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 .
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.
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 2-6, 8-9, 11-13 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.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8-9, 11 and 13 each recites the limitation "the other side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-4 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 2. Claim 12 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 7-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell et al. (US 2006/0102419 A1) hereinafter Mitchell.
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches a soundproof device for a duct, comprising:
a first sound absorbing (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4, paras. 0017-0023) material disposed on one side of an outer wall member (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4, paras. 0017-0023) of the duct in a thickness direction of the outer wall member;
a first fixing member (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4, paras. 0017-0023) to fix the first sound absorbing material to the outer wall member;
a first plate member located on the one side of the first sound absorbing material with an air layer (62) interposed therebetween (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4, paras. 0017-0023);
a second fixing member to fix the first plate member to the outer wall member; and a second sound absorbing material disposed on the one side of the first plate member (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 below, paras. 0017-0023).
PNG
media_image1.png
864
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Mitchell teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Mitchell further teaches the second fixing member includes a bolt extending in the thickness direction and the reinforcement member, and wherein an end portion of the bolt on the other side in the thickness direction is fixed to the reinforcement member (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above).
Regarding claim 8, Mitchell teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 7. Mitchell further teaches the second fixing member includes a bolt extending in the thickness direction, and wherein the first plate member is fixed to the bolt by nuts via elastic members on both a surface on the one side and a surface on the other side in the thickness direction (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above).
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Mitchell further teaches the second fixing member includes a bolt extending in the thickness direction, and wherein the first plate member is fixed to the bolt by nuts via elastic members on both a surface on the one side and a surface on the other side in the thickness direction (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above, paras. 0017-0023).
Regarding claim 10, Mitchell teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Mitchell further teaches a dimension of the first sound absorbing material in the thickness direction is larger than a dimension of the second sound absorbing material in the thickness direction (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above).
Regarding claim 13, Mitchell teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Mitchell further teaches an intake duct for a compressor of a gas turbine, comprising a duct with the soundproof device according to claim 1 arranged such that a surface of the first plate member on the other side in the thickness direction faces an inner side of the intake duct (Fig. 4, para. 0002).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Proscia et al. (US 2007/0034446 A1) hereinafter Proscia.
Regarding claim 2, Mitchell teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Mitchell further teaches a second plate member covering the second sound absorbing material from the one side (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above); and a connection member (42) disposed between the first plate member and the second plate member to connect the first plate member and the second plate member (Fig. 4, para. 0020), wherein the connection member is a C-shaped plate material that includes a first part extending along a surface of the first plate member on the one side, a second part extending along a surface of the second plate member on the other side in the thickness direction, and a third part extending between the first part and the second part along the thickness direction (Fig. 4).
Mitchell fails to teach the connecting member is Z-shaped.
However, Proscia teaches a soundproof device comprising a first plate member (26) and a second plate member (22) (Fig. 2, para. 0024) wherein a connection member (32) disposed between the first plate member and the second plate member to connect the first plate member and the second plate member (Fig. 2), wherein the connection member is a Z-shaped plate material that includes a first part extending along a surface of the first plate member on the one side, a second part extending along a surface of the second plate member on the other side in the thickness direction, and a third part extending between the first part and the second part along the thickness direction (Fig. 2, para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell such that the connection member is Z-shaped as taught by Proscia as all claimed parts were known and would have yielded none but an expect result; namely connecting the first plate member to the second plate member.
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell as modified by Proscia teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2. Mitchell as modified by Proscia further teaches the second plate member and the second part are joined by a screw part or a rivet (44) (Proscia, Fig. 2). Although Mitchell as modified by Proscia fails to disclose the first plate member and the first part are joined by a screw part or a rivet, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to use a screw or a rivet to fix the first part to the first plate to further strengthen the connection between the first part and the second part.
Regarding claim 4, Mitchell as modified by Proscia teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2 including a number of connection members arranged between the first plate and the second plate but does not appear to explicitly state the number of the connection members arranged is not more than three per square meter of the first plate. However, a careful examination of the specification reveals that no criticality for the specific number of connection members has been shown nor any reason as to why the soundproof device of the applicant with the claimed numbers of connection members would operate any different than the soundproof device of Mitchell as modified by Proscia, and Applicant has not disclosed that this design with the specific number of connection members provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Hence this design of the number of the connection members arranged is not more than three per square meter of the first plate is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the soundproof device of Mitchell as taught by Proscia, and Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with the number of number connection members taught by Mitchell as taught by Proscia or the claimed number of connection members, because both would perform the same function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the claimed number of connection members angle with the soundproof device of Mitchell as modified by Proscia in order to achieve a desired dimension, shape, or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Mitchell as modified by Proscia teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2. Mitchell as modified by Proscia further teaches a sound insulation sheet (39) attached to the surface of the second plate member on the other side (Fig. 4, para. 0020).
Regarding claim 6, Mitchell as modified by Proscia teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2. Mitchell as modified by Proscia further teaches the second fixing member includes a bolt extending in the thickness direction, and wherein an end portion of the bolt on the one side is located on the other side of the second plate member in the thickness direction at a distance from the second plate member (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Porte et al. (US 2012/0318029 A1) hereinafter Porte.
Regarding claim 11, Mitchell teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1 including a third sound absorbing material disposed on the other side of the outer wall member in the thickness direction (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above), a third fixing member extending in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction to fix the third sound absorbing material to the outer wall member (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above); and a third plate member covering the third sound absorbing material from the other side and fixed to the third fixing member (Mitchell, annotated FIG. 4 above).
Mitchell fails to teach the third fixing member and the outer wall member are connected and a non-connection portion where the third fixing member and the outer wall member are not connected, the connection portion and the non-connection portion being arranged alternately along an extension direction of the third fixing member.
However, Porte discloses a soundproof device comprising an outer wall (24) a sound absorbing material (26), a plate (28) covering the sound absorbing material (Fig. 5A, paras. 0043-0047). Porte further teaches a fixing member (32) extending in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction to fix the third sound absorbing material to the outer wall member, the fixing member and the outer wall member are connected and a non-connection portion where the fixing member and the outer wall member are not connected, the connection portion and the non-connection portion being arranged alternately along an extension direction of the third fixing member (Figs. 3B, 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell such that the third fixing member and the outer wall member are connected as taught by Porte as all claimed parts were known and would have yielded none; but an expected result; namely fixing the third absorbing member to the outer wall member.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Porte and further in view of Vauchel et al. (US 2011/0133025 A1) hereinafter Vauchel.
Mitchell as modified by Porte teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 11 but fails to teach a dimension of the first sound absorbing material in the thickness direction is larger than a dimension of the third sound absorbing material in the thickness direction.
However, Vauchel teaches a soundproof device comprising a first sound absorbing (5b), a second sound absorbing material (5b) and a third sound absorbing material (7) (Fig. 5, para. 0010). Vauchel further teaches a dimension of the first sound absorbing material in the thickness direction is larger than a dimension of the third sound absorbing material in the thickness direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Michell such that the dimension of the first sound absorbing material in the thickness direction is larger than a dimension of the third sound absorbing material in the thickness direction as taught by Vauchel in order to attain a desired thickness of the soundproof device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6,260,658 B1 discloses a soundproof device comprising a plurality of sound absorbing material and a plurality of fixing members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights