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.
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 10-15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein a total thickness of the multiwall sheet measured in the positive y-axis direction is 5 to 150 millimeters”, and the claim also recites “for example, 10 to 100 millimeters or 10 to 60 millimeters.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion (110) of the acoustic resonator (100) measured in the positive y-axis direction to the total thickness of the multiwall sheet measured in the positive y-axis direction is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1”, and the claim also recites “for example, 0.5:1 to 0.6:1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “wherein a thickness of the first portion (110) of the acoustic resonator (100) measured in the positive x-axis direction is range 0.1 to 10 millimeters”, and the claim also recites “0.1 to 5 millimeters, 0.15 to 3 millimeters, or 0.2 to 2 millimeters” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “wherein a ratio of a length of the third portion (130) of the acoustic resonator (100) measured in the positive y-axis direction to a length of the first portion (110) of the acoustic resonator (100) measured in the positive y-axis direction is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1”, and the claim also recites "for example, 0.5:1 to 0.6:1" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “wherein a thickness of the ribs measured in the positive x-axis direction is 0.1 to 10 millimeters”, and the claim also recites “for example, 0.1 to 5 millimeters, 0.15 to 3 millimeters, or 0.2 to 2 millimeters” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “wherein a ratio of (a length of the second portion (120) of the acoustic resonator (100) measured in the x-axis direction) to (the widthcavity plus the thicknesses of the first rib (6) and the second rib (8)) is 0.1:1 to 0.99:”, and the claim also recites “for example, 0.2:1 to 0.3:1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernard (3,952,831).
With respect to claim 1, Bernard teaches a multiwall sheet (See annotated view of Figure 28 provided below, #100), comprising: walls (1/2) extending along a z-axis and extending along an x-axis, wherein the x-axis is orthogonal to the z-axis, wherein the walls comprise plastic (Col. 5, Lines 36-39, note polymerization, inherently teaching that the walls comprise plastic), and wherein the walls comprise an upper wall (2), and a lower wall (1), wherein the lower wall (1) is spaced apart from the upper wall (2) along a y-axis, and wherein the y-axis is orthogonal to the z-axis and the x-axis; ribs (10/11) extending along the z-axis and extending along the y-axis between the upper wall (2) and the lower wall (1), wherein the ribs comprise plastic (Col. 5, Lines 36-39), and wherein the ribs comprise a first rib (10), and a second rib (11), wherein the second rib (11) is spaced apart from the first rib (10) along the x-axis, and wherein the upper wall (2), the lower wall (1), the first rib (10), and the second rib (11) define a cavity (12) having a width xcavity and a height ycavity; and an acoustic resonator (505b-d) in the cavity, wherein the acoustic resonator (505b-d) extends along the z-axis, comprises plastic (Col. 5, Lines 36-39), and comprises a first portion (505b) extending in a andnegative y-axis direction from the upper wall (2) into the cavity (12),a second portion (505c) extending in a positive x-axis direction from the first portion (505b), and a third portion (505d) extending in a positive y-axis direction from the second portion (505c).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Bernard teaches wherein the first portion (505b) extends from the upper wall (2) forming an angle α; wherein the angle α is 80 to 110˚; the second portion (505c) extends from an end of the first portion (505b) that is distal to the upper wall (2); and wherein the second portion (505c) extends from the first portion (505b) forming an angle θ; wherein the angle θ is 80 to 110˚ and the third portion (505d) extends from at an end of the second portion (505c) that is distal to the first portion (505b); and wherein the third portion (505d) extends from the second portion (505c) forming an angle β; wherein the angle β is 80 to 110˚
With respect to claim 3, Bernard teaches further comprising a second acoustic resonator (500a) in the cavity (12), wherein the second acoustic resonator (505a) comprises plastic (Col. 5, Lines 36-39).
With respect to claim 9, Bernard teaches wherein an end of the third portion (505d) that is distal to the second portion (505c) of the acoustic resonator (505b-c) comprises an end of the acoustic resonator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard (3,952,831).
With respect to claims 10-15, Bernard teaches the multiwall sheet of claim 1.
Bernard further fails to explicitly teach the individual component dimensions, such that a total thickness of the multiwall sheet measured in the positive y-axis direction is 5 to 150 millimeters, for example, 10 to 100 millimeters or 10 to 60 millimeters; wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive y-axis direction to the total thickness of the multiwall sheet measured in the positive y-axis direction is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1, for example, 0.5:1 to 0.6:1; wherein a thickness of the first portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive x-axis direction is range 0.1 to 10 millimeters, for example, 0.1 to 5 millimeters, 0.15 to 3 millimeters, or 0.2 to 2 millimeters; wherein a ratio of a length of the third portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive y-axis direction to a length of the first portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive y-axis direction is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1, for example, 0.5:1 to 0.6:1; wherein a thickness of the ribs measured in the positive x-axis direction is 0.1 to 10 millimeters, for example, 0.1 to 5 millimeters, 0.15 to 3 millimeters, or 0.2 to 2 millimeters; or wherein a ratio of (a length of the second portion (120) of the acoustic resonator measured in the x-axis direction) to (the width xcavity plus the thicknesses of the first rib and the second rib is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1, for example, 0.2:1 to 0.3:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the individual component dimensions are such that a total thickness of the multiwall sheet measured in the positive y-axis direction is 5 to 150 millimeters, for example, 10 to 100 millimeters or 10 to 60 millimeters; wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive y-axis direction to the total thickness of the multiwall sheet measured in the positive y-axis direction is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1, for example, 0.5:1 to 0.6:1; wherein a thickness of the first portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive x-axis direction is range 0.1 to 10 millimeters, for example, 0.1 to 5 millimeters, 0.15 to 3 millimeters, or 0.2 to 2 millimeters; wherein a ratio of a length of the third portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive y-axis direction to a length of the first portion of the acoustic resonator measured in the positive y-axis direction is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1, for example, 0.5:1 to 0.6:1; wherein a thickness of the ribs measured in the positive x-axis direction is 0.1 to 10 millimeters, for example, 0.1 to 5 millimeters, 0.15 to 3 millimeters, or 0.2 to 2 millimeters; or wherein a ratio of (a length of the second portion (120) of the acoustic resonator measured in the x-axis direction) to (the width xcavity plus the thicknesses of the first rib and the second rib is 0.1:1 to 0.99:1, for example, 0.2:1 to 0.3:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, the individual components have obvious, but unspecified dimensions including length, width and thickness, and selecting dimensions such that they satisfy the claimed ranges would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837