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
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.
1.Claims 1,3-4,6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsaka (US9353909).
With respect to claim 1 Ramsaka discloses a sound insulator comprising:
A plurality of structures (see figure 4),
Each of the plurality of structures (see figure 3) comprising:
A plurality of interconnected wires forming a polyhedron shape having faces, and
A modified surface (see figure 8A) covering at least one of the faces, the modified surface including at least one selected form the group consisting of :” a plurality of holes that extend through an entirety f a thickness of the modified surface and a mass damper having a greater thickness than the thickness o the modified surface (that is to say the higher mass portions which are of thicker diameter than the thinner portions formed by the grooves).
While not expressly disclosing the thicker portions as being a mass damper per se as the device is structured to be an anti-vibration structure (see column 1 lines 5-15) this will be the case.
With respect to claim 3 Ramsaka further discloses wherein each of the plurality of interconnected wires has a diameter, while not expressly disclosing the range of 10 microns to 1000 microns the selection of the wire diameter and the wire length is disclosed to be variable. The selection of the claimed range would have been an obvious matter based upon the amplitude of vibrations intended to be absorbed, in this case being the sound waves it would have been an obvious matter to arrive at such a range through routine testing. 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 4 Ramsaka further discloses (figure 8a) wherein the thickness of the modified surface being less than a diameter of each of the plurality of interconnected wires.
With respect to claim 6 Ramsaka further discloses wherein a width and depth of the mass damper are each less than a surface diameter of the modified surface (figure 8a) while not expressly disclosing less than 90% the selection of such a range would have been an obvious matter of routine testing. 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 8 as it regards the selection of the overall dimensions of the structure it would have been an obvious smatter to select such a range as a matter of optimization for the desired properties. 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.
2. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsaka (US9353909) in view of Takeshima (US200901445073).
With respect to claim 2 Ramsaka discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the shape has eight hexagonal faces and six square faces. Ramska discloses interconnected square faces.
Takeshima discloses the use of hexagonal faces in the construction of a three dimensional structure formed of wire structures.
It would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Takeshima to use a hexagonal face structure with the device of Ramsaka. The motivation for doing so would be to take advantage of the known strength and tight packable nature of the shape of the hexagon.
The shapes chosen would result in the needed number of the respective faces so as to provide the three-dimensional structure of high strength.
3.Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsaka (US9353909) in view of Yang (US2024030841).
With respect to claim 5 Ramska discloses the invention as claimed except for the use of through holes in the surface and each of the plurality of holes has a diameter in the range claimed.
Yang discloses (see element 12) the use of a hole in the surface of a wire structure for sound damping.
It would have been an obvious matter to provide multiple holes in the surface as this would constitute only a duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would further have been obvious to select the range of 10-90% of the wire diameter as a matter of tuning the structure, 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.
It would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Yang to provide the surface treatment in the form of the plurality of the holes with the device of Ramsaka to further enhance the sound reduction by allowing the passage of the sound into hollow rods in the manner as taught by Yang.
With respect to claim 9 Ramsaka as modified by Yang further discloses the plurality of structures formed by a three dimensional printing process (see Yang para 28).
4.Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsaka (US9353909) in view of Schaedler (US20140272277).
With respect to claim 7 Ramsaka as modified discloses the invention as claimed except for the use of photopolymerizable resin.
Schaedler discloses the use of photopolymerizable resin in the formation of a sound reduction structure (see para 0003 regarding sound reduction and para 70 regarding the use of photopolymerizable resin to form a 3d truss structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Schaedler to use a photopolymerizable resin in the formation of a truss structure with the device of Ramska to allow for the rapid formation and low weight associated with such resins.
5. Claims 10-15 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsaka (US9353909) in view of Takeshima (US200901445073), and Schaedler (US20140272277).
With respect to claim 10 Ramsaka discloses a sound insulator comprising:
A plurality of structures (see figure 4),
Each of the plurality of structures (see figure 3) comprising:
A plurality of interconnected wires forming a polyhedron shape having faces, at least one of the plurality of interconnected wires being a first wire having a roughened surface(figure 8a) that includes a plurality of raised portions.
Ramsaka does not expressly disclose eight hexagonal faces and six square faces, or the use of photopolymerizable resin material.
Takeshima discloses the use of hexagonal faces in the construction of a three dimensional structure formed of wire structures.
It would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Takeshima to use a hexagonal face structure with the device of Ramsaka. The motivation for doing so would be to take advantage of the known strength and tight packable nature of the shape of the hexagon.
The shapes chosen would result in the needed number of the respective faces so as to provide the three-dimensional structure of high strength.
Schaedler discloses the use of photopolymerizable resin in the formation of a sound reduction structure (see para 0003 regarding sound reduction and para 70 regarding the use of photopolymerizable resin to form a 3d truss structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Schaedler to use a photopolymerizable resin in the formation of a truss structure with the device of Ramsaka to allow for the rapid formation and low weight associated with such resins.
With respect to claim 11 Ramsaka further discloses wherein each of the plurality of interconnected wires has a diameter, while not expressly disclosing the range of 10 microns to 1000 microns the selection of the wire diameter and the wire length is disclosed to be variable. The selection of the claimed range would have been an obvious matter based upon the amplitude of vibrations intended to be absorbed, in this case being the sound waves it would have been an obvious matter to arrive at such a range through routine testing. 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 12 Ramsaka further discloses (see again figure 8a) wherein the roughened surface is defined such that at least one of a minimum diameter and a maximum diameter of the first wire varies from an average diameter of the first wire. Regarding the selection of by at least 5%, such would have been an obvious matter of optimization. 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 13 Ramsaka further discloses wherein the sound insulator has a thickness, as it regards the selection of between 1mm to 100mm, it would have been an obvious matter to select. 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 14 Ramsaka as modified further discloses (Schraeder para 70) the use of a three dimensional printing.
With respect to claim 15 Ramsaka further discloses wherein the first wire has a non-uniform diameter (due at least to the structures of figure 8a).
6. Claims 16-20 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsaka (US9353909) in view of Takeshima (US200901445073), Yang (US2024030841)and Schaedler (US20140272277).
With respect to claim 16 Ramsaka as modified further discloses a sound insulator comprising:
A plurality of structures (see figure 4),
Each of the plurality of structures (see figure 3) comprising:
A plurality of interconnected wires forming a polyhedron shape having faces, at least one of the plurality of interconnected wires being a second wire.
Ramsaka does not expressly disclose eight hexagonal faces and six square faces, the plurality of holes or the use of photopolymerizable resin material.
Takeshima discloses the use of hexagonal faces in the construction of a three dimensional structure formed of wire structures.
It would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Takeshima to use a hexagonal face structure with the device of Ramsaka. The motivation for doing so would be to take advantage of the known strength and tight packable nature of the shape of the hexagon.
The shapes chosen would result in the needed number of the respective faces so as to provide the three-dimensional structure of high strength.
Yang discloses (see element 12) the use of a hole in the surface of a wire structure for sound damping.
It would have been an obvious matter to provide multiple holes in the surface as this would constitute only a duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Yang to provide the surface treatment in the form of the plurality of the holes with the device of Ramsaka to further enhance the sound reduction by allowing the passage of the sound into hollow rods in the manner as taught by Yang.
Schaedler discloses the use of photopolymerizable resin in the formation of a sound reduction structure (see para 0003 regarding sound reduction and para 70 regarding the use of photopolymerizable resin to form a 3d truss structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Schaedler to use a photopolymerizable resin in the formation of a truss structure with the device of Ramsaka to allow for the rapid formation and low weight associated with such resins.
With respect to claim 17 Ramsaka further discloses wherein each of the plurality of interconnected wires has a diameter, while not expressly disclosing the range of 10 microns to 1000 microns the selection of the wire diameter and the wire length is disclosed to be variable. The selection of the claimed range would have been an obvious matter based upon the amplitude of vibrations intended to be absorbed, in this case being the sound waves it would have been an obvious matter to arrive at such a range through routine testing. 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 18 as it regards the specific claimed range of holes, it would have been an obvious matter to select such a range so as to tune the system. 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 19 Ramsaka further discloses wherein the sound insulator has a thickness, as it regards the selection of between 1mm to 100mm, it would have been an obvious matter to select. 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 20 Ramsaka as modified further discloses (Schraeder para 70) the use of a three dimensional printing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gomi (US20230260496) discloses a sound absorber; Baque (US11686832) discloses a structure of structs for sound absorption; Winkler (US20220366886) discloses an acoustic panel; Verma (US11339922) discloses a vented three dimensional structure; Chakabarti (US11261738) discloses a nested cell damping system; Stewart (US11213923) discloses a heat exchanger cell of three dimensional shape; Hammetter (US11195504) discloses an additively manufactured sound absorption structure; Mardjono (US20200353673) discloses a method of manufacturing a network of channels; Chang (US20200180523) discloses a vibration reduction structure; and Won (US20190066648) discloses a three dimensional lattice.
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
Prosecution Insights