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 § 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 1-7, 9, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 200436715 Y1 – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches a noise barrier (Figures 2a-4), comprising: a front wall (defined by all of left hand/front facing surfaces in Figure 2a, including front face of wall #210, coupling portion #240 and #220) which defines a first exterior surface of the noise barrier, the first exterior surface being configured to face a noise source area (note arrows defining wind pressure direction, said wind pressure including traffic noise), a rear wall (defined by all of right hand/rear facing surfaces in Figure 2a, including rear face of wall #210, coupling portion #240 and #230) which defines a second exterior surface of the noise barrier, the second exterior surface being configured to face away from the noise source area, two opposite and spaced apart side walls which extend from the front wall to the rear wall (defined by side walls of #210, similar to side walls of #130 in Figure 1a), [[- ]]a compartment enclosed by at least the front wall, the rear wall and the two side walls (compartment inherent to walls #130/210, regardless of whether the compartment is hollow or partially/completely filled with sound absorbing material, as is known in the art), and a channel (260) located spaced apart from the enclosed compartment, wherein the channel (260) has an inlet for enabling a part of an approaching sound wave to enter and propagate through the channel (clearly denote in Figures 2a-4 by arrows indicating airflow), and an outlet through which said part of the sound wave is enabled to leave the channel so as to interfere with the original part of the sound wave that propagates above the noise barrier (clearly denote in Figures 2a-4 by arrows indicating airflow, see translation, 1st ¶, Page 2), wherein the inlet is located in the front wall and faces the noise source area (clearly denote in Figures 2a-4 by arrows indicating airflow), and wherein the outlet is located at a vertically higher level than the inlet and rearward of the front wall (clearly denote in Figures 2a-4 by arrows indicating airflow).
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches wherein the channel (260) is located vertically above the compartment.
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches wherein the channel (260) is separated from said compartment by a dividing wall (defined by middle portion of coupling portion #240, including portion sitting on top of wall #210 and portion defined the bottom of channel #260) extending from the front wall to the rear wall, wherein the dividing wall defines an upper end of the compartment.
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches wherein the dividing wall (defined by middle portion of coupling portion #240, including portion sitting on top of wall #210 and portion defined the bottom of channel #260) defines a lower end of the channel (260).
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches wherein the channel (260) is partly defined by the rear wall (defined by all of right hand/rear facing surfaces in Figure 2a, including rear face of wall #210, coupling portion #240 and #230).
With respect to claim 6, Park teaches wherein the channel (260) is partly defined by the front wall (defined by all of left hand/front facing surfaces in Figure 2a, including front face of wall #210, coupling portion #240 and #220).
With respect to claim 7, Park teaches wherein the outlet (outlet of channel #260) is located at the top of the noise barrier and is facing vertically upwardly (clearly denote in Figures 2a-4 by arrows indicating airflow).
With respect to claim 9, Park teaches wherein the channel (260) guides the entered part of the sound wave along a substantially L- shaped path from the inlet to the outlet (clearly denote in Figures 2a-4 by arrows indicating airflow). The shape of channel #260 is considered to be “substantially L- shaped,” as the term “substantially” is vague and open to interpretation.
With respect to claim 11, Park teaches wherein said channel (260) is provided with at least one baffle member (defined by inner frame 250) dividing said channel into at least two parallel sub-channels extending from the inlet to or towards the outlet. The Examiner considers the channel portion within inner frame #250, formed directly on top of channel #260 to include for, along with channel #260, two parallel sub-channels extending from the inlet to or towards the outlet. Note there is no requirement for the second subchannel within inner frame #250 to be fluidly connected with the inlet or outlet.
With respect to claim 12, Park teaches wherein a first one (260) of said sub-channels has a first channel height and a first channel length, wherein a second one (channel portion within inner frame #250, formed directly on top of channel #260) of said sub-channels has a second channel height and a second channel length, wherein the first channel height is larger than the second channel height, and wherein the first channel length is larger than the second channel length (best seen in embodiment of Figures 3 and 4, although each of Figures 2a-4 show the claimed sub-channel configurations).
With respect to claim 14, Park teaches, wherein the noise barrier is configured to stand on the ground (see Figure 1a, note structure #110 is inherently mounted on a ground surface).
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 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 200436715 Y1).
With respect to claim 8, Park teaches the noise barrier of claim 1. Park further teaches comprising a cover wall (defined by inner frame #250) extending from an upper end of the front wall curved upwards and rearwards, wherein the outlet (outlet of channel #260) is located between the cover wall and the rear wall defined by all of right hand/rear facing surfaces in Figure 2a, including rear face of wall #210, coupling portion #240 and #230).
Park fails to explicitly wherein the cover wall extends from an upper end of the front wall diagonally upwards and rearwards.
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 cover wall extending from an upper end of the front wall diagonally upwards and rearwards, 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. In this case, altering the curved shaped wall of Park to be diagonally shaped would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill so as to tune/directed airflow noise within the device.
With respect to claim 10, Park teaches the noise barrier of claim 1. Park further teaches wherein, downstream of the inlet (inlet of channel #260), the channel (260) guides the entered part of the sound wave along a curved, partially U-shaped path to the outlet (outlet of channel #260).
Park fails to explicitly wherein the curved, partially U-shaped path includes a substantially U-shaped path.
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 channel guides the entered part of the sound wave along a substantially U-shaped path to the outlet, 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. In this case, altering the curved, partially U-shaped path of Park to be a substantially U-shaped path would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill so as to tune/directed airflow noise within the device.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 200436715 Y1) in view of Fusiek (2010/0243369).
With respect to claim 13, Park teaches the noise barrier of claim 1.
Park fails to show any details of the interior of wall #210, including wherein at least a part of the volume of the compartment is filled with acoustic absorption material for resistive damping of sound
Fusiek teaches a similar noise barrier (Figures 1-7, #10/24), including front (32), rear (26) and side (21) walls forming a compartment, wherein at least a part of the volume of the compartment is filled with acoustic absorption material (30) for resistive damping of sound.
Because Park does not show any details of the noise barrier wall interior compartment, and Fusiek teaches wherein it is known to provide a similar noise barrier wall interior compartment with acoustic absorption material, 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 Park, with the apparatus of Fusiek, so as to provide simple substitution of one known noise barrier wall for another, the provide the predictable result of the noise barrier wall construction of Fisiek being suitable for use as the unspecified noise barrier wall of Park. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 15, Park teaches the noise barrier of claim 1.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the noise barriers are arranged side by side such that side walls of adjacent noise barriers are in contact with each other.
Fusiek teaches a similar noise barrier (Figures 1-7, #10/24), including sound-arresting arrangement, comprising a plurality of noise barriers claim 1 (of Park , Figures 2a-4, when combined with arrangement of Fusiek, Figures 1-7, #24) wherein the noise barriers (Fusiek, Figures 1-7, #24) are arranged side by side such that side walls (12) of adjacent noise barriers are in contact with each other.
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 Park, with the apparatus of Fusiek, so as to install the noise barriers in typical locations “beside busy highway and railway corridors, where it is desired to reduce the level of noise emanating from traffic moving along these corridors into adjacent residential zones” (see Fusiek, [0002]).
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
Prosecution Insights