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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
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 18 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 18 depends from a canceled claim and is therefore indefinite.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng CN106442177A in view of Muller US 20210199284 in further view of Wakefield US 3638752 in further view of Ruegg US 20110180020.
Cheng discloses (citations made to the translation):
20. (New) A method of operating a pressure wave generator with a pressure chamber (11), wherein the pressure wave generator comprises a cylindrical closure element (17) which, in a closed position, closes the pressure chamber with respect to an outlet (14) and, in an open position, allows a working medium to flow out of the pressure chamber into the outlet (14); an actuator (16) by means of which the cylindrical closure element can be brought from the closed position into the open position and can also be brought from the open position into the closed position (see e.g. 0033 and Figs 2-3); wherein the method comprises repeatedly (see e.g. “high repeatability of the test” in 0012) performing the following steps: wherein the method comprises repeatedly (see e.g. “high repeatability of the test” in 0012) performing the following steps: filling the pressure chamber with a gaseous working medium (see e.g. 0026-0027); moving the actuator and thereby moving the closure element in an opening direction to open the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet (see e.g. 0033), and discharging the pressurized working medium from the pressure chamber through the outlet (see e.g. 0033); wherein the pressure chamber radially surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards and then axially out of the pressure wave generator (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein).
Cheng does not disclose a hollow closure element. However, Mueller discloses the use of a hollow cylindrical closure element 70 (see e.g. Fig 10 and 0085).
A simple substitution of one known closure element design (a hollow closure element design of Mueller) for another (the solid closure element design of Chang) with the predictable result of closing a pressure chamber outlet has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a hollow closure element as taught by Mueller in the system of Chang to gain the benefit of reducing weight of the closure element as taught by Mueller in 0085 and/or to reduce the pressure required to open the closure element by eliminating the pressure surface on the back of the closure element.
Cheng does not specify the filling pressure or the discharge time and thus does not disclose a pressure of over one hundred bar or within a discharge time period of less than fifteen milliseconds.
However, Wakefield discloses at a pressure of over one hundred bar (see e.g. col 1 lines 68-71) and within a discharge time period of less than fifteen milliseconds (see e.g. col 5 lines 30-32).
Additionally, Cheng discloses the general conditions of the claim wherein a chamber 11 is filled with pressurized air at a filling pressure and discharged over a discharge time. The filling pressure and discharge time are result effective variables that result in a desired pulse pressure and speed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a pressure of over a hundred bar and a discharge time of 15 milliseconds or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that applicant has not provided any evidence of unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed range as per MPEP 2144.05 III A.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a pressure of over a hundred bar and a discharge time of 15 milliseconds or less as taught by Wakefield in the system of Cheng to gain the benefit of discharging a known desired pressure and a known desired discharge time.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
580
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, and 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s arguments concerning the throttle are persuasive. When read in light of the specification and given the definition of compensate/compensation, the step of pressure compensation (to be equivalent to; counterbalance) between the first volume and the second volume by a throttle and thereby, due to a surface difference of the first piston surface and the second piston surface, moving the actuator in the first direction and thereby moving a closing element in a closing direction and closing the pressure chamber is not taught by Chang.
PNG
media_image3.png
1062
962
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments concerning claim 20, a new reference, Mueller, is being used to disclose the limitations which applicant argues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746