DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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.
Drawings
Figures 1, 10 and 12 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. The paragraphs [0027], [0036] and [0038] disclose FIG. 1, FIG. 10 and FIG. 12 as “resonator in the related art”. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “the plurality of air passages are parallel”, it should be changed to “the plurality of air passages is parallel” because the singular noun “plurality” is the subject of the sentence.
Similarly, claim 10 recites “the plurality of air passages are arranged”, it should be changed to “the plurality of air passages is arranged”.
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.
Claim 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “along the first direction, an effective length of each of the plurality of air passages gradually decreases.” This limitation is ambiguous because the outcome when each of the plurality of air passages has its effective length gradually and independently decreases is different from the outcome when each of the plurality of air passages has its effective length gradually decreases accordingly to the lengths of other air passages. Furthermore, there are no definitions for “gradually decreasing” and “effective length” in the Specification or in the claims.
The dependency of claim 15 as recited “The resonator as describes in claim 18” appears improper. Furthermore, claim 15 recites in line 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
46
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This limitation is confusing because:
Claim 18 doesn’t disclose the coefficient kn,
Claims 12-14 disclose the coefficient kn as “kn denotes a coefficient of L0”, therefore it is unclear whether claim 15 depends on claim 12, claim 13 or claim 14.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beltran et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070081027).
Regarding independent claim 1, Beltran et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15, [0050]-[0052]) discloses a resonator (903), comprising: at least one air cavity (905) and a plurality of air passages (907) communicating with the air cavity (905); wherein the air cavity (905) and the plurality of air passages (907) are tuned to generate one or more acoustic resonances ([0049] These heat sinks feature acoustically tuned resonators. [0050] The Helmholtz resonator 903 is driven by an actuator 909 which vibrates a diaphragm.)
Regarding claim 2, Beltran et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15, [0050]-[0052]) discloses an acoustic port (915) provided at the at least one air cavity (905).
Regarding claim 9, Beltran et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15, [0050]-[0052]) discloses the plurality of air passages (907) is parallel to each other.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sessler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3573400).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses a resonator (Helmholtz resonator), comprising: at least one air cavity (31, 32) and a plurality of air passages (Lines 55-65 of Col. 5: Tubes 20, 21, 22 and 23, which open into the upper cavity 31. Tubes 24, 25, 26 and 27 open into the lower cavity 32) communicating with the air cavity (31, 32); wherein the air cavity (31, 32) and the plurality of air passages (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) are tuned to generate one or more acoustic resonances (Lines 20-25 of Col. 4: In order to achieve the required equal resonance frequencies, in a two cavity system, such as that shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the two cavities with their tubes must form acoustically equivalent systems over the entire frequency range of interest.)
Regarding claim 2, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses an acoustic port (34, 35) provided at the at least one air cavity (31, 32).
Regarding claim 3, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses each of the plurality of air passages (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) is a tube.
Regarding claim 4, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses a cross-sectional shape of each tube is a circle (inner circle, outer circle). Furthermore, choosing other shapes like a rectangle or an irregular shape for each tube is considered neither novel nor inventive.
Regarding claim 5, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses the axis of each tube is bent toward a same side (Lines 70 of Col. 4 – Line 20 of Col. 5: an upper set of tubes, including tubes 20, 21, 22 and 23…. The tubes of the upper set may be angled downward slightly so that their ends fall in a single plane…. Tubes 24, 25, 26 and 27 are angled slightly upward so that their free ends fall in the plane defined by the ends of tubes 20, 21, 22 and 23.)
Regarding claim 7, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG 3) discloses the plurality of air passages (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) is a plurality of partitions of a single tube (21 and 23 are partition of a single tube in FIG. 3); and a respective dividing wall is provided between any two adjacent partitions of the plurality of partitions (Lines 55-60 of Col. 5: Tubes 20, 21, 22 and 23, which open into the upper cavity 31, are secured to the upper cylindrical section 34 with only a relatively short length extending out beyond the wall of the casing. Lines 69-71 of Col. 5: Tubes 24, 25, 26 and 27 open into the lower cavity 32 with their interior ends approximately abutting the interior wall of cylindrical section 35.)
Regarding claim 8, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses each of the plurality of air passages (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) comprises a groove (channel of 20, 21, 22, 23, channel of 24, 25, 26 and 27).
Regarding claim 9, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses the plurality of air passages (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) is parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 18, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses the plurality of air passages (24 and 26) partially extends into the air cavity (32), or the plurality of air passages (23 and 21) entirely extends into the air cavity (31).
Regarding claim 19, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses each of the plurality of air passages (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) comprises an end (internal end) communicating with the air cavity (31, 32), and another end (external end) communicating with an external air volume which is chosen from air passage (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27), air cavity (31, 32) and acoustic resonator (Helmholtz resonator).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sessler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3573400) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gobinath et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20130299055).
Regarding claim 6, Sessler et al. does not disclose “each of two ends of each tube comprises a rounded corner structure or a horn-shaped structure.”
However, Gobinath et al. (e. g. see [0073], FIGS. 8B and 11B) teaches each of two ends of each tube (84 of FIG. 8B or 112 of FIG. 11B) comprises a rounded corner structure (FIG. 8B) or a horn-shaped structure (FIG 11B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic tubes of Sessler et al. to include “each of two ends of each tube comprises a rounded corner structure or a horn-shaped structure” as taught by Gobinath et al. for the purpose of reconfiguring the air tube body in order to maximize the lifetime of the air tube.
Since Sessler et al. and Gobinath et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (air tube), the purpose disclosed by Gobinath et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Sessler et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sessler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3573400).
Regarding claim 10, Sessler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, FIG. 3) discloses the plurality of air passages (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) are arranged along a first direction (directions of air tubes away from cavities) .
Though Sessler et al. discloses the air passages having different lengths, Sessler et al. does not explicitly disclose “along the first direction, an effective length of each of the plurality of air passages gradually decreases.”
However, it is well known in the art that an acoustic resonator system of gradually decreasing air passages is more effective in managing a broader range of frequencies or sound wave propagation and damping. The longer the length of the air passage, the smaller the resonant frequency. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art to make a modification of the lengths of the plurality of air passages of Sessler et al. to accommodate the broader range of frequencies for effective acoustic resonators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11-14 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alexander et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8381872) discloses an acoustic composite comprising a flow resistive substrate having a solid acoustic barrier material bonded to at least a portion of a major surface of the flow resistive substrate. The structured film comprises a plurality of tubular projections extending above the major surface.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
26 November 2025
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837