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 § 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 1 – 20 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.
The use of the word “preferably”, the use of language within parenthesis, and the plural occurrences of the phrase “and/or” render the claims indefinite because the meets and bounds of the claims is not clearly established.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karay et al (US 10,711,670).
The Examiner has given little patentable weight to the preamble of the claim 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 1, Karay et al. teach an acoustic volume channel (Fig.1), comprising at least one layer for stopping transmission and/or absorption of sound/noise waves created by a noise source in a very wide frequency range (Abstract), at least one first layer (Fig.1, Item 81) of any geometric form and physical feature, at least one second layer (Fig.1, Item 25) of any geometric form and physical feature, at least one third layer (Fig.1, Item 82) of any geometric form and physical feature, at least one interior frame (Fig.1, Item 25) having any physical feature integral with itself or any geometrical form associated with it and comprising structures to form a different number of channels (Fig.1, Items 35a and 35b) therein, at least one interior acoustic volume (Fig.1, Item 31) having any geometric form and physical properties that fills the said interior frame as much as its interior volume and conforms to the geometric form of the interior frame, wherein the interior having any geometry positioned at a predetermined distance from the interior frame (Fig.1, Item 25) and in the outer region of the inner interior frame so as to form a channel (Fig.4, Item 31) between it and the inner interior frame, comprising at least one outer external acoustic volume channel (Fig.4, Item 17) in any form and physical properties and at least one outer frame (Fig.4, Item 25) in any geometric form and physical properties, that wherein the external acoustic volume channel and the internal acoustic volume by combining the first layer to completely or partially cover one surface of the second layer and said the third layer to cover another surface completely or partially according to purpose, with said the second layer, at least one first section and at least one section of at least two separate sections of each of the first layer and the third layer at a predetermined thickness, due to the geometric form and physical properties of all layers; the second layer of a predetermined thickness, which enables it to act as a second portion and wherein the first layer, second layer and third layer are positioned at a predetermined distance (Figs.1, 3, 10 and 11).
With respect to claim 2, Karay et al. teach wherein the first layer and the third layer are a plate (Fig.1, Items 81 and 82).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karay et al (US 10,711,670) in view of Gai et al. (CN 105810186).
With respect to claims 3, 13 and 14, Karay et al. teach the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fail to disclose wherein a mass is added on the first layer and the third layer to any part, in any form and weight, and position.
On the other hand, Gai et al. teach wherein a layer of an acoustic device comprises a membrane (Figs.1 and 2, Item 12) and a mass (Figs.1 and 2, Item 5) added to the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Gai et al. teachings with the Karay et al. design because it would tune the layers of the device to act as an acoustic resonator and/or sound absorber tuned to a predetermined frequency.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Karay et al. teach wherein the internal acoustic volume and the external acoustic volume channel are in any geometric form, preferably a circle, triangle, square, rectangle, polygon or any arbitrary form (Figs.1 and 4).
With respect to claims 5, 6, 16 and 17, Karay et al. wherein the first layer and the third layer comprise at least one inlet hole (Fig.1, Item 13) for the wave to enter and at least one exit hole (Fig.1, Item 75) for the wave to exit, with the hole dimensions are determined in a way that the holes do not disrupt the membrane/plate feature, the holes allow the sound wave to enter and/or exit the cell thus increase the effective length with predetermined geometric form, size and positioning (Fig.4).
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Karay et al. teach wherein at least one second layer comprises at least one mouth (Fig.1, Items 51a and 51b) connecting the external acoustic volume channel (Fig.4, Item 17) and the internal acoustic volume (Fig.4, Item 31).
With respect to claims 8 and 19, Karay et al. teach wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer are added to each other back-to-back (Figs.1, 3, 10 and 11).
With respect to claim 9, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a plurality of acoustic volume channel arrays being identical or different and interconnected in any preferred manner because it would tune the system to provide a desired acoustic performance as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Karay et al. teach wherein the layers are attached to each other or to any element by gluing and/or snapping and/or fitting and/or by any method of fastening/gluing/joining/attaching and/or can be are formed partially or fully integrated; and wherein the device have a circle, triangle, square, rectangle, polygon, or arbitrary form can be of different thicknesses depending on the same or different cell thicknesses, which can be formed by combining them side by side and/or back to back and/or straight and/or diagonal and/or arbitrarily, periodically and/or randomly (Fig.1). Additionally, it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide a protective layer forming a space with the first layer and/or the third layer, as disclosed by Fu et al. (CN 209855103).
With respect to claims 13 and 20, Karay et al. teach wherein the first layer and the third layer are a plate (Fig.1, Items 81 and 82).
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