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 – 5, 9 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (KR 20220023621) in view of He et al. (CN 112240580).
With respect to claims 1, 11, 12 and 16, Jeon et al. teach a system comprising a unit cell (Fig.4, Item 110) of a metasurface (Fig.1) configured for sound absorption of an incoming acoustic wave within a narrowband frequency range (Abstract), the unit cell comprising a resonator comprising an air cavity (Fig.4, Item S) within supporting material, the resonator comprising a chamber (Fig.4, Item S) and a neck port (Figs.3 and 4, Item 125) that exposes the air cavity to the incoming acoustic wave; but fail to disclose an electroacoustic transducer coupled to the resonator, the electroacoustic transducer configured to convert air pressure, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave, to electricity that is harvested as energy.
On the other hand, He et al. teach a resonator comprising a chamber (Fig.1, Item 21) and a neck port (Fig.1, Items 22 and 10) that exposes the air cavity to the incoming acoustic wave; and an electroacoustic transducer (Fig.1, Item 5) coupled to the resonator, the electroacoustic transducer configured to convert air pressure, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave, to electricity that is harvested as energy (Specification: ¶ starting with “With reference to FIG.1, the working principle…”).
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 He et al. teachings with the Jeon et al. design because it would provide an energy harvesting configuration that advantageously would generate energy from the change in pressure of the fluid coming into the resonator, energy that could be use to power a system component as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
With respect to claim 2, He et al. teach wherein the electroacoustic transducer comprises a piezoelectric transducer (Fig.1, Item 5, Abstract).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, He et al. teach wherein the piezoelectric transducer (Fig.1, Item 5) is positioned proximate to a wall of the neck (Fig.1, Item 10) cavity.
With respect to claims 4 and 16, He et al. teach further comprising an energy storage device (Fig.1, Item 8) electrically coupled to the electroacoustic transducer (Fig.1, Item 5) to obtain and store the energy (Specification: ¶ starting with “a plurality of piezoelectric ceramic sheets 5 connected in series…”).
With respect to claims 5 and 17, He et al. teach further comprising a resonant frequency reconfiguration device (Fig.1, Item 7) electrically coupled to draw current from the energy storage device to adjust a resonant frequency of the resonator, to resonate the resonator at the resonant frequency to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave (Specification: description under “Specific implementation examples”).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, He et al. teach the use of multiples piezoelectric transducers (Fig.1, Items 5) positioned proximate to a first and second portions on the neck cavity (Fig1, Item 10), and wherein the electricity is first electricity harvested as first energy (as discussed regarding claim 4), the Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a second piezoelectric transducer configured to convert the air pressure, corresponding to the incoming acoustic wave entering the resonator, to second electricity harvested as second energy because it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
With respect to claim 13, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to deploy an acoustic metasurface proximate to a server to phase cancel the at least some noise corresponding to the acoustic waves emanating from a server, as disclosed by Doll (US 7,314,113) or Tang et al. (US 7,891,464).
With respect to claim 15, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to form the acoustic metasurface by a three-dimensional printer that prints the supporting material as a solid structure in layers, in conjunction with omitting printing of the air cavity resonators as disclosed by Walsh et al. (US 11,498,282).
With respect to claim 19, He et al. teach further comprising a controller (Fig.1, Item 7) and a sensor (Fig.1, Item 6), wherein the controller is coupled to the sensor, and wherein the controller is coupled to control operation of the resonant frequency reconfiguration device (Fig.1, Items 4, 31 and 32) based on data obtained by the controller from the sensor.
With respect to claim 20, He et al. teach wherein the piezoelectric transducers (Fig,.1, Items 5) are coupled to the at least some of the unit cell resonators proximate to respective areas (Fig.1, Item 10) of the respective air cavities that are respective higher acoustic pressure areas relative to lower acoustic pressure areas of the respective air cavities. The Examiner considers that any person with ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that the neck of a Helmholtz resonator is the higher acoustic pressure area.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (KR 20220023621) in view of He et al. (CN 112240580), and further in view of Fischer (GB 2 288 660).
Jeon et al. and He et al. teach the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fail to disclose further comprising a heater electrically coupled to the electroacoustic transducer to convert at least some of the energy to heat, to heat air in the resonator as part of determining a resonant frequency of the resonator, to resonate the resonator at the resonant frequency to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave.
Nevertheless, Fischer teaches a Helmholtz resonator (Fig.5, Item 4) comprising a heater (Fig.5, Item 5) to heat air in the resonator as part of determining a resonant frequency of the resonator, to resonate the resonator at the resonant frequency to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave (Abstract).
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 Fischer teachings with the Jeon et al. and He et al. design and electrically coupled a heater to the electroacoustic transducer to convert at least some of the energy to heat because it would provide a system in where the actuators would need minimal, if any, energy consumption from a source outside of the system.
Claims 7, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (KR 20220023621) in view of He et al. (CN 112240580), and further in view of Kostun et al. (US 6,792,907).
Jeon et al. and He et al. teach the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fail to disclose wherein the resonator comprises a moveable partition that is moveable to change a volume of the resonator, and further comprising an actuator electrically coupled to the electroacoustic transducer to move the moveable partition, using at least some of the energy, to change the volume of the resonator as part of determining a resonant frequency of the resonator, to resonate the resonator at the resonant frequency to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave, or wherein the resonator comprises a device comprising a moveable portion that is moveable to change airflow in the resonator, the device coupled to the electroacoustic transducer to move the moveable portion, using at least some of the energy, to change the airflow of the resonator as part of determining a resonant frequency of the resonator, to resonate the resonator at the resonant frequency to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave.
However, Kostun et al. teach a Helmholtz resonator (Fig.3, Item 12”) comprises a moveable partition (Fig.3, Item 14”) that is moveable to change a volume of the resonator, and further comprising an actuator (Fig.3, Item 18”) to move the moveable partition to change the volume of the resonator as part of determining a resonant frequency of the resonator, to resonate the resonator at the resonant frequency to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave (Abstract), or wherein the resonator comprises a device comprising a moveable portion (Fig.3, Item 34’’’) that is moveable to change airflow in the resonator as part of determining a resonant frequency of the resonator, to resonate the resonator at the resonant frequency to phase cancel the incoming acoustic wave, responsive to the unit cell being exposed to the incoming acoustic wave (Abstract) (Col.5, Line 11 – Col.6, Line 42).
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 Kostun et al. configuration with the Jeon et al. and He et al. design because it would provide a system in where the actuators would need minimal, if any, energy consumption from a source outside of the system.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/814,055 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter described in the current claims are contained within the reference application claims. Additionally, both sets of claims are describing the same invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 571-272-3985. 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 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights