Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/713,390

WORKSPACE WALL, AIR PURIFYING DEVICE, AND DESKTOP SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 24, 2024
Examiner
AUBREY, BETH A
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Woas SA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 12m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
922 granted / 1142 resolved
+28.7% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1181
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1142 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/713,390, filed 5/24/2024. Claims 14-18 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/10/2026. Claims 1-13 were amended and claims 19-25 added in the preliminary amendment filed 7/12/2024. Claims 1-13 and 19-24 are pending and examined. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2014 is being considered by the examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are no headings. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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, 7-9, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi(JP05232976; cited on IDs filed 5/24/2024). Regarding claims 1 and 19, Takahashi discloses a workspace wall(partition 44) for placement on a desk(see Fig. 2) to reduce noise within a noise reduction area(area within 44, partition 44 inherently reduces noises from an area outside the partition 44 meeting the claim limitation) in an operating orientation(see Fig. 2), the workspace wall(44) comprising a main wall element(back wall, see Fig. 2), at least one wing panel(side wall, see Fig. 2)), and at least one of at least one sound generating device(speaker 18, see para. [0009] and Fig. 2) for active noise reduction and a passive noise reduction element wherein at least one of the at least one sound generating device(18) is configured to reduce the level of noise within the noise reduction area(see para. [0012]), and at least one sound detection element for detecting a sound signal input (12, 14, 16, 20, see paras. [0007] and [0012] and Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses the workspace wall according to claim 1, wherein the workspace wall(44) comprises a first sound detection element(one of microphones 20, see para. [0011] and Fig. 2) for detecting a first sound signal input(from user, AC, copier) and a second sound detection element(other of 20) for detecting a second sound signal input, wherein the first sound detection element and the second sound detection element are arranged at at least one of different spatial positions and/or different spatial orientations(see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses the workspace wall according to claim 7, wherein the workspace wall comprising a sound signal optimization unit(22) which is configured to compare sound signal input and to calculate an optimized sound signal which includes one of the first sound signal input and second sound signal input from which the other of the first sound signal input and second sound signal input is at least partially subtracted(see para. [0011], control unit 22 collects and compares the sounds and inherently partially subtracts at least some of the sounds meeting the claim limitation). Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses the workspace wall for placement on a desk in an operating orientation to reduce noise within a noise reduction area according to claim 1, wherein the workspace wall comprises at least one sound generating device(18) for active noise reduction, at least one sound detection element(12, 14, 16, 20) for detecting a sound signal input (12) and at least one control unit(22) configured to compute a suppression sound signal based on the sound signal input, wherein the at least one sound generating device(18) is configured to generate a suppression sound(see para. [0011]) based on the suppression sound signal that results in at least partial destructive interference with sound within the noise reduction area(the control unit examines the signals and suppresses them meeting the claim limitation). Regarding claim 12, Takahashi discloses the workspace wall according to claim 9, wherein the control unit(22) is adapted to compute the suppression sound signal via the sound signal input, based on at least one of: a closed feedback loop, wherein the control unit is adapted to continuously adjust the suppression sound signal based on sound signal inputs influenced by temporally preceding generated suppression sounds and an analogue feedback, wherein the sound signal input-(-1-2) is inverted and amplified to compute the suppression sound signal(the microphone 20 is considered to form a feedback loop wit speaker 18 and controller 22, see para. [0011]). Regarding claim 13, Takahashi discloses a workspace wall for placement on a desk in an operating orientation to reduce noise within a noise reduction area(see Fig. 2), wherein the workspace wall comprises at least two sound generating devices(12, 14, 16, 18) for active noise reduction, at least two sound detection elements(20) for detecting at least two sound signal inputs at at least two different spatial positions and/or orientations(see Fig. 2), and at least one control unit(22, see para. [00 pars. [0008] – [0011]) configured to distinguish between an internal sound signal generated by sound within the noise reduction area and an external sound signal generated by sound outside the noise reduction area by comparison of the at least two sound signal inputs and generate one suppression sound signal or two different suppression sound signals, based on the external sound signal(the control unit 22 compares and suppresses the signals and is considered to meet the claim limitation), wherein the at least two sound generating devices(12, 14, 16, 18) are configured to generate one suppression sound or at least two different suppression sounds(see para. [0011]), based on the at least one suppression sound signal that results in at least partial destructive interference within the noise reduction area with sound generated outside the noise reduction area(the noise on the outside is considered interfered with by the control unit thereby meeting the claim limitation). 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Alberts(5,890,782; cited on PTO 892). Takahashi discloses the workspace wall according to claim 1, but lacks the at least one wing panel comprising at least one of at least one foldable portion such that the wing panel is convertible between an expanded configuration and a folded configuration; a connecting element such that the wing panel is connectable to the main wall element. Alberts discloses a workspace wall(10) having a main wall(20) and wing wall panels(18, 22) connected via a connecting element(hinge 12, see column 2, lines 43-47 and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the wall of Takahashi with a connecting element, such as disclosed by Alberts, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for the portability of the wall given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Nethken(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2019/01233609; cited on PTO892). Takahashi discloses the workspace wall according to claim1, but lacks the workspace wall comprising a front panel which is connected or connectable to the main wall element facing the noise reduction area forming a spacing between the main wall element and the front panel. Nethken discloses a workspace wall having a main wall element, wing panels and a front panel connected to and spaced from the main wall element(front of connectors in Fig. 1 or panels 70a, b, c, see Figs. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the wall of Takahashi with a connected front panel, such as disclosed by Nethken, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for the interconnection elements to the wall leaving the desk top available for use given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. Claims 4, 6, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Woo(KR20200111430; cited on IDS filed 5/24/2024. Regarding claims 4 and 20, Takahashi disclose the workspace wall according to claim 1, wherein a light source is provided(50, see para. [0010] and Fig. 2), but lacks the wall having a top panel extending at an angle from the wall(or a front panel), and a light source. Woo discloses an enclosure having a top panel extending from a wall. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the wall of Takahashi with a top panel, such as disclosed by Woo, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have further enclosed the noise reduction area to aid in noise reduction given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. The specific location of the light source, such as op top of the top panel, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. Regarding claims 6 and 22, Takahashi disclose the workspace wall according to claim 1, but lacks the use of a noise reducing layer on the wall. Woo discloses the enclosure having a wall and top panel with a sound absorbing/insulating layer(see para. [0045]). Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific material of the layer(see page 6, lines 7-12). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the wall of Takahashi with a noise reduction layer, such as disclosed by Woo, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have added further noise reduction to the noise reduction area given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. The specific location of the light source, such as op top of the top panel, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. The specific layer is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. Claims 5, 10-11, 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi. Regarding claims 5 and 21, Takahashi discloses the workspace wall according to claim 1, but lacks the specific dimensions of the wall. Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific dimensions of the wall(see page 5, lines 20-29). Therefore, the specific dimensions of the wall are considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. Regarding claims 10-11 and 23-24, Takahashi discloses the workspace wall according to claim 1, but lacks the specific location of the speakers and microphones. Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific dimensions of the wall(see page 10, lines 18-32 and page 12, lines 16-22). Therefore, the specific locations of the speakers and microphones are considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the wall and specific design requirements thereof. Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p. 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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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. BETH A. AUBREY Primary Examiner Art Unit 3633 /Beth A Aubrey/
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595660
PANEL-LAYER SYSTEM FOR THERMAL INSULATION OF THE SHADED SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590459
A JOINT FOR WALL PANELS MADE OF CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584351
SCREEN CHANNEL INSERTS FOR FENESTRATION UNITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584352
MOTORIZED DOOR SCREEN AND SHADE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584353
MOTORIZED WINDOW COVERING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+16.8%)
1y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1142 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month