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 § 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(s) 4 and 9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a projection of the through hole is located on a periphery of the projection of the air intake” in Ln. 2-3 which deems the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of a projection of the air intake. It appears the intent is to define two distinct projections in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “a projection of the through hole is located on a periphery of a projection of the air intake”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “disposed oppositely on both sides of the first chamber” in Ln. 2 which deems the claim indefinite. The limitation implies the first chamber has two specific sides but no sides have been previously recited of the first chamber and the first chamber is not understood to be limited to only two sides. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “disposed oppositely on two sides of the first chamber”.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mazzone (U.S. Pub. 2023/0398318).
Regarding claim 1, Mazzone discloses a noise reduction box (Figs. 3F-3L; ¶0181), comprising: a housing (Fig. 3H #6120; ¶0187) and a blower (Fig. 3H #6010; ¶0181); wherein the housing comprises a first chamber (Fig. 3G above #6027; ¶0294), a second chamber (Fig. 3G below #6027; ¶0294), an air inlet (Fig. 3L black arrows entering housing on bottom right) and an air outlet (Fig. 3L white arrows exiting housing on top right), wherein the first chamber and the second chamber are connected to each other (Fig. 3L – flow loops from first chamber into second chamber and then back into the first chamber), and the air inlet and the air outlet are connected to the first chamber respectively (Fig. 3L); wherein the blower is disposed in the first chamber (Fig. 3L; ¶0294), and comprises an air intake (Fig. 3L #6012; ¶0292) connected to the second chamber and a tuyere (Fig. 3L #6054; ¶0292) connected to the air outlet. The term “tuyere” is not understood to imply more structure than a pipe or nozzle. It is noted that the additional embodiments of Figs. 5, 6 & 7 of Mazzone may alternately be read on the claim(s) in the same manner as the above discussed embodiment of Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 2, Mazzone discloses an accommodation space of the first chamber is greater than the accommodation space of the second chamber (Fig. 3L).
Regarding claim 3, Mazzone discloses a partition plate (Fig. 3J #6027; ¶0294); wherein the partition plate is disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber to separate the first chamber and the second chamber; a through hole (Fig. 3J any one of the circular holes on the right side of #6027; ¶0294) is provided on the partition plate, and the first chamber is communicated with the second chamber via the through hole (Fig. 3L black arrows on left side).
Regarding claim 4, Mazzone discloses in a direction perpendicular to the partition plate, a projection (Fig. 3J a pipe extending upward and rightward from #6027, labeled as #6025 in Fig. 5C; ¶0250) of the through hole is located on a periphery of a projection (Fig. 3J #6020, as also seen in Fig. 3L; ¶0292) of the air intake.
Regarding claim 5, Mazzone discloses a flexible casing (Fig. 5C #6350; ¶0239 – blower surrounded by noise attenuating material) is sheathed around the blower.
Regarding claim 10, Mazzone discloses a respirator (Fig. 1) comprising: a noise reduction box (Figs. 3F-3L; ¶0181), wherein the noise reduction box comprises a housing (Fig. 3H #6120; ¶0187) and a blower (Fig. 3H #6010; ¶0181); wherein the housing comprises a first chamber (Fig. 3G above #6027; ¶0294), a second chamber (Fig. 3G below #6027; ¶0294), an air inlet (Fig. 3L black arrows entering housing on bottom right) and an air outlet (Fig. 3L white arrows exiting housing on top right), wherein the first chamber and the second chamber are connected to each other (Fig. 3L – flow loops from first chamber into second chamber and then back into the first chamber), and the air inlet and the air outlet are connected to the first chamber respectively (Fig. 3L); wherein the blower is disposed in the first chamber (Fig. 3L; ¶0294), and comprises an air intake (Fig. 3L #6012; ¶0292) connected to the second chamber and a tuyere (Fig. 3L #6054; ¶0292) connected to the air outlet. The term “tuyere” is not understood to imply more structure than a pipe or nozzle. It is noted that the additional embodiments of Figs. 5, 6 & 7 of Mazzone may alternately be read on the claim(s) in the same manner as the above discussed embodiment of Fig. 3.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzone (U.S. Pub. 2023/0398318) in view of Zhuge (CN 114848990 A; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Mazzone fails to disclose a speaker; wherein the speaker is fixedly installed on the housing, and the speaker is used for generating a sound wave to counteract a noise wave of the blower.
Zhuge teaches a respirator having active noise reduction (e.g. Figs. 1-2; Pg. 5) including a speaker (Figs. 1-2 #603; Pg. 5); wherein the speaker is fixedly installed on a housing (Figs. 1-2 body parts readable as a housing) of the respirator, and the speaker is used for generating a sound wave to counteract a noise wave of a blower (Figs. 1-2 #4; Pg. 5) (Pg. 5 – generates sound wave of opposite phase to the fan sound wave). Zhuge teaches a speaker as providing the benefit of performing active noise reduction by using a generated sound wave to cancel noise generated by the blower (Pg. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Mazzone a speaker; wherein the speaker is fixedly installed on the housing, and the speaker is used for generating a sound wave to counteract a noise wave of the blower in order to provide the benefit of performing active noise reduction by using a generated sound wave to cancel noise generated by the blower in view of Zhuge.
Regarding claim 7, Mazzone teaches the invention as modified above and Zhuge as incorporated therein further teaches a control chip (Fig. 3 #605; Pg. 5); wherein the control chip is fixedly installed on the housing (Fig. 3 #605 will be installed on a housing part in the same manner as #602-604 in Figs. 1-2) and is electrically connected to the speaker (Fig. 3); the control chip is configured to control the speaker to generate the sound wave (Pg. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Mazzone teaches the invention as modified above and Zhuge as incorporated therein further teaches a microphone (Figs. 1-2 #602, 604; Pg. 5); wherein the microphone is fixedly installed on the housing (Figs. 1-2 body parts readable as a housing), and is electrically connected to the control chip (Fig. 3); wherein the microphone is configured to capture a frequency of the noise of the blower, and transmit the frequency of the noise to the control chip (Pg. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, neither Mazzone nor Zhuge teaches or suggests the speaker and the microphone are disposed oppositely on two sides of the first chamber. The original language of the claim is “disposed oppositely on both sides of the first chamber”. As noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claim above the first chamber is not limited to two sides (i.e. “both”) and has not previously defined sides of the first chamber. The specification discusses that the speaker 5 is fixedly installed on the housing 1 such as to be partly exposed outside the housing 1 (¶0051) and that the microphone 6 is fixedly installed on the housing 1 such as to be partly exposed outside the housing 1 (¶0055). The illustration of Fig. 4 clearly shows the speaker 5 and the microphone 6 attached to opposite sides/walls of housing 1. A best interpretation of the instant claim is thus that the speaker and the microphone must be located at two opposite sides/walls of the first chamber. The term “opposite” is given a plain language meaning of at an other end.
Mazzone does not itself include a speaker or a microphone so the teachings of Zhuge are relied upon. In Zhuge microphones 602, 604 are generally closely located to loudspeaker 603 (Figs. 1-2 & 4-5) such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected to have located a speaker and a microphone on opposite sides of the cited first chamber from Mazzone. This is particularly the case also because of how the first chamber of Mazzone is oriented with incoming air traveling along one side of the first chamber while the blower occupies a second side of the first chamber (e.g. Fig. 3L). One of ordinary skill in the art would thus not have considered it prima facie obvious to have modified Mazzone in order to have read on the instant claim without improper hindsight reasoning.
Another prior art of note related to claim 1 is Cheng (U.S. Pub. 2016/0325059; Fig. 1). In Cheng there is similarly no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have particularly located a speaker and a microphone on opposite sides of gas space 1000 (Fig. 1).
Other prior art of note which additionally teach noise cancellation systems include: Bordewick et al. (U.S. Pub. 2007/0277827; Fig. 6; ¶0080), Higashiyama et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0169359; Figs. 2 & 4; ¶¶0057-0059) and Carbo Bech et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0402118; Figs. 8-9; ¶¶0086-0091). However, none of those three prior art teach or suggest the required opposite side positioning of a speaker and a microphone within a chamber suitable readable on the first chamber requirements of instant claim 1.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the particularly defined invention of the instant claim by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references. Regarding the independent claims attention is additionally drawn to Cheng (U.S. Pub. 2016/0325059; Fig. 1) and Cariola et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0259019; Figs. 4A-4Q).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights