary to satisfy the claim.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claims each recite the limitation of “both ends” of the first shield, however no such ends have been defined and the shield could and likely would have more than two ends to which the term “both” could apply.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation of determining a direction in which the sound pressure “has become maximum.” It is not clear if this means the maximum value from all directions, or monitoring the directions individually and determining when an increasing pressure hits a maximum value. Additionally, it is not clear if the “maximum” value is a predetermined value, or if it is the largest value measured from all directions. Claims 14 and 16 comprise similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation of “wherein the array sensor is disposed outside an angle range of 50˚ or more and 90˚ or less below with respect to a reference plane.” It is not clear as to what is meant by this limitation and what is meant by the word “below” within it. The limitation of outside 50˚ or more would seemingly mean 0-40˚ and 90˚ or less would seemingly mean any angle below 90˚ which would include angles above 40˚. Additionally, if the reference plane is 0˚, then 90˚ would be perpendicular and any values of less than 90˚ would include all areas under the plane.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Faers WO 2020/193458.
Regarding claim 1, Faers teaches a sound wave receiving device (fig. 3) comprising: an aerial vehicle comprising a rotor blade 170, an array sensors mounted on the aerial vehicle and including a plurality of microphones (microphones 50 are arranged on the vehicle to constitute an array), a first shield (upper element 140) installed between the rotor blade 170 and the array sensor, the first shield being configured to suppress an influence of sound wave noise generated by the rotor blade on a sound wave generated by the array sensor (the shield is an acoustic damper - page 11, lines 26-27), and a second shield (either middle element 130 or lower element 140) provided along a peripheral portion of the array sensor (at the middle or lower microphones), the second shield being configured to suppress reception by the array sensor of external sound from an outside sound wave reception range set in advance for the sound wave (the sound collector 130 is provided for collecting of sound and would shield the sound on the exterior side from the array sensor which is set in advance during construction of the device).
Regarding claim 4, Faers teaches the first and second shield as integrally configured with each other as they are connected to one another within the aerial vehicle as seen in fig. 3.
Regarding claim 5, the sensor array of Faers is mounted below the rotor blade in a vertical direction of the aerial vehicle and is installed in the claimed angle arrangement since the microphones are pointed downward.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed towards a method of using the device of claim 1, which is essentially a product-by-process claim and as such, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself and is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Since Faers teaches all of the structural limitations including the processing means, it is deemed to read on the claim in its entirety.
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) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faers.
Regarding claim 7, Faers shows in fig. 3 the shields as having a length of at least 80% or more of a distance from the array sensor to a tip of the rotor blade but does not explicitly describe it as such. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used a shield that is larger than the claimed width in order to eliminate as much noise from the rotors as possible when sensing with the microphone array to ensure that the rotor noise is not picked up accidentally since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Faers teaches a sound wave receiving device (fig. 3) comprising: an aerial vehicle comprising a rotor blade 170, an array sensor mounted on the aerial vehicle and including a plurality of microphones (microphones 50 are arranged on the vehicle to constitute an array), a shield (lower element 140) provided along a peripheral portion of the array sensor, the shield being configured to suppress reception by the array sensor of external sound from an outside sound wave reception range set in advance for the sound wave (the sound collector 130 is provided for collecting of sound and would shield the sound on the exterior side from the array sensor which is set in advance during construction of the device. Faers does not explicitly teach the array sensor disposed outside an angle range of 50˚ or more and 90˚ or less below with respect to a reference plane including the rotor blade. As best interpreted by the specification, this value is an arbitrary value set to eliminate noise from the rotors and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have placed the array sensor at any location along the vehicle where it could suitably detect sound waves and for monitoring during use since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Addtionally, the sensors 50 of Faers would be below the rotor at an angle of less than 90 degrees when placed on the sides as seen in fig. 3.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faers and Konishi US 2019/0039725.
Regarding claim 2, the shield of Faers is a sound damper and therefore would have a first sound-absorbing material having a sound-absorbing property. Faers does not explicitly teach the arrangement such that the sound-absorbing material is disposed closer to the array sensor than the sound-insulating material.
Konishi teaches an unmanned air vehicle comprising structural components 121, 124 which may include a sound insulating (isolating) material and a sound absorbing material (paragraph 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Konishi with those of Faers in order to increase the sound reduction of the shields by providing both sound insulating and sound absorbing materials.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites similar limitations to that of claim 2 only with regard to the second shield and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faers and Yli-Alho US 2023/0175883.
Regarding claim 6, Faers teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the sound sensor as being mounted at a same height or above the rotor blade as claimed. Yli-Alho teaches a sound wave receiving device including an aerial vehicle as seen in fig. 7b in which a sound sensor 80 is located on a propeller guard 18g which is at at same height or above the rotor blade. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Yli-Alho to place the receiving device at any point on the aerial vehicle that would allow for accurate sound sensing, such as above the rotor when inspecting elements above the vehicle. In combination, the elevation angle would be 50˚ or less due to the location of the sensor.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faers and Konishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. US 2018/0105270.
Regarding claim 8, Faers and Konishi teach the claimed device but doesn’t explicitly disclose the plurality of rotor blades or the specific arrangement of sensor as claimed Xu teaches an aerial vehicle comprising multiple rotor blades 340 with a sound sensor 350 arranged therebetween (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Xu with those of Faers and Konishi to use multiple blades on the aerial vehicle to better stabilize and control the vehicle during operation. With regard to the arrangement of the sensor at the claimed location and distance, in combination it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed the array sensor in any location directed at the sound source to be detected such as that claimed since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, both ends of the shield of Faers are positioned below the sensors 50 in the upper portion of the vehicle, however the lower sensors in the array are still positioned below the shields. Whittaker teaches an aerial vehicle with a noise reduction system and a sound sensor 502 which is surrounded by a sound isolating shield 510 as seen in fig. 5, which has both ends that extend below the sensor in a width direction of the aerial vehicle as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Whittaker with those of Faers in order to provide sound isolation for a wider range of noise including above and to the sides of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 16-19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach the claimed limitations of claims 11 and 16 which each comprise the limitation of a processor configured to calculate a sound pressure in each of [the] directions of arrival of the sound wave based on the sound wave detected by the array sensor and determine, among the directions, a direction in which the sound pressure has become maximum as a direction of arrival of the sound wave. In each claim, the phrase “sound pressure has become maximum” is interpreted as the sound pressures are calculated for each direction and the highest pressure is chosen as the direction of the source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights