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 § 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 Wang et al. (CN 109505808).
With respect to claim 1, Wang et al. teach a silencing air duct device (Figs.3 and 4) for noise reduction of an apparatus to be silenced, wherein the silencing air duct device is separately provided with a silencing air duct (Figs.3 and 4, Items 111 – 114) and a micro-perforated cavity (Figs.3 and 4, Items 152 and 153); two ends (Figs.3 and 4, Items 12 and 13) of the silencing air duct are open, wherein one end of the silencing air duct is configured for communicating with external air, and the other end of the silencing air duct is configured for communicating with an air inlet or an air outlet of the apparatus to be silenced (Abstract); the micro-perforated cavity (Figs.3 and 4, Items 152 and 153) is provided on a gas flow path of the silencing air duct (Figs.3 and 4, Item 111), and is communicated with the silencing air duct by means of a communication hole (Figs.3 and 4, Items 142 and 143) provided in the micro-perforated cavity.
With respect to claim 2, Wang et al. teach wherein there is at least one micro-perforated cavity (Figs.3 and 4, Items 152 and 153), which is located in the silencing air duct (Figs.3 and 4, Item 111) so as to separate the silencing air duct into at least two sections with different cross-sections (Figs.3 and 4, Items 111 and 112).
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobson (US 2,676,678).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Jacobson teaches a silencing air duct device (Fig.8, Item P) for noise reduction of an apparatus to be silenced, wherein the silencing air duct device is separately provided with a silencing air duct (Fig.8, Item P) and a micro-perforated cavity (Fig.8, volume between Items 40 and 41); two ends of the silencing air duct are open, wherein one end of the silencing air duct is configured for communicating with external air, and the other end of the silencing air duct is configured for communicating with an air inlet or an air outlet of the apparatus to be silenced; the micro-perforated cavity is provided on a gas flow path of the silencing air duct, and is communicated with the silencing air duct by means of a communication hole (Fig.8, Items H) provided in the micro-perforated cavity, and further comprising a sound-absorbing material layer (Fig.8, Item M), which is laid on an inner wall of the silencing air duct and an inner wall of the micro-perforated cavity (Fig.8, Col.4, Lines 11 – 22).
With respect to claim 2, Jacobson teaches wherein there is at least one micro-perforated cavity (Fig.8, volume between Items 40 and 41), which is located in the silencing air duct (Fig.8, Item P) so as to separate the silencing air duct into at least two sections with different cross-sections (Fig.8, sections about Items P and H).
With respect to claims 13 and 16, Jacobson teaches wherein a preset height difference is present between the two ends of the silencing air duct (Fig.8, Item P); when the silencing air duct device is installed at the air inlet of the apparatus to be silenced, the inlet of the silencing air duct is lower in height than the outlet of the silencing air duct; or when the silencing air duct is installed at the air outlet of the apparatus to be silenced, the outlet of the silencing air duct is lower in height than the inlet of the silencing air duct (Fig.8).
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 – 11, 14, 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson (US 2,676,678) in view of DeMarchis et al. (US 6,643,130).
With respect to claim 3, Jacobson teaches the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fails to disclose comprising a clamping plate assembly and side plates; the clamping plate assembly at least comprises two clamping plates, and adjacent clamping plates are spaced apart by a preset distance, and the side plates seal and fix to two sides of the clamping plate assembly respectively so as to cooperate with the clamping plates to form the at least one silencing air duct.
On the other hand, DeMarchis et al. teach a clamping plate assembly (Fig.3A, Items 64) and side plates (Fig.3A, Item 64 section about Item 65); the clamping plate assembly at least comprises two clamping plates (Fig.3A, Items 64a – 64d), and adjacent clamping plates are spaced apart by a preset distance (Fig.3A), and the side plates seal and fix to two sides of the clamping plate assembly respectively so as to cooperate with the clamping plates to form the at least one silencing air duct (Fig.1, Items 16 and 18).
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 DeMarchis et al. clamping configuration with the Jacobson teachings because it would provide an assembly configuration that permits easy dimension customization of the air duct as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without needing additional equipment of assembly steps.
With respect to claim 4, Jacobson teaches wherein the at least one micro-perforated cavity (Fig.8, volume between Items 40 and 41) is provided on a surface of at least one of the adjacent clamping plates (Fig.8, Item E) facing the opposite clamping plate (Fig.8, Item E), so as to separate the silencing air duct (Fig.8, Item P) into at least two sections with different cross- sections (Fig.8, sections about Items P and H); when two or more micro-perforated cavities are provided (Fig.8), the micro- perforated structures are provided and spaced apart along a gas flow direction in the silencing air duct (Fig.8, Item P).
With respect to claims 5 – 9, 18 and 19, the obvious combination of Jacobson in view of DeMarchis et al. teach the limitations described in the claims (Jacobson: Fig.8 and DeMarchis et al.: Figs. 1 and 3A).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ plugs to detachably seal the communication holes because it would tune the cavity to provide a desired acoustic performance as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
With respect to claim 14, DeMarchis et al. teach wherein the clamping plate (Fig.3A, Item 64) is provided with a first flanging which is connected to the side plate (Fig.3A, Item 58).
With respect to claims 15 and 20, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ the silencing air duct device with a charging pile or any other device 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 17, Jacobson teaches wherein a preset height difference is present between the two ends of the silencing air duct (Fig.8, Item P); when the silencing air duct device is installed at the air inlet of the apparatus to be silenced, the inlet of the silencing air duct is lower in height than the outlet of the silencing air duct; or when the silencing air duct is installed at the air outlet of the apparatus to be silenced, the outlet of the silencing air duct is lower in height than the inlet of the silencing air duct (Fig.8).
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
September 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights