DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-30 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 17 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No.11943585 (US Application No. 18321759). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims in the present application are covered by the scope of the claims in the patent with obvious wording variations as shown in the table below, for example.
19446931
18321759
1. An air-pulse generating system, comprising: a driving circuit and an air-pulse generating device comprising a film structure; wherein the film structure comprises a flap pair, and the flap pair comprises a first flap and a second flap opposite to each other; wherein the flap pair is driven by the driving circuit to operate at an ultrasonic frequency, such that the air-pulse generating device produces a plurality of air pulses at an ultrasonic pulse rate; wherein the flap pair possesses an initial deflection difference or exhibits an average displacement difference between the first flap and the second flap.
1. An air-pulse generating device, comprising: a film structure comprising a flap pair; wherein the film structure is actuated to perform a common mode movement, so as to form an amplitude-modulated ultrasonic air pressure variation with an ultrasonic carrier frequency; wherein the film structure is actuated to perform a differential mode movement, so as to form an opening at a rate synchronous with the ultrasonic carrier frequency; wherein the air-pulse generating device produces a plurality of air pulses according to the amplitude-modulated ultrasonic air pressure variation.
4. The air-pulse generating device of : The air-pulse generating device of wherein the flap pair is driven to perform the common mode movement, so as to for the amplitude-modulated ultrasonic air pressure variation with the ultrasonic carrier frequency; wherein the flap pair is driven to perform the differential mode movement, so as to form the opening at the rate synchronous with the ultrasonic carrier frequency and produce the plurality of air pulses according to the amplitude-modulated ultrasonic air pressure variation within a first chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al (US Publication NO. 20230300540).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 17, Liang teaches an air-pulse generating system, comprising: a driving circuit and an air-pulse generating device (air pulse generating device) comprising a film structure; wherein the film structure comprises a flap pair, and the flap pair (101, 103) comprises a first flap and a second flap opposite to each other; wherein the flap pair is driven by the driving circuit to operate at an ultrasonic frequency, such that the air-pulse generating device produces a plurality of air pulses at an ultrasonic pulse rate (para. 0075; air pulses); wherein the flap pair (101, 103) possesses an initial deflection difference or exhibits an average displacement difference between the first flap and the second flap.
Regarding claim 15, Liang teaches an air-pulse generating system, comprising: a driving circuit and an air-pulse generating device (air pulse generating) comprising a film structure (10); wherein the film structure comprises a flap pair (101, 103), and the flap pair comprises a first flap and a second flap opposite to each other; wherein the flap pair (101, 103) is driven by the driving circuit to operate at an ultrasonic frequency (ultrasonic frequency), such that the air-pulse generating device produces a plurality of air pulses (para. 0075, air pulses) at an ultrasonic pulse rate; wherein the flap pair is driven by the driving circuit to perform a differential mode movement to form a virtual valve (virtual valve); wherein the virtual valve is closed during a time corresponding to a first reversal of a first flap movement of the first flap and a second reversal of a second flap movement of the second flap.
Regarding claim 16, Liang teaches an air-pulse generating system, comprising: a driving circuit (driving) and an air-pulse generating device (air pulse generating) comprising a film structure (10); wherein the film structure comprises a flap pair (101, 103), and the flap pair comprises a first flap and a second flap opposite to each other; wherein the flap pair is driven by the driving circuit to operate at an ultrasonic frequency, such that the air-pulse generating device produces a plurality of air pulses (para. 0075, air pulses) at an ultrasonic pulse rate; wherein the flap pair is driven by the driving circuit to perform a differential mode movement to form a virtual valve (virtual valve); wherein the flap pair is driven by the driving circuit to perform a common mode movement, to form an ultrasonic pressure variation; wherein a pressure variant frequency corresponding to the common mode movement and a valve driving frequency corresponding to the differential mode movement are the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-14 and 18-30 is/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 16 is/are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Double Patenting, the Examiner disagree that Feature 1, Feature 2, or Feature 3 is not taught. For Example as outlined above, Feature 1 of instant application claim 1 is covered by the scope of claims 1 and 4 of the patent. In particular, both the application and patent teach an air pulse generating system having a pair of movable flaps in the manner disclosed.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claims 1 and 17 that Liang fails to teach “the flap pair possesses an initial deflection difference or exhibits an average displacement difference between the first flap and the second flap”, the Examiner disagrees.
As per the Applicant specification (para. 0042-0043), the initial deflection may also refer to neutral (stable) or average position, and flaps (101, 103) may have same/symmetric average displacement.
Liang allows the two flaps to have equal amplitudes with opposite polarities, which supports same and symmetric displacement (para. 0060-0061).
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 15 that Liang fails to teach “the virtual valve is closed during a time corresponding to a first reversal of a first flap movement of the first flap and a second reversal of a second flap movement of the second flap”, the Examiner disagrees.
Liang teaches the two flaps appear in a closed status based on the threshold (para. 0075). In addition, Liang teaches the two flaps, based on timing, can also be aligned in a closed state during movement between first and second directions (para. 0129-0130).
Examiner’s Note
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner’s rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHYLESHA DABNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday and Friday 10:30-4:30PM.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 5712727547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
For general questions such as application status, Monday–Friday, 8:30AM -5:00PM, inquiry to:
Local: 571-272-1000
Toll-Free: 800-786-9199
TTY: 800-877-8339
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(703) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for informal or draft communications, please label "Proposed" or "Draft" when submitting an informal amendment.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
August 6, 2026
/PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights