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
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 1-7, 9-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2010-0124468 – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Brandão (Asymptotic modeling of Helmholtz resonators including thermoviscous effects).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches a Helmholtz resonator (device of Figure 1), comprising: a body (defined by cavity forming part #4) enclosing a cavity (interior of body #4), wherein the cavity serves as acoustic compliance of the Helmholtz resonator; and an acoustic horn (3) extending from an opening (defined by opening in #2/4, accommodating horn #3) in the body (2/4) into the cavity, wherein the acoustic horn (3) serves as acoustic mass of the Helmholtz resonator (see translation, ¶ beginning at the bottom of page 7-top of page 9), the acoustic horn having a mouth (defined by upstream end of horn #3, including perimeter portions attached to #4) extending from the opening (defined by opening in #2/4, accommodating horn #3) in the body (2/4) and a throat (downstream/narrow end of horn #3) arranged in the cavity, wherein a vertical distance of the throat of the acoustic horn to a first wall (defined by rear wall opposite the throat of horn #3) of the body is of an obvious, but unspecified amount, the first wall (defined by rear wall opposite the throat of horn #3) being opposite to a second wall (wall defined by outer facing surface of spacer #2) of the body in which the opening is formed.
Park fails to teach wherein a vertical distance of the throat of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body is greater than two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator.
Brandão teaches that the acoustic behavior of a Helmholtz resonator neck depends on the relationship between the neck’s length (i.e. spacing from an opposing wall) and the thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer, identifying a distinct regime (h=Oδ/ε), where the neck length is on the order the thermoviscous boundary layer thickness (See Pages 14-15, Section 6.4; Figure 5). While Brandão does recognize the relationship between a neck length/spacing and a thermoviscous boundary layer thickness, Brandão does not explicitly teach a vertical distance of the throat of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body is greater than two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a vertical distance of the throat of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body is greater than two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator, 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, because Brandão teaches the general condition of the relationship between a vertical distance of the throat (equivalent to the neck) of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body and a thermoviscous boundary layer a thickness of at the first wall, discovering the specific distance range of two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the resonator.
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches wherein the acoustic horn (3) extends exclusively inside the cavity.
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches wherein a cross section of the acoustic horn (3) decreases with increasing distance from the opening (defined by opening in #2/4, accommodating horn #3) in the body (2/4).
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches wherein the acoustic horn (3) exhibits a conic shape.
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches wherein the acoustic horn (3) exhibits a hyperbolic shape.
With respect to claim 6, Park and Brandão teach the Helmholtz resonator of claim 1. Park further teaches the horn (3) having a shape in which the radius decreases mathematically exponentially (see translation, Page 8, Lines 2-4).
Park and Brandão fail to explicitly teach wherein the acoustic horn exhibits a parabolic shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the acoustic horn exhibits a parabolic shape, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Park as modified.
With respect to claim 7, Park teaches wherein the mouth (defined by upstream end of horn #3, including perimeter portions attached to #2/4) of the acoustic horn (3) extends from the opening in the body (2/4), and wherein the acoustic horn (3) is coupled to the body only by means of the mouth of the acoustic horn (3).
With respect to claim 9, Park teaches wherein a wall thickness of the acoustic horn (3) is smaller than a vertical distance from the opening (defined by opening in #2/4, accommodating horn #3) in the body (2/4) to the throat (downstream/narrow end of horn #3) of the acoustic horn (3).
With respect to claim 10, Park teaches wherein the Helmholtz resonator (device of Figure 1) comprises only passive acoustic elements.
With respect to claim 11, Park teaches wherein the body (2/4) is formed of rigid material.
With respect to claim 12, Park teaches wherein the body (2/4) exhibits a rectangular parallelepiped shape.
With respect to claim 14, Park teaches an acoustic metamaterial comprising one or more Helmholtz resonator (device of Figure 1) according to claim 1. The Examiner considers the device of Park to inherently be a “metamaterial” in the same way as Applicant’s.
With respect to claim 16, Park teaches an acoustic absorber (see Page 2, 1st ¶) comprising one or more Helmholtz resonator (device of Figure 1) according to claim 1.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchers (5,760,349) in view of Brandão (Asymptotic modeling of Helmholtz resonators including thermoviscous effects).
With respect to claim 1, Borchers teaches a Helmholtz resonator (device of Figures 1-7B), comprising: a body (1/4) enclosing a cavity (interior of pot #1), wherein the cavity serves as acoustic compliance of the Helmholtz resonator; and an acoustic horn (2) extending from an opening (defined by opening in #4, accommodating horn #2) in the body (1/4) into the cavity, wherein the acoustic horn (2) serves as acoustic mass of the Helmholtz resonator (as is well known and in the same way as Applicant’s device), the acoustic horn having a mouth (defined by upstream end of horn #2, Col. 3, Lines 9-14) extending from the opening (defined by opening in #4, accommodating horn #2) in the body (1/4) and a throat (downstream/narrow end of horn #2, referred to as the “neck” by Borchers – Col. 3, Lines 9-14) arranged in the cavity, wherein a vertical distance of the throat (downstream/narrow end of horn #2, referred to as the “neck” by Borchers – Col. 3, Lines 9-14) of the acoustic horn to a first wall (defined by rear wall #11) of the body is of an obvious, but unspecified amount (note this is a variable amount despite some examples being given), the first wall (11) being opposite to a second wall (4) of the body in which the opening (defined by opening in #4, accommodating horn #2) is formed.
Borchers fails to teach wherein a vertical distance of the throat of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body is greater than two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator.
Brandão teaches that the acoustic behavior of a Helmholtz resonator neck depends on the relationship between the neck’s length (i.e. spacing from an opposing wall) and the thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer, identifying a distinct regime (h=Oδ/ε), where the neck length is on the order the thermoviscous boundary layer thickness (See Pages 14-15, Section 6.4; Figure 5). While Brandão does recognize the relationship between a neck length/spacing and a thermoviscous boundary layer thickness, Brandão does not explicitly teach a vertical distance of the throat of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body is greater than two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a vertical distance of the throat of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body is greater than two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator, 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, because Brandão teaches the general condition of the relationship between a vertical distance of the throat (equivalent to the neck) of the acoustic horn to a first wall of the body and a thermoviscous boundary layer a thickness of at the first wall, discovering the specific distance range of two times a thickness of a thermoviscous boundary layer at the first wall at resonance of the Helmholtz resonator would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the resonator.
With respect to claim 2, Borchers teaches wherein the acoustic horn (2) extends exclusively inside the cavity.
With respect to claim 3, Borchers teaches wherein a cross section of the acoustic horn (2) decreases with increasing distance from the opening (defined by opening in #4, accommodating horn #2) in the body (1/4).
With respect to claim 4, Borchers teaches wherein the acoustic horn (2) exhibits a conic shape (Col. 3, Lines 28-31).
With respect to claim 5, Borchers teaches, wherein the acoustic horn (2) exhibits a hyperbolic shape (Col. 3, Lines 28-31).
With respect to claim 6, Borchers and Brandão teach the Helmholtz resonator of claim 1. Borchers further teaches the horn (2) having “a straight (corresponding to a cone), hyperbolic, or circular wall shape can be used in particular as horn shapes (Col. 3, Lines 28-30).
Borchers and Brandão fail to explicitly teach wherein the acoustic horn exhibits a parabolic shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the acoustic horn exhibits a parabolic shape, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Borchers as modified.
With respect to claim 7, Borchers teaches wherein the mouth (defined by upstream end of horn #2, Col. 3, Lines 9-14) of the acoustic horn (2) extends from the opening (defined by opening in #4, accommodating horn #2) in the body (1/4), and wherein the acoustic horn (2) is coupled to the body (1/4) only by means of the mouth of the acoustic horn (2).
With respect to claim 9, Borchers teaches wherein a wall thickness of the acoustic horn (2) is smaller than a vertical distance from the opening (defined by opening in #4, accommodating horn #2) in the body (1/4) to the throat (downstream/narrow end of horn #2, referred to as the “neck” by Borchers – Col. 3, Lines 9-14) of the acoustic horn (2).
With respect to claim 10, Borchers teaches wherein the Helmholtz resonator (device of Figures 1-7B) comprises only passive acoustic elements.
With respect to claim 11, Borchers teaches wherein the body (1/4) is formed of rigid material (Col. 3, Lines 46-60).
With respect to claim 12, Borchers teaches wherein the body (Figures 6A-C, #1/4) exhibits a rectangular parallelepiped shape (shape clearly seen in Figures 6A-C).
With respect to claim 13, Borchers teaches wherein the body (Figures 6A-C, #1/4) exhibits a cube shape (shape clearly seen in Figures 6A-C).
With respect to claim 14, Borchers teaches an acoustic metamaterial comprising one or more Helmholtz resonator (device of Figures 1-7B) resonator according to claim 1. The Examiner considers the device of Borchers to inherently be a “metamaterial” in the same way as Applicant’s.
With respect to claim 16, Borchers teaches an acoustic absorber (see abstract) comprising one or more Helmholtz resonator (device of Figures 1-7B) according to claim 1.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchers (5,760,349) in view of Brandão (Asymptotic modeling of Helmholtz resonators including thermoviscous effects), as applied to claims 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Guo (11,929,053).
With respect to claims 15 and 17, Borchers teaches the acoustic absorber of claim 14 and the acoustic metamaterial of claim 16. Borchers further teaches wherein the acoustic metamaterial of claim 14 comprises a plurality of Helmholtz resonators device of (Figures 6D) according to claim 1; and wherein the acoustic absorber comprises a plurality of Helmholtz resonators (Figures 6D) according to claim 1.
Borchers fails to teach wherein the plurality of Helmholtz resonators exhibit different resonance frequencies.
Guo teaches wherein in a similar array having a plurality Helmholtz resonator (Figure 1A), it is known to wherein the plurality of Helmholtz resonators exhibit different resonance frequencies so as to broaden the sound absorption bandwidth (Col. 6, Lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Borchers as modified, with the apparatus of Guo so as to broaden the sound absorption bandwidth of the plurality of Helmholtz resonators of Borchers, as modified.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchers (5,760,349) in view of Brandão (Asymptotic modeling of Helmholtz resonators including thermoviscous effects), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizukoshi ("Acoustic notch filtering earmuff utilizing Helmholtz resonator arrays” – cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 18, Borchers and Brandão teach the Helmholtz resonator of claim 1. Borchers further teaches one or more Helmholtz resonator (device of Figures 1-7B) according to claim 1 configured to control propagation of the sound.
Borchers and Brandão fail to teach a sound output device, comprising: one or more electroacoustic transducer configured to convert a respective electrical audio signal into sound; and one or more Helmholtz resonator according to claim 1 configured to control propagation of the sound.
Mizukoshi teaches wherein it is known to use similar Helmholtz resonators (Figures 1 and 5, #HR) with a sound output device (defined by earmuff device of Figures 1 and 5 with loudspeaker test system for headphone of Figure 6), the sound output device, comprising: one or more electroacoustic transducer configured to convert a respective electrical audio signal into sound (defined by speaker in Figure 6); and one or more Helmholtz resonator (#HR, when combined) according to claim 1 configured to control propagation of the sound (see Mizukoshi, Pages 2, 10-11).
Because Borchers as modified teaches a noise absorbing Helmholtz resonator design, and Mizukoshi teaches incorporating an array of similar Helmholtz resonators into a earmuff device for reducing noise and testing said earmuffs with the sound output device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Borchers as modified, with the apparatus of Mizukoshi so as to provide simple substitution of one known Helmholtz resonator design for another, to provide the predictable result of resonator design of Borchers as modified, being suitable for use and capable of reducing noise within the earmuff device of Mizukoshi during testing of the earmuff device (see Mizukoshi, Figure 6). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 19, Mizukoshi teaches wherein the sound output device is one of a loudspeaker (see loudspeaker test system for headphone of Figure 6) and a headphone.
With respect to claim 20, Borchers and Brandão teach the Helmholtz resonator of claim 1. Borchers further teaches one or more Helmholtz resonator (device of Figures 1-7B) according to claim 1 configured to control propagation of the sound.
Borchers and Brandão fail to teach microphone, comprising: one or more electroacoustic transducer configured to convert sound into a respective electrical audio signal; and one or more Helmholtz resonator according to claim 1 configured to control propagation of the sound within the microphone.
Mizukoshi teaches wherein it is known to use similar Helmholtz resonators (Figures 5-6, #HR) with a microphone device (see Figures 5 Figure 6), the microphone, comprising: one or more electroacoustic transducer (i.e. the microphone) configured to convert sound into a respective electrical audio signal (claimed function is inherent to microphones); and one or more Helmholtz resonator (#HR, when combined) according to claim 1 configured to control propagation of the sound (sound emitted from the loadspeaker of Figure 6) within the microphone (see Mizukoshi, Pages 2, 10-12).
Because Borchers as modified teaches a noise absorbing Helmholtz resonator design, and Mizukoshi teaches incorporating an array of similar Helmholtz resonators into a earmuff device for reducing noise and testing said earmuffs with a microphone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Borchers as modified, with the apparatus of Mizukoshi so as to provide simple substitution of one known Helmholtz resonator design for another, to provide the predictable result of resonator design of Borchers as modified, being suitable for use and capable of reducing noise within the earmuff device of Mizukoshi during testing of the earmuff device (see Mizukoshi, Figure 6). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers the prior art cited above to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claims 18-20, it is noted the grounds of rejection regarding the Mizukoshi reference are new, and the new grounds of rejection are considered to be fully responsive to all arguments raised by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights