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 Objections
Claims 6 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of claim 6, and line 1 of claim 18, respectively, the word “as” should be changed to “has” in the phrase “first opening as a width”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the term “material” should be changed to “metamaterial”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN 116416959 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 1, Xu teaches an acoustic metamaterial (Figure 3, [0036]-[0040]) comprising: a plurality of unit cells (111), each unit cell comprising: a planar layer (113); a first partial ring (outer ring of ring pattern #114) in the planar layer extending around a midpoint of the planar layer, the first partial ring having a first opening (opening in outer one of rings in pattern #114 clearly seen); and a second partial ring (inner ring of ring pattern #114) in the planar layer extending around the midpoint of the planar layer, the second partial ring having a second opening (opening in inner one of rings in pattern #114 clearly seen). Note that pattern #114 of Figure 3 is described as “an open ring” in [0039].
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 6-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 116416959 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claims 6-7, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the planar layer (113) comprises an obvious, but unspecified material, and wherein the first opening and second opening each has a width of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Xu fails to teach wherein the planar layer comprises steel or aluminum, and wherein the first opening as a width of about 1.0-1.25 mm; and wherein the second opening has a width of 1.0-1.25 mm.
However, 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 planar layer comprises steel or aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, selecting steel or aluminum for planar layer #113 would have been obvious and well known.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein each of the first opening and second has a width of about 1.0-1.25 mm, 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 selecting a first opening and second opening width range would have been obvious and well known.
With respect to claim 8, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the planar layer (113) comprises an obvious, but unspecified material, and wherein the planar layer has a thickness of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Xu fails to teach wherein the planar layer comprises steel or aluminum, and wherein the planar layer has a thickness of 1 mm.
However, 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 planar layer comprises steel or aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, selecting steel or aluminum for planar layer #113 would have been obvious and well known.
Further, 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 planar layer has a thickness of 1 mm, 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 selecting a planar thickness amount would have been obvious and well known. Further, defining a thickness or any other dimension serves to tune the device, rendering it a results effective variable
With respect to claims 9-10, Xu teaches wherein it is obvious that the material is configured to simultaneously attenuate in-plane and out-of-plane polarized elastic waves from any direction; wherein the in-plane waves comprise longitudinal waves and shear horizontal waves, and wherein the out-of-plane waves comprise shear vertical waves, as the device is structurally identical to the structure of claim 1, and is therefore “configured” to perform in the same way as the claimed functional requirements of this claims. Further, it has been held that the recitation than an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. As indicated above, claims 9-10 are purely functional language, and it is considered to be obvious that the device of Xu will perform the claimed functions due to the identical structure as claimed.
With respect to claims 11-12, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of an obvious, but unspecified amount; and wherein the metamaterial exhibits an in-plane bandgap of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of about 7 to about 9.5 KHz, and wherein the metamaterial exhibits an in-plane bandgap of about 8 to about 9 KHz.
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 metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of about 7 to about 9.5 KHz; and wherein the metamaterial exhibits an in-plane bandgap of about 8 to about 9 KHz, 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 device can be used to attenuate frequency bands within the 20Hz-20kHz range, tuning the device to a particular frequency band would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 13, Xu teaches an acoustic metamaterial (Figure 3, [0036]-[0040]) comprising: a plurality of supercells (defined by a group of four of cells #111 forming a square pattern in Figure 3, similar to the arrangement of Applicant’s Figure 4), each supercell comprising first, second, third, and fourth unit cells, each of the unit cells (each of cells #111) comprising: a planar layer (113); a first partial ring (outer ring of ring pattern #114) in the planar layer extending around a midpoint of the planar layer, the first partial ring having a first opening (opening in outer one of rings in pattern #114 clearly seen); and a second partial ring (inner ring of ring pattern #114) in the planar layer extending around the midpoint of the planar layer, the second partial ring having a second opening (opening in inner one of rings in pattern #114 clearly seen); wherein the first, second, third, and fourth unit cells are arranged in a square lattice (clearly seen in Figure, when cells #111 are grouped similar to Applicant’s Figure 4). Note that pattern #114 of Figure 3 is described as “an open ring” in [0039].
Xu fails to teach wherein adjacent cells are rotated by 90 degrees with respect to each other.
However, 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 adjacent cells are rotated by 90 degrees with respect to each other, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, rotating the cells by 90 degrees with respect to each other would have been an obvious matter of design choice so as to tune the device.
With respect to claims 18, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the first opening and second opening each has a width of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
However, 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 first opening as a width of about 1.0-1.25 mm and the second opening has a width of about 1.0-1.25 mm, 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 selecting a first opening and second opening width range would have been obvious and well known.
With respect to claim 19, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of an obvious, but unspecified amount; and in-plane bandgap of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of about 7 to about 9.5 KHz and an in-plane bandgap of about 8 to about 9 KHz.
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 metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of about 7 to about 9.5 KHz and an in-plane bandgap of about 8 to about 9 KHz, 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 device can be used to attenuate frequency bands within the 20Hz-20kHz range, tuning the device to a particular frequency band would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 2-5, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 116416959 A – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Wu (7,593,170).
With respect to claim 2 and 14, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu teaches wherein the first and second openings are radially separated around the midpoint by 180 degrees (clearly seen in Figure 3). Further, Xu teaches that “It should be noted that the structural pattern 114 is not limited to the pattern shown in the embodiment of the present invention. Different patterns determine different electromagnetic wave polarization directions, modulation frequencies and bandwidths.” ([0067]).
Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second partial rings are radially shaped, such that they are “radially separated”.
Wu teaches a similar split ring type resonator metamaterial (Figures 3A-B and 4), wherein it is known the both radially shaped split rings (210) and square shaped split rings (220) are functionally similar patterns and are interchangeable (Col. 6, Lines 11-29 and Col. 7, Lines 46-49), such that, when combined, the pattern of the first and second rings of Xu, will be the radial type split ring of Wu (Figure 3A, #210), and the wherein the first and second openings are radially separated around the midpoint by 180 degrees (clearly seen in Wu, Figure 3).
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 Xu, with the apparatus of Wu so as to provide simple substitution of one known split ring pattern for another, to provide the predictable result of both shapes being suitable for the acoustic metamaterial split ring pattern. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the first partial ring has first square shape and the second partial ring has a second square. Further, Xu teaches that “It should be noted that the structural pattern 114 is not limited to the pattern shown in the embodiment of the present invention. Different patterns determine different electromagnetic wave polarization directions, modulation frequencies and bandwidths.” ([0067]).
Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the first partial ring has first radius and the second partial ring has a second radius greater than the first radius.
Wu teaches a similar split ring type resonator metamaterial (Figures 3A-B and 4), wherein it is known the both radially shaped split rings (210) and square shaped split rings (220) are functionally similar patterns and are interchangeable (Col. 6, Lines 11-29 and Col. 7, Lines 46-49), such that, when combined, the pattern of the first and second rings of Xu, will be the radial type split ring of Wu (Figure 3A, #210), and wherein the first partial ring (216) has first radius and the second partial ring (212) has a second radius greater than the first radius (clearly seen in Wu, Figure 3).
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 Xu, with the apparatus of Wu so as to provide simple substitution of one known split ring pattern for another, to provide the predictable result of both shapes being suitable for the acoustic metamaterial split ring pattern. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claims 4 and 16, Xu and Wu teach the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu and Wu further teach wherein the planar layer (Xu, #113) comprises an obvious, but unspecified material, and wherein the first radius is of an obvious, but unspecified amount, and the second radius is of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Xu and Wu fail to teach wherein the first radius is about 1.75-2.0 mm and the second radius is 2.75-3.0 mm.
However, 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 planar layer comprises steel or aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, selecting steel or aluminum for planar layer #113 would have been obvious and well known.
Further, 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 first radius is about 1.75-2.0 mm and the second radius is 2.75-3.0 mm, 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 selecting a particular radius range for each of the first and second rings would have been obvious and well known.
With respect to claim 5 and 17, Xu teaches the acoustic metamaterial of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the planar layer (113) comprises an obvious, but unspecified material, and wherein the first partial ring and the second partial rings have thickness of an obvious, but unspecified amount. Further, Xu teaches that “It should be noted that the structural pattern 114 is not limited to the pattern shown in the embodiment of the present invention. Different patterns determine different electromagnetic wave polarization directions, modulation frequencies and bandwidths.” ([0067]).
Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the planar layer comprises steel or aluminum, and wherein the first partial ring and the second partial rings have radial thickness of about 0.2-0.3 mm.
Wu teaches a similar split ring type resonator metamaterial (Figures 3A-B and 4), wherein it is known the both radially shaped split rings (210) and square shaped split rings (220) are functionally similar patterns and are interchangeable (Col. 6, Lines 11-29 and Col. 7, Lines 46-49), such that, when combined, the pattern of the first and second rings of Xu, will be the radial type split ring of Wu (Figure 3A, #210), and the first partial ring (216) and the second partial (212) ring have a radial thickness (clearly seen in Wu, Figure 3).
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 Xu, with the apparatus of Wu so as to provide simple substitution of one known split ring pattern for another, to provide the predictable result of both shapes being suitable for the acoustic metamaterial split ring pattern. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
Further, 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 planar layer comprises steel or aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, selecting steel or aluminum for planar layer #113 would have been obvious and well known.
Further, 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 first partial ring and the second partial rings have radial thickness of about 0.2-0.3 mm, 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 selecting a partial ring radial thickness range would have been obvious and well known.
With respect to claim 20, Xu teaches an acoustic metamaterial (Figure 3, [0036]-[0040]) comprising: a plurality of unit cells (111) arranged in a lattice, each unit cell comprising: a midpoint; a first partial ring (outer ring of ring pattern #114) extending around the midpoint, the first partial ring comprising a first opening (opening in outer one of rings in pattern #114 clearly seen); and a second partial ring (inner ring of ring pattern #114) extending around the midpoint, the second partial ring comprising a second opening (opening in inner one of rings in pattern #114 clearly seen) separated from the first opening about the midpoint by 180 degrees, the second partial ring having a second opening, wherein the metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of an obvious, but unspecified amount; and in-plane bandgap of an obvious, but unspecified amount. Note that pattern #114 of Figure 3 is described as “an open ring” in [0039]. Further, Xu teaches that “It should be noted that the structural pattern 114 is not limited to the pattern shown in the embodiment of the present invention. Different patterns determine different electromagnetic wave polarization directions, modulation frequencies and bandwidths.” ([0067]).
Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second partial rings are radially shaped, such that the first partial ring has first radius and the second partial ring has a second radius greater than the first radius; wherein the first and second openings are “radially” separated, and wherein the metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of about 7 to about 9.5 KHz and an in-plane bandgap of about 8 to about 9 KHz.
Wu teaches a similar split ring type resonator metamaterial (Figures 3A-B and 4), wherein it is known the both radially shaped split rings (210) and square shaped split rings (220) are functionally similar patterns and are interchangeable (Col. 6, Lines 11-29 and Col. 7, Lines 46-49), such that, when combined, the pattern of the first and second rings of Xu, will be the radial type split ring of Wu (Figure 3A, #210), and the wherein the first and second openings are radially separated around the midpoint by 180 degrees (clearly seen in Wu, Figure 3); wherein the first partial ring (216) has first radius and the second partial ring (212) has a second radius greater than the first radius (clearly seen in Wu, Figure 3).
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 Xu, with the apparatus of Wu so as to provide simple substitution of one known split ring pattern for another, to provide the predictable result of both shapes being suitable for the acoustic metamaterial split ring pattern. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
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 metamaterial exhibits an out-of-plane bandgap of about 7 to about 9.5 KHz and an in-plane bandgap of about 8 to about 9 KHz, 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 device can be used to attenuate frequency bands within the 20Hz-20kHz range, tuning the device to a particular frequency band would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
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