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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant's arguments filed 29 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks (Pg. 10) state the following:
“The Office Action applies Sugawara by asserting that paragraphs [0261] and [0272], silencers 22a-b at opening X of duct 12, and FIG. 40 discuss "the body having a cavity with a first partition and the cavity is divided by the first partition, and the cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves" as recited by current claim 1.
First, the text for Fig. 40 states that the device includes a silencer 22a and a silencer 22b having differing cavity depths and sound-absorbing materials 24a and 24b disposed in cavity portions 30a and 30b. (See Sugawara paragraphs [0270]-[0274]). On the contrary, amended claim 1 now recites "the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path." In other words, the claimed structure as illustrated by way of example in FIG. 2 is at least different than that in FIG. 40.”
See the alternative embodiment in Examiner Annotated Sugawara et al. Fig. 37 for the amended claim features; in particular, single cavity (30) that encloses a first partition (A) and the single cavity (30) is divided by the first partition (A) that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity (Labeled as “U” and described as “C” shaped; Para. 0279. C and U being essentially the same shape) and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path (Waves enter 32, travel to the right side then are folded and travel to the left side with a traveling length Ld; Para. 0279). Therefore, modifying Sugawara with the alternative embodiment of Fig. 37 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path for the purpose of minimizing the size of the sound device into a folded shape while increasing the acoustic traveling length (Para. 0279). The rejections have been updated to reflect the obvious rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
837
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 37
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US-20210164690-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugawara et al. (US-20210164690-A1) discloses a sound device (Device 10 of Fig. 34,39-40; Para. 0167-0170,0272,029) comprising:
a body coupled to an opening of a duct having noise from airflow, the body surrounding a circumference of the opening and the body is located at an endpoint of the duct (Body 22a-b surrounding and coupled to opening X of duct 12; Para. 0261,0272; Fig. 34,39; Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40); and
the body having a cavity with a first partition and the cavity is divided by the first partition (Body 22a-b with sub-cavities 30a-b divided by first partition A in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40), and the cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves (Cross-sectional area of the sound device being larger than the duct causes reflections to reduce sound; Para. 0161. Target wavelength/frequency is silenced by position of openings 22 and depth of each respective sub-cavity resonator 30; Para. 0273).
Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path.
However, in the alternative embodiment in Examiner Annotated Sugawara et al. Fig. 37: wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition (Cavity 30 with partition A) and the single cavity (30) is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity (Labeled as “U” and described as “C” shaped; Para. 0279. C and U being essentially the same shape), and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path (Waves enter 32, travel to the right side then are folded and travel to the left side with a traveling length Ld; Para. 0279).
Therefore, modifying Sugawara with the alternative embodiment of Fig. 37 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path for the purpose of minimizing the size of the sound device into a folded shape while increasing the acoustic traveling length (Para. 0279).
PNG
media_image2.png
589
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40
Regarding Claim 2, Sugawara et al. discloses the sound device of claim 1 further comprising:
a damping material for the noise surrounding the first partition; and a second partition having a length different than the first partition (In Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40: Damping material 24a surrounding first partition A; Para. 0302. Second partition B of different from A due to cavities 30a-b having different depth; Para. 0299).
Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose a second partition that forms a second U-shaped path in the single cavity. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of increasing the acoustic path, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
Sugawara et al. additionally fails to explicitly disclose the first partition (A in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40) reduces the noise at a starting part of the target frequencies and the second partition (B in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40) reduces the noise at an end part of the target frequencies. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of silencing sound in a wider band (Para. 0273), since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugawara et al. discloses the sound device of claim 2, wherein the first partition increases a range of the target frequencies and attenuation of the noise at the target frequencies (Follows as each cavity 30 is a silencer, made by its respective partition A/B, and is associated with its own target resonant frequency; Para. 0216-0218,273; Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugawara et al. discloses the sound device of claim 3, further comprising the duct having an extruding part from the body with a same size as the opening (In Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 11: duct 12 with A extruding from body 22 with same size 100mm diameter as opening of 12; Para. 0181). Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose the extruding part decreases a transmission quotient of the noise according to a depth associated with the extruding part (In Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 11: Depth of extruded part A being fixed at 250-L1 and length L1 designed at resonant frequency; Para. 0187). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing dimensions of the cavity based on suppressing desired frequency (In Fig. 12, shows optimizing dimensions L1/L2 of silencer/sound device to suppress first resonance 515hz of ventilation sleeve/duct; Para. 0186-0187,0195), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image3.png
589
875
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 11
Regarding Claim 5, Sugawara et al. discloses the sound device of claim 2 further comprising:
a grill at the opening and the grill causes sound from the airflow (Cover member 18 being a louver/grill may be installed on either end of duct 12, including at X where sound device is installed; Para. 0313-0316; Fig. 67; Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40. Sound incident/caused on cover member/grill; Para. 0246); and
the acoustic resonator mitigates the sound by tuning according to a third partition (Each sub-cavity resonator 30 is tuned via depth Ld to the first resonance of duct and cover member/grill (Para. 0326) wherein the inclusion of a third silencer 22 includes a third partition similar to A and B of Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40 (Para. 0266-0268); therefore, one of the sub-cavity resonators 30 and its respective partitions mitigates sound from the airflow).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugawara et al. discloses the sound device of claim 1, wherein the body is one of a round , a rectangular, a square, and an oval shape (Silencer/body 22 may comprise annular shape; Para. 0259; Fig. 31).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugawara et al. discloses the sound device of claim 1, wherein the opening is one of a round, a rectangular, a square, and an oval shape (Duct 12 described as tubular with a diameter; Para. 0290. Round and oval are disclosed.).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugawara et al. (US-20210164690-A1) discloses an acoustic resonator (Device 10 of Fig. 34,39-40; Para. 0167-0170,0272,029) comprising:
a body coupled to an opening of a duct having noise from airflow, the body surrounding a circumference of the opening and the body is located at an endpoint of the duct (Body 22a-b surrounding and coupled to opening X of duct 12; Para. 0261,0272; Fig. 34,39; Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40); and
the body having a cavity with a damping material for the noise surrounding a first partition and the cavity is divided by the first partition (Body 22a-b with sub-cavities 30a-b with damping material 24a surrounding first partition A in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40), and the cavity mitigates the noise at target frequencies by reflecting sound waves that travel through a path within the cavity lengthened by the first partition (Cross-sectional area of sound device being larger than the duct causes reflections to reduce sound waves; Para. 0161. Target wavelength/frequency is silenced by position of openings 22 and depth of each respective sub-cavity resonator 30; Para. 0273. Path through 14 lengthened because of sub-cavities 30a-b formed by partitions A-B).
Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path.
However, in the alternative embodiment in Examiner Annotated Sugawara et al. Fig. 37: wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition (Cavity 30 with partition A) and the single cavity (30) is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity (Labeled as “U” and described as “C” shaped; Para. 0279. C and U being essentially the same shape), and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path (Waves enter 32, travel to the right side then are folded and travel to the left side with a traveling length Ld; Para. 0279).
Therefore, modifying Sugawara with the alternative embodiment of Fig. 37 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path for the purpose of minimizing the size of the sound device into a folded shape while increasing the acoustic traveling length (Para. 0279).
Regarding Claim 9, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 10, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 3. Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 11, Sugawara et al. discloses the acoustic resonator of claim 8 further comprising:
a grill at the opening and the grill causes sound from the airflow (Cover member 18 being a louver/grill may be installed on either end of duct 12, including at X where sound device is installed; Para. 0313-0316; Fig. 67; Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40. Sound incident/caused on cover member/grill; Para. 0246); and
the acoustic resonator mitigates the sound by tuning according to a third partition (Each sub-cavity resonator 30 is tuned via depth Ld to the first resonance of duct and cover member/grill (Para. 0326) wherein the inclusion of a third silencer 22 includes a third partition similar to A and B of Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40 (Para. 0266-0268); therefore, one of the sub-cavity resonators 30 and its respective partitions mitigates sound from the airflow).
Regarding Claim 12, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 4. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 13, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 6. Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 14, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 7. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 15, Sugawara et al. (US-20210164690-A1) an acoustic resonator (Device 10 of Fig. 34,39-40; Para. 0167-0170,0272,029) comprising:
a circular body connected to an opening of a duct having noise from airflow (Silencer/body 22 may comprise annular shape with a diameter is a circle; Para. 0259-0261; Fig. 31), the circular body surrounding a circumference of the opening and the circular body is located at an endpoint of the duct (Body 22a-b surrounding and coupled to opening X of duct 12; Para. 0261,0272; Fig. 34,39; Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40); and
the circular body having a cavity with a damping material for the noise surrounding a first partition that is circular and the cavity is divided by the first partition (Body 22a-b with sub-cavities 30a-b divided by first partition A in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40), and the cavity mitigates the noise at target frequencies by reflecting sound waves that travel through a path within the cavity lengthened by the first partition (Cross-sectional area of sound device being larger than the duct causes reflections to reduce sound waves; Para. 0161. Target wavelength/frequency is silenced by position of openings 22 and depth of each respective sub-cavity resonator 30; Para. 0273. Path through 14 lengthened because of sub-cavities 30a-b formed by partitions A-B).
Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose the opening as a square opening. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Sugawara et al.
Additionally, Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path.
However, in the alternative embodiment in Examiner Annotated Sugawara et al. Fig. 37: wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition (Cavity 30 with partition A) and the single cavity (30) is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity (Labeled as “U” and described as “C” shaped; Para. 0279. C and U being essentially the same shape), and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path (Waves enter 32, travel to the right side then are folded and travel to the left side with a traveling length Ld; Para. 0279).
Therefore, modifying Sugawara with the alternative embodiment of Fig. 37 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the body having a single cavity that encloses a first partition and the single cavity is divided by the first partition that forms a first U-shaped path in the single cavity, and the single cavity forming an acoustic resonator at target frequencies that mitigates the noise by reflecting sound waves and lengthening a path for the noise through the first U-shaped path for the purpose of minimizing the size of the sound device into a folded shape while increasing the acoustic traveling length (Para. 0279).
Regarding Claim 19, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 5. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 20, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 4. Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US-20210164690-A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN-116406995-A).
Regarding Claim 16, Sugawara et al. discloses the acoustic resonator of claim 15 further comprising:
a second partition (In Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40: Second partition B).
Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose the second partition being concentric with the first partition, and the first partition (A in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40) reduces the noise at a starting part of the target frequencies and the second partition (B in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40) reduces the noise at an end part of the target frequencies.
However, Wang et al. (CN-116406995-A) teaches the second partition being concentric with the first partition (Wang: Plurality of partitions 400 concentric with each other; Para. 0056; Fig. 4). Wang et al. and Sugawara et al. are in similar fields comprising noise reducing cavities. Modifying Sugawara et al. with teachings of Wang et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the second partition being concentric with the first partition for the purpose of increasing the length of the acoustic channel to more fully consuming the low frequency part of the sound wave (Wang: Para. 0054-0056).
Sugawara et al. as modified by of Wang et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first partition (A in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40) reduces the noise at a starting part of the target frequencies and the second partition (B in Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40 modified by Wang to be concentric with A) reduces the noise at an end part of the target frequencies. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of silencing sound in a winder band (Para. 0273), since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 17, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 3. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 18, Sugawara et al. as modified by Wang et al. discloses the acoustic resonator of claim 16, wherein the first partition increases a range of the target frequencies and attenuation of the noise at the target frequencies (Follows as each sub-cavity 30 is a silencer, made by its respective partition A/B, and is associated with its own target resonant frequency; Para. 0216-0218,273; Examiner Annotated Sugawara Fig. 40).
Sugawara et al. fails to explicitly disclose discloses the range of the target frequencies excluding middle frequencies. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing each silencer based on desired wavelength ranges (Para. 0273), since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights