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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed12/17/2025, with respect to the claim objections, 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 rejected by Song, and the claim 14 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections, 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 rejected by Song, and the claim 14 rejections of 9/17/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim1 under Zhonghua et al. CN 106594815 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Zhonghua teaches the fan being within a housing therefore enclosing the fan. The inlet also has multiple holes, therefore teaching the added limitations. Also, the amended language created new issues.
The action is updated below and is made final necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Serration being defined as “a single tooth or notch in a serrate edge” Collins Dictionary [retrieved 2025-09-12]. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/serration>
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “wherein: the compressor assembly comprises an enclosure for enclosing the silencer; the enclosure comprises a plurality of holes through which the airflow flows.” This is a repeat limitation that was moved up into claim 1 and should be removed for clarity of the claim.
Claim 25 recites “A vacuum cleaner comprising a compressor assembly or the silencer”. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “A vacuum cleaner comprising a compressor assembly and the silencer” because claim 1 requires both the compressor assembly and silencer and not one or the other.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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 4 and 5 recited “each hole” in line 2 of each claim. It is unclear if the limitation is now referring to the plurality of holes of the enclosure or the silencer. Therefore, the claims fail to point out the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhonghua et al. CN 106594815.
Regarding claim 1, Zhonghua discloses: A compressor assembly (Fig 1) comprising:
a compressor (Fig 4: 2) for generating an airflow through the compressor assembly (Airflow flows though inlet 121 through 2 and out 32); and
a silencer (Fig 2: 32) located downstream of the compressor (32 is downstream from 2),
the silencer comprising: a plurality of holes (321) through which a portion of the airflow flows (Fig 1: Airflow flows through the inlet and fan and out through 32 which has 321);
a first end (Fig 2: 32 that is connected to the fan housing 31) proximal to the compressor;
a second end (Fig 2: End of 32 where 322 is located) distal to the compressor;
serrations (322) provided at one of the first end and the second end and between which a further portion of the airflow flows (322 is downstream);
an enclosure (Fig 1: body 1) for enclosing the silencer, the enclosure comprising a plurality of holes through which the airflow flows (Par 45: Air inlet is formed from a plurality of air inlet holes).
Regarding claim 4, Zhonghua discloses:
wherein each hole is polygonal in shape (Par 58 of translated specification provided: The hole is polygonal).
Regarding claim 12, Zhonghua discloses:
the airflow is emitted from the compressor in an axial direction (Airflow flows axially though inlet 121 through 2 and out 32); the silencer is cylindrical in shape (32 is cylindrical); and the airflow passes through the plurality of holes of the silencer and between the serrations in a radial direction (Airflow flows axially though inlet 121 through 2 and out 321 and 322 of 32).
Regarding claim 13, Zhonghua discloses:
wherein the silencer is mounted to the compressor at the first end (Fig 2: 32 is mounted at the first end to 31), and the serrations are provided at the second end (322 is located on the second end).
Regarding claim 14, Zhonghua discloses: A silencer (Fig 2: 32) for a compressor (Fig 4: 2) comprising:
a cylindrical body (Fig 2: 32 is cylindrical) having a plurality of holes (321) through which a portion of an airflow generated by the compressor flows (Airflow flows though inlet 121 through 2 and out 32); and
serrations (322) provided at an end of the cylindrical body (322 is at the end of 32) and between which a further portion of the airflow flows (322 is downstream).
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhonghua et al. CN 106594815
Regarding claim 2, Zhonghua discloses:
wherein each serration has a height (Par 42: 322 has a width to cause turbulence of the exhaust air and suppress the exhaust air vortex generation. This reduces noise.)
However, Zhonghua is silent as to: wherein each serration has a height of no less than 2 mm or no greater than 10 mm.
However, there is no criticality or unexpected results in Applicant’s disclosure for the claimed range. The courts have held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the serrations to be no less than 2 mm or no greater than 10 mm if through routine experimentation such a range was found to produce the most optimum noise suppression of the exhaust air.
Regarding claim 5, Zhonghua discloses:
wherein each hole has an area (Par 56: each hole 321 has an area that makes up 30% of the 32. By having this, it ensures noise can be diffused)
However, Zhonghua is silent as to: wherein each hole has an area of no greater than 7 mm2 or no less than 1.5 mm2.
However, there is no criticality or unexpected results in Applicant’s disclosure for the claimed range. The courts have held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the area of each hole to be no greater than 7 mm2 or no less than 1.5 mm2 if through routine experimentation such a range was found to produce the most optimum noise suppression of the exhaust air.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 10-11, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 recites “the enclosure comprises a plurality of holes through which the airflow flows; and each hole of the silencer is aligned with a respective hole of the enclosure” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art is King et al. WO2020099833 which teaches and enclosure in view of Zhonghua et al. CN 106594815 which teaches a fan silencer attached to the outlet. However, there is not a combination that can teach the holes of each being aligned to one another.
Claim 10 recites “an acoustic foam located downstream of the compressor and upstream of the silencer” and is considered allowable subject matter. The placement of an acoustic foam is not found in the prior art of record.
Claim 25 recites “a vacuum cleaner comprising a compressor or the silencer” and is considered allowable subject matter. The compressor and silencer structure being within a vacuum cleaner is not taught by the prior art found in the search.
Claim 8 and 11 depends off of allowable claim 7 and 10, therefore are allowable.
Claims 14-15, 17-21, 23-24 are allowed.
Claim 14 is allowed and distinguishes itself in the same manner as in claim 10.
Claim 15 is allowed and distinguishes itself in the same manner as in claim 7.
Claims 17-21 and 23-24 depends off of allowable claim 15, therefore are allowable.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745