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 § 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 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 11,260,314) in view of Porte et al. (US 7,484,592).
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 18, Anderson et al. teach an air amplifier (Fig.1) comprising air amplification engine configured to utilize energy from a high-pressure input stream of gas to accelerate a low-velocity input stream of gas to provide a high-velocity, high-volume stream of gas (Col.2, Line 58 – Col.3, Line 32); and an air guide (Fig.1, Item 108); but fail to particularly disclose wherein the air guide comprises a first inner faceplate defining an innermost assembly of the air guide and arranged along a longitudinal axis of the air guide, the first inner faceplate being configured to shape the high-velocity, high-volume input stream of gas as the high-velocity, high-volume input stream of gas propagates through the air guide to provide a high-velocity, high-volume output stream of gas, and allow unwanted noise generated by the high-velocity, high-volume input stream of gas to propagate through the first inner faceplate, a passive acoustic absorption chamber arranged along the longitudinal axis of the air guide, configured to absorb at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the first inner faceplate, an active acoustic absorption chamber arranged along the longitudinal axis of the air guide, having a plurality of acoustic suppression elements that are normal to the longitudinal axis of the air guide, the plurality of acoustic suppression elements being configured to generate a plurality of noise suppression waves that destructively combine with at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the passive acoustic absorption chamber, and a second outer faceplate defining an outermost assembly of the air guide and arranged along the longitudinal axis of the air guide.
On the other hand, Porte et al. teach an air guide for a high-pressure stream environment wherein the air guide comprises a first faceplate (Fig.1, Item 2a) to form an innermost assembly of the air guide that is situated within the air guide along a longitudinal axis of the air guide, the first faceplate being configured to shape the high-velocity, high-volume input stream of gas as the high-velocity, high-volume input stream of gas propagates through the air guide to provide a high-velocity, high-volume output stream of gas, and allow (Fig.1, Items 4) unwanted noise generated by the high-velocity, high-volume input stream of gas to propagate through the first inner faceplate, a passive acoustic absorption chamber (Fig.1, Item 2b), situated within the air guide along the longitudinal axis of the air guide, configured to absorb at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the first inner faceplate, an active acoustic absorption chamber (Fig.1, Item 1), situated within the air guide along the longitudinal axis of the air guide, having a plurality of acoustic suppression elements that are normal to the longitudinal axis of the air guide, the plurality of acoustic suppression elements being configured to generate a plurality of noise suppression waves that destructively combine with at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the passive acoustic absorption chamber, and a second faceplate (Fig.1, Item 3) to form an outermost assembly of the air guide that is situated within the air guide along the longitudinal axis of the air guide (Col.3, Line 54 – Col.4, Line 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Porte et al. air guide configuration as the Anderson et al. air guide because it would provide efficient acoustic damping by providing a passive acoustic absorption producing an impedance/power loss in the sound waves directed at the air guide, and an active acoustic absorption chamber that would act as resonators producing an acoustical destructive effect, in this manner exhibiting acoustic damping in a broad frequency range.
With respect to claim 2, Porte et al. teach wherein the first faceplate (Fig.1, Item 2a) comprises a plurality of perforations (Fig.1, Items 4) configured to allow the unwanted noise to propagate through the first faceplate onto the acoustic absorption chamber (Fig.1, Item 2b).
With respect to claims 3 and 11, Porte et al. teach wherein the plurality of perforations are configured and arranged to be elliptical, hexagonal, or diamond in shape (Figs.3 – 6).
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Porte et al. teach wherein the passive acoustic absorption chamber comprises one or more porous sound absorption materials (Fig.1, Item 2b; Col.4, Lines 11 – 16), one or more sound insulations, one or more acoustic fabrics, or one or more acoustic paints to absorb the at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the first inner faceplate.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 13 and 14, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide a passive acoustic absorption chamber being configured and arranged to have a non-uniform cross-sectional area along the longitudinal axis of the air guide; and wherein the non-uniform cross-sectional area is characterized as being tapered along the longitudinal axis of the air guide in order to conform to a desired shape and/or physical configuration, as disclosed by Herman (US 4,137,992).
With respect to claims 7, 8, 15, 16 and 19, Porte et al. teach wherein each acoustic suppression element from among the plurality of acoustic suppression elements is staggered from its one or more neighboring, adjacent acoustic suppression elements from among the acoustic suppression elements to form a two-dimensional lattice of acoustic suppression elements; and wherein the two-dimensional lattice comprises a rhombic lattice, a square lattice, a rectangular lattice, a parallelogrammic lattice, a triangular lattice, or a hexagonal lattice (Fig.1).
With respect to claims 9, 17 and 20, Porte et al. teach wherein the plurality of acoustic suppression elements is configured to vibrate at one or more resonant frequencies to generate the plurality of noise suppression waves at the one or more resonant frequencies that destructively combine with the at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the passive acoustic absorption chamber (Fig.1; Col.3, Line 54 – Col.4, Line 31).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 7 – 11, 15 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,849 in view of Porte et al. (US 7,484,592) as discussed above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they described the same invention without departing from the same scope and spirit.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/808,836 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they described the same invention without departing from the same scope and spirit.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner still considers that Anderson et al. and Porte et al. teach the limitations described in the claims as discussed above.
Regarding the argument that Porte et al. “active acoustic absorption chamber (Fig.1, Item 1)” does not actively generate noise-suppression waves, the Examiner completely and respectfully disagrees. Col.3, Lines 60 – 64, define the “cellular structure 1” to be resonators. The Examiner considers that any person with ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that resonators are not only extremely well-known in the art but indeed could be define to actively generate noise-suppression waves since that is exactly how a resonator of this type and in this application works. Some other examples of such are discussed by Van Ligten (US 6,167,985) and Wirt et al. (US 3,913,702).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-39853985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights