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 .
Examiner’s note: Please note that the previous office action included the following statement: “Regarding claim 22, Lee, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose: the upper body includes a plurality of the separation walls, wherein the plurality of separation walls are arranged on a closed curve enclosing the upper hole in the first direction.” which included a clear and obvious typo, wherein “claim 22” within the above statement should have been “claim 23”. This was a clear and obvious typo because the recited limitation is clearly and obviously claim 23 not claim 22, and because the office action also clearly identified in the prior art rejections section that reference Lee discloses all of claim 22. Examiner apologizes for this typo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior claim objections, 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections/rejections.
Regarding the prior drawing objection regarding “the guide flow path (227) is disposed so as not to overlap the first flow path (217) in the first direction (Z)”, upon further detailed consideration the objection is hereby withdrawn; examiner appreciates Applicant’s elaboration.
Regarding all the other prior drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all those objections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 2 of page 20 through paragraph 2 of page 24 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation of the amended claim is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details, particularly the discussion of the (amended) last limitation of claim 1. It is noted that Applicant has correctly anticipated where Examiner would focus next (i.e. Applicant remarked on para 2 of page 23 in Applicant’s Remarks “While it may be argued that any physical wall in a fluid flow path inherently reflects some degree of acoustic energy…”) and (in para 1 of page 24) elaborated well/logically regarding their opinion that Lee’s structure does not have the required configuration.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner’s note directly below was initially made in the office action mailed on 6/11/2026.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examining this application, the term “flow path”, which is used within terms such as “guide flow path”, “first flow path”, etc., is interpreted to reference a structure for guiding air and not interpreted to mean a path of fluid flow. This interpretation is supported by for example paras 0114, 0141, and also for example Fig 11 wherein reference characters identifying flow paths point to channels/spaces of the structure rather than the dashed lines of the fluid flow.
If the term “flow path” is instead meant to identify a path of fluid flow, then this would result in various objections/rejections regarding clarity regarding identification of the paths of fluid flow. An example of such an objection would be:
Reference character 227 references a “guide flow path”, however, in the Figures (e.g. Fig 11), this reference character does not appear to identify a path, it instead appears to identify an area or region. It is suggested that, in the figures, the leader line of this reference character point instead to one of the dashed arrows which appear to identify a path. The following reference characters (all in at least, for example, Fig 11) suffer from a similar deficiency thus are similarly objected to: 217 (a “first flow path”), 218 (a “second flow path”), 215 (a “third flow path”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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) 1-4, 8-10, 13, 15-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (last line) recites the limitation “the closed second end of the second flow path” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the second end of the second flow path --. Applicant may then add “that is closed” after the suggested rewriting, but this would be superfluous.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, 13, 15-25 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 22, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 100725515 B1 (hereinafter Lee).
Examiner's note: The examiner's submitted English translation of Lee, submitted with this office action, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
A noise reduction device for use in a cleaner comprising:
at least one guide flow path (first guide flow path combined with second guide flow path in Annotated Fig 1a) that receives air discharged through an air outlet of the cleaner (Annotated Fig 1a);
a first flow path (Annotated Fig 1a) having a first end that communicates with the at least one guide flow path and a second end that is open (Fig 1 shows all this),
the first flow path extending in a first direction (Annotated Fig 1a);
and a second flow path (Annotated Fig 1a) having a first end of the second flow path that is fluidly connected to the first flow path between the first end and the second end of the first flow path (Annotated Fig 1a shows all this),
and a second end of the second flow path that is closed (Annotated Fig 1a; closed by the walls shown at the arrowhead of “second end”),
the second flow path extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction (Annotated Fig 1a),
wherein the at least one guide flow path overlaps the second flow path in the first direction (Annotated Fig 1a shows this for the “second guide flow path” and the “second flow path”),
and wherein the second flow path is configured such that an acoustic wave of the air introduced into the first flow path propagates into the second flow path and is reflected from the closed second end of the second flow path back to the first flow path (Discussion follows immediately below).
Discussion: See Annotated Fig 1b, wherein the “second end of the second flow path” may be defined, as identified by the dashed lines, to include Lee’s “structure causing reflection” (highlighted with shading); and wherein the “first flow path” is essentially right next to the “second end of the second flow path” because the “first end of the second flow path” may be define as tiny. This mapping identifies that Lee’s structure has the required configuration, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand (e.g. see support from Applicant’s own remark in para 2 of page 23 of Applicant’s Remarks: “any physical wall in a fluid flow path inherently reflects some degree of acoustic energy”): an acoustic wave, which propagates from the first flow path into the second flow path, is reflected from Lee’s second end of the second flow path, via Lee’s “structure causing reflection” and via/by/through a tiny “first end of the second flow path”, back to the first flow path. The mapping can be made such that even a relatively small reflection of some degree of acoustic energy accomplishes such.
Note that the relatively-broadly claimed “first flow path” and “second flow path”, including the first end of the first flow path and the second end of the first flow path and the first end of the second flow path and the second end of the second flow path, may each be defined/mapped somewhat arbitrarily, as for example illustrated with Annotated Fig 1b, in order to meet claimed requirements, while still meeting applicable requirements throughout the rest of the current claim set.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1a
PNG
media_image2.png
630
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1b
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses:
the at least one guide flow path comprises:
a first guide flow path that communicates with the air outlet, and has a ring shape around a central axis that extends parallel to the first direction (Annotated Fig 1a indicates all this);
and a second guide flow path having a first end that communicates with the first guide flow path and a second end that communicates with the first flow path, the second guide flow path extending in the second direction (Annotated Fig 1a shows all this).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses:
a center of the first flow path overlaps the central axis in the first direction (Annotated Fig 1a indicates this, wherein Annotated Fig 1a labels only one side/portion of the “first flow path” for clarity, but the first flow path also exists at the region near the leader line of “second end” in Annotated Fig 1a).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses:
the first flow path has a circular cross-sectional shape when viewed in plan (Annotated Fig 1a indicates this, if the first flow path in Fig 1 were viewed in the first direction, looking from right to left in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses:
the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other (Annotated Fig 1a shows this).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses:
the first end and the second end of the first flow path have respective different cross-sectional areas (the first end and the second end are essentially regions/portions which can be defined/chosen somewhat arbitrarily, thus their resulting respective cross sections may be defined to be different or corresponding).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses:
the first end and the second end of the first flow path have corresponding cross-sectional areas (the first end and the second end are essentially regions/portions which can be defined/chosen somewhat arbitrarily, thus their resulting respective cross sections may be defined to be different or corresponding).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses:
a thickness of the second guide flow path in the first direction is greater than a thickness of the second flow path in the first direction (Annotated Fig 1b shows this).
PNG
media_image3.png
448
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1b
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses:
the at least one guide flow path is disposed so as not to overlap the first flow path in the first direction (at the second end of the first flow path in Annotated Fig 1a).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses:
a lower body (shown generally in Annotated Fig 1c) coupled to the cleaner,
a portion of the first flow path being defined between the at least one guide flow path and the lower body (at the second guide flow path of the guide flow path in Annotated Fig 1a);
and an upper body (shown generally in Annotated Fig 1c) that is coupled to the lower body,
the upper body defining another portion of the first flow path, and the second flow path being defined between the lower body and the upper body (Annotated Fig 1a combined with Annotated Fig 1c indicate all this).
PNG
media_image4.png
629
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1c
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses:
the lower body comprises: a lower lateral wall that defines a lower space; a lower top wall that is connected to one end of the lower lateral wall and is positioned over the lower space; a lower hole that is provided in the lower top wall; and a lower cover that is positioned to overlap the lower hole in the first direction, and is disposed in the lower space (Annotated Fig 1c indicates all this).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses:
the upper body comprises: an upper lateral wall defining an upper space; an upper top wall connected to one end of the upper lateral wall and positioned over the upper space; and an upper hole provided in the upper top wall (Annotated Fig 1c indicates all this).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses:
the upper body further comprises an upper cover that is positioned to cover the upper top wall and the upper hole, and at least one separation wall that is positioned to separate the upper cover and the upper top wall (Annotated Fig 1c indicates all this).
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses:
a center of the upper hole and a center of the lower hole overlap each other in the first direction (Annotated Fig 1c indicates this).
Regarding claim 25, Lee discloses:
a diameter of the upper hole corresponds to a diameter of the lower hole (in that they are parallel or comparable or similar or analogous or equivalent in function at least).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 18, 20, 21, 23 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.
Claim 18, 20, 21, 23 were each identified as allowable over prior art in the office action mailed on 6/11/2026. Please see allowable subject matter in that office action for details.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights