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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed12/17/2025, with respect to the claim objections and 35 USC 112b rejection 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claim objections, 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 rejected by Song, and the claim 14 rejections of 9/17/2025 has been withdrawn.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 claim 1 under Zhonghua et al. CN 106594815 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “wherein the second end of the silencer is closed by a wall of the enclosure” is not taught by Zhonghua. Zhonghua teaches the fan being within a housing therefore the distal end of the serrations are enclosed by the wall 1 of the enclosure. It seems that applicant wants the claim to recite that the serrations are fully enclosed by the enclosure and is arguing such. Therefore, if applicant were to amend the limitation towards “fully enclosed” serrations, then it would overcome the prior art of record.
The action is updated below.
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 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 12-13 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); and
an enclosure (Fig 1: body of 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),
wherein the second end of the silencer is closed by a wall of the enclosure (Fig 2: End of 32 where 322 is located is enclosed by the two side walls and bottom of the body of 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhonghua discloses:
wherein each hole of the silencer and/or the enclosure 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).
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 of the silencer 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 “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 and 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
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
Prosecution Insights