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 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the primary noise suppressor" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 claim 20, 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 a noise suppressor comprising a first faceplate situated within a hallow cavity along a longitudinal axis of the noise suppressor, the first faceplate having a plurality of perforations configured to allow an unwanted noise generated by a stream of gas as the stream of gas propagates through the noise suppressor to propagate through the first faceplate; a second faceplate to form an outermost assembly of a secondary noise suppressor that is situated within the secondary noise suppressor along the longitudinal axis of the secondary noise suppressor; a passive acoustic absorption chamber, situated within the hallow cavity of the primary noise suppressor along the longitudinal axis of the primary noise suppressor between the first faceplate and the second inner faceplate, comprising one or more porous sound absorption materials, one or more sound insulations, one or more acoustic fabrics, or one or more acoustic paints to absorb at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the first faceplate; and an active acoustic suppression chamber situated within the hallow cavity of the primary noise suppressor along the longitudinal axis of the primary noise suppressor between the first faceplate and the second inner faceplate, the active acoustic suppression chamber having a plurality of acoustic suppression elements that are normal to the longitudinal axis of the primary noise suppressor, 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.
On the other hand, Porte et al. teach a noise suppressor comprising a first faceplate (Fig.1, Item 2a) situated within a hallow cavity along a longitudinal axis of the noise suppressor, the first faceplate having a plurality of perforations configured to allow (Fig.1, Items 4) an unwanted noise generated by a stream of gas as the stream of gas propagates through the noise suppressor to propagate through the first faceplate; a second faceplate (Fig.1, Item 3) to form an outermost assembly of the noise suppressor that is situated within the noise suppressor along the longitudinal axis of the noise suppressor; a passive acoustic absorption chamber (Fig.1, Item 2b), situated within the hallow cavity of the noise suppressor along the longitudinal axis of the noise suppressor between the first faceplate and the second inner faceplate, comprising one or more porous sound absorption materials, one or more sound insulations, one or more acoustic fabrics, or one or more acoustic paints to absorb at least some of the unwanted noise that propagates through the first faceplate; and an active acoustic suppression chamber (Fig.1, Item 1) situated within the hallow cavity of the noise suppressor along the longitudinal axis of the noise suppressor between the first faceplate and the second inner faceplate, the active acoustic suppression chamber having a plurality of acoustic suppression elements that are normal to the longitudinal axis of the noise suppressor, 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 (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.
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.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/439,004 (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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The references of the prior art fail to disclose, or suggest any obvious combination of the limitations described in claims 1 or 11, particularly, an air amplification system comprising primary and secondary noise suppressors mechanically connected to each other.
Conclusion
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
June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights