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, 3, 6 – 15 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 219222805) in view of Tang et al. (US 7,891,464), and further in view of Pauley (US 10,755,687).
With respect to claims 1, 15, 18 and 19, Yang et al. teach a device comprising an acoustic metasurface (Fig.2) comprising an air intake (Fig.2, Item 4) coupled to a quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator (Fig.2, Item 2) comprising a meandering air trace line (Fig.2), for noise suppression of a fundamental frequency corresponding to a quarter wavelength of the fundamental frequency, wherein the acoustic metasurface is configured for deployment of the acoustic metasurface proximate to a household item/appliance, and wherein, when the acoustic metasurface is deployed proximate to a household item/appliance, the acoustic metasurface suppresses at least some noise generated by at least one fan of the household item/appliance at the fundamental frequency corresponding to the quarter wavelength (Abstract and Background); but fails to disclose wherein the acoustic metasurface is configured for deployment of the acoustic metasurface proximate to a server housing of a server.
Regarding claim 19, the Examiner considers that Yang et al. inherently teaches a method of designing the acoustic metasurface having predetermined parameters, as any other working engineering design.
Nevertheless, Tang et al. teaches an array of acoustic resonators (Figs.1 and 2, Item 22) configured for deployment proximate to a server housing of a server (Fig.1, Item 16) and suppressing at least some noise generated by at least one fan (Figs.1 and 2, Item 20) of the server at the fundamental frequency.
Pauley teaches acoustic surface (Fig.5D) comprising an air intake coupled via an impedance-matching tapered input (Fig.5D, Items 533A, B) to an acoustic pressure suppression resonator (Fig.5D, Items 531A, B).
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 Yang et al. design with the Tang et al. configuration because it would provide a broadband quarter wavelength resonator that could suppress sound at different frequency ranges; and the Pauly tapered input would reduce air flow distortions and vortex shedding of the air flowing into the resonator; additionally, the compression of the sound wave will cause an inverted resonance resulting in a destructive interference at a predetermined frequency.
With respect to claim 3, Yang et al. teach wherein the meandering air trace line is coupled to sound hard material of the quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator (Figs.2 and 4).
With respect to claims 6 – 14, Yang et al. teach wherein the fundamental frequency is a first fundamental frequency, wherein the quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator is a first of ten quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator for first noise suppression of the first fundamental frequency corresponding to a first quarter wavelength of the first fundamental frequency, wherein the acoustic metasurface further comprises 9 more quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator for 9 more noise suppression of 9 fundamental frequencies corresponding to the 9 quarter wavelengths of the 9 fundamental frequencies, and wherein, when the acoustic metasurface is coupled proximate to the server housing via the coupling, the acoustic metasurface suppresses at least some noise generated by the at least one fan of the server at the second fundamental frequency corresponding to the second quarter wavelength; and wherein all the quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonators share the air intake (Fig.2, Item 4 and Specification: Embodiment 1).
With respect to claim 20, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to control, by the system based on the design parameters, a printer to print the acoustic metasurface module, as disclose by Walsh et al. (US 11,498,282).
Claims 4, 5, 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 219222805) in view of Tang et al. (US 7,891,464) and Pauley (US 10,755,687), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 11,204,204).
Yang et al., Tang et al. and Pauley teach the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fail to disclose wherein at least part of an interior portion of the quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator comprises high thermal conductivity material or wherein at least part of an exterior portion of the quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator is coupled to heat dissipating plating.
On the other hand, Lee et al. teach an array of acoustic resonators (Fig.1, Item 32) comprising high thermal conductivity material or wherein at least part of an exterior portion of the resonators is coupled to heat dissipating plating (Fig.1, Item 35) (Col.4, Lines 14 – 38).
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 Lee et al. teachings with the Yang et al., Tang et al. and Pauley design because it would provide a compact configuration in wherein a heat sink could be also employ as a broadband acoustic resonator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a reference that was not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights