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 – 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 Lee et al. (US 11,204,204), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 11,073,145).
With respect to claims 1, 11, 17 and 19, Yang et al. teach a device comprising an acoustic metasurface comprising an air intake (Fig.2, Item 4) coupled to a quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator (Fig.2, Item 2) comprising an air trace line configured for noise suppression of a fundamental frequency corresponding to a quarter wavelength of the fundamental frequency, wherein, when the acoustic metasurface is deployed proximate to a household item, the acoustic metasurface suppresses at least some noise generated by at least one fan of the household item at the fundamental frequency corresponding to the quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator (Abstract and Background).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, the Examiner considers that Yang et al. inherently teaches an executable method of designing an acoustic resonator comprising predetermined design parameters, as any other working engineering design.
However, Yang et al. fail to disclose wherein the metasurface is deployed proximate to a server and heat dissipation material configured to dissipate heat from the air trace line, and the quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator configured for noise suppression of odd harmonics of the fundamental frequency, comprising at least a third harmonic of the fundamental frequency and a fifth harmonic of the fundamental frequency.
On the other hand, Tang et al. teach placing an array of acoustic resonators (Figs.1 and 2, Items 22) proximate to a server (Fig.1, Item 16) to suppress noise generated by cooling fans (Figs.1 and 2, Item 20).
Lee et al. teach an array of acoustic resonators (Fig.1, Items 32) being of a heat dissipation material and configured to dissipate heat (Col.4, Lines 14 – 38).
Wang et al. teach a quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator (Fig.2) comprising an air trace line configured for noise suppression of a fundamental frequency corresponding to a quarter wavelength of the fundamental frequency and for noise suppression of odd harmonics of the fundamental frequency, comprising at least a third harmonic of the fundamental frequency and a fifth harmonic of the fundamental frequency (Fig.2; Col.8, Line 42 – Col.9, Line 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the Yang et al. resonator proximate to a server, as disclosed by Tang et al. and to provide the resonators being of a heat dissipation material, as taught by Lee et al. because it would provide a compact configuration in which a heat sink fins could also act as acoustic resonators; and the Wang et al. resonator configuration would help eliminate or suppress noise over a broad range of operating frequencies.
With respect to claim 2, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the acoustic metasurface comprising at least one of copper or aluminum because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claims 3 – 6, 13 and 16, the Examiner considers that the obvious combination to Yang et al., Tang et al. and Lee et al. teach the limitations described in the claims; the limitations do not depart from the scope and spirit of the Yang et al., Tang et al. and Lee et al.. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to choose from the finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
With respect to claim 7, Yang et al. teach wherein the air trace line comprises a meandering air trace line (Fig.2, Item 2).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, 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 quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator comprising a first air trace line configured 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 a second quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator comprising a second air trace line configured for second noise suppression of a second fundamental frequency corresponding to a second quarter wavelength of the second fundamental frequency, and wherein, when the acoustic metasurface is deployed proximate to a server, the acoustic metasurface suppresses at least some noise generated by at least one fan of the server at the fundamental frequency corresponding to the quarter wavelength quarter-wavelength-based acoustic pressure suppression resonator; and wherein the first air trace line and the second air trace line share the air intake (Fig.2, Item 4) (Specification: Embodiment 1).
With respect to claims 10, 14 and 15, Tang et al. and Lee et al. teach wherein the acoustic metasurface is configured for deployment proximate to a fan that cools the heat dissipation material, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 12, Yang et al. teach wherein the respective separate air trace lines are meandering to facilitate deployment of the acoustic metasurface as a module having dimensions that are substantially shorter than the respective different lengths (Fig.2, Item 2).
With respect to claim 18, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide wherein the operations further comprise controlling, by the system based on the design parameters, a printer to print the acoustic metasurface module, as disclosed by Walsh et al. (US 11,498,282).
With respect to claim 20, Lee et al. teach wherein the acoustic metasurface module (Fig.1, Items 32) is coupled to a heat sink (Fig.1, Item 35).
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 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights