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
Claims 1, 4-12, and 14-19 are pending. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 27 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 209863470 U) in view of Wang et al. (CN I 09864620) .have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different features of Zhu et al. (CN 209863470 U) for claims 1 and 18; and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view Wang et al. for claim 12.
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.
Claim 1,4-11 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 term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) via their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-11 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 209863470 U) in view of Wang et al. (CN 109864620).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu et al. disclose an acoustic muffler for a motorized food processing device (Muffler 100 for rice cooker Fig. 3; Pg. 20, Para. 0055), the acoustic muffler comprising:
an inlet chamber having a first cross-sectional area (A1) (Inlet chamber A in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2; 0050);
a central chamber in fluid communication with the inlet chamber, the central chamber having a second cross-sectional area (A2) (Central chamber B in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2; Para. 0045,0049-0050); and
an outlet chamber in fluid communication with the central chamber and an external environment, the outlet chamber having a third cross-sectional area (A3) (Outlet chamber C in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2; Para. 0050),
wherein the inlet chamber is configured to receive air expelled from a component of the motorized food processing device and direct the received air to the central chamber and the outlet chamber (Follows as muffler 100 receives air from vacuum pump 300 and exhausts to 220; Para. 0055-56; Fig. 3),
wherein the inlet chamber, the central chamber, and the outlet chamber all have a height defined by a plurality of side walls of the acoustic muffler (See heights of exterior side walls of 100 in Fig. 1; All have a height follows from partitions 140 extending from side walls of 100 to create plurality of chambers 130; Para. 0048-0049; Each A, B, C having 130 in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
737
1091
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2
Zhu et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the inlet chamber is configured to receive air expelled from a motor of the motorized food processing device; wherein the second cross-sectional area (A2) is at least three times greater than each of the first cross-sectional area (A1) and the third cross-sectional area (A3), and wherein the inlet chamber, the central chamber, and the outlet chamber all have a substantially equal height defined by a plurality of side walls of the acoustic muffler. However, Wang et al. teaches wherein the inlet chamber is configured to receive air expelled from a motor of the motorized food processing device (Wang Fig. 6: Inlet chamber 35 receives air from motor 3; Para. 0061). Wang et al. and Zhu et al. are in similar fields comprising kitchen appliances with sound reducing chambers. Modifying Zhu et al. with teachings of Wang et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention wherein the inlet chamber is configured to receive air expelled from a motor of the motorized food processing device for the purpose of quickly discharging air flow from the motor to the outlet (Wang: Para. 0058,0061).
Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the second cross-sectional area (A2) is at least three times greater than each of the first cross-sectional area (A1) and the third cross-sectional area (A3), and wherein the inlet chamber, the central chamber, and the outlet chamber all have a substantially equal height defined by a plurality of side walls of the acoustic muffler.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the second cross-sectional area (A2) is at least three times greater than each of the first cross-sectional area (A1) and the third cross-sectional area (A3) for the purpose of optimizing surface area to meet a resonance frequency of a particular noise source (Para. 0004, 0046-0047), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the inlet chamber, the central chamber, and the outlet chamber all have a substantially equal height defined by a plurality of side walls of the acoustic muffler for the purpose of fitting with in a compact space, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1, wherein the first cross-sectional area (A1), the second cross-sectional area (A2), and the third cross-sectional area (A3) are measured along a plane perpendicular to a direction of sound propagation (Ds) through the acoustic muffler (Plane as perpendicular to direction of sound shown by arrows through A, B, and C in Examiner Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1, wherein the inlet chamber, the central chamber, and the outlet chamber define a horizontal flow path (Partially horizontal flow paths H from inlet A, central C, and outlet B in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1, wherein the acoustic muffler reduces sound pressure emitted by the motorized food processing device (Para. 0008). Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. fail to explicitly disclose reduce sound pressure emitted by the motorized food processing device by at least 2 dB.
However, Wang et al. teaches wherein the acoustic muffler reduces sound pressure emitted by the motorized food processing device by at least 2 dB (Wang: Noise reduced from original 30dB to 5dB by muffler 39 through outlet 9; Para. 0070, 0075; Fig.9-11, Reduction greater than 2dB). Modifying Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. with additional teachings of Wang et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the acoustic muffler reduces sound pressure emitted by the motorized food processing device by at least 2 dB for the purpose of reducing noise and improving user experience (Wang: Para. 0050), since 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1. Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein the motorized food processing device (Muffler 100 for rice cooker Fig. 3; Pg. 20, Para. 0055) is an ice cream maker, a blender, a mixer, a micro puree machine, or a type of food processing device capable of blending, mixing, pureeing, slicing, dicing, chopping, grating, shaving, peeling, grinding, squeezing, folding, and/or kneading. However, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the motorized food processing device is an ice cream maker, a blender, a mixer, a micro puree machine, or a type of food processing device capable of blending, mixing, pureeing, slicing, dicing, chopping, grating, shaving, peeling, grinding, squeezing, folding, and/or kneading (Wang: Device of Fig. 1 being a blender; Para. 0004-0007). Modifying Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. with additional teachings of Wang et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the motorized food processing device is an ice cream maker, a blender, a mixer, a micro puree machine, or a type of food processing device capable of blending, mixing, pureeing, slicing, dicing, chopping, grating, shaving, peeling, grinding, squeezing, folding, and/or kneading for the purpose of reducing noise generated during operation (Wang: Para. 0077).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1. Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. fail to explicitly disclose further comprising a funnel-shaped region with a first end positioned to receive the air expelledand a second end opposite the first end that extends to the inlet chamber, wherein air expelled from the motor passes through the second end to the inlet chamber. However, Wang et al. further teaches a funnel-shaped region with a first end positioned to receive the air expelledand a second end opposite the first end that extends to the inlet chamber, wherein air expelled from the motor passes through the second end to the inlet chamber (Wang Fig. 6: Funnel shape 33 with first end near 31 receives air from motor 3 with second end 29 extends into inlet chamber 35; Para. 0066,0077 ). Modifying Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. with additional teachings of Wang et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a funnel-shaped region with a first end positioned to receive the air expelled(Wang: Para. 0058,0061).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1. Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the central chamber has a length measured along a direction of sound propagation (Ds) through the acoustic muffler, and the length (Arrow of path through central chamber B in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2) is less than a wavelength of a prominent frequency emitted by the motorized food processing device. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing noise exiting the acoustic muffler, such as a quarter wavelength to absorb the device’s wavelength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1, wherein the outlet chamber is directed toward a rear of the motorized food processing device (See outlet chamber C’s exit 120/220 in Fig. 3 directed toward outside space/rear; Pg. 20, Para. 0055; Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhu et al. discloses a food processing device having a reduced noise output (Muffler 100 for rice cooker Fig. 3; Pg. 20, Para. 0055. Reduced noise output; Pg. 3, Para. 0008), the food processing device comprising:
a housing (Housing of Fig. 3); and
a noise reduction assembly (100; Fig. 3) comprising:
an acoustic muffler comprising an inlet chamber, an outlet chamber, and a central chamber in fluid connection with both the inlet chamber and the outlet chamber (Inlet A, outlet C and central B connected between in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2), wherein the outlet chamber is open to air surrounding the housing (Outlet chamber C in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2 connects to 120 and exhaust port 220 open to air; Para. 0055; Fig. 3), and, wherein the inlet chamber comprises a curved back sidewall configured to divert downwardly flowing air into the central chamber (See curved left wall D of inlet chamber A diverting air into central chamber B in Examiner Annotated Zhu Fig. 2); and
wherein the inlet chamber has a first cross-sectional area (A1), the central chamber has a second cross-sectional area (A2), and the outlet chamber has a third cross-sectional area (A3), each measured along a plane perpendicular to a direction of sound propagation (Ds) through the acoustic muffler (Area of inlet A, area of central chamber B, and outlet chamber C measured along plane as perpendicular to direction of sound shown by arrows in Examiner Annotated Fig. 2).
Zhu et al. fails to explicitly disclose a motor with an air intake and an air engine exhaust; a funnel-shaped region positioned proximate to the air exhaust from the motor and extending to the inlet chamber; wherein the second cross-sectional area (A2) is at least three times greater than each of the first cross-sectional area (A1) and the third cross-sectional area (A3).
However, Wang et al. teaches a motor with an air intake and an air exhaust; a funnel-shaped region positioned proximate to the air exhaust from the motor and extending to the inlet chamber (Wang Fig. 6: Motor 3 with air intake 23 and exhaust above 31; funnel shape 33 positioned near air exhaust from motor 3 and extending into inlet chamber area of 35; Para. 0060,0066,0077). Modifying Zhu et al. with teachings of Wang et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motor with an air intake and an air exhaust for the purpose of heat dissipation of the motor and a funnel-shaped region positioned proximate to the air exhaust from the motor and extending to the inlet chamber for the purpose of quickly discharging air flow from the motor to the outlet (Wang: Para. 0058,0061).
Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the second cross-sectional area (A2) is at least three times greater than each of the first cross-sectional area (A1) and the third cross-sectional area (A3). However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the second cross-sectional area (A2) is at least three times greater than each of the first cross-sectional area (A1) and the third cross-sectional area (A3) for the purpose of optimizing surface area to meet a resonance frequency of a particular noise source (Para. 0004, 0046-0047), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 7. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 209863470 U) in view of Wang et al. (CN 109864620) and Xinqiang et al. (CN 111 053 425 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the acoustic muffler of claim 1. Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the acoustic muffler has a cutoff frequency at approximately 500 Hz, with a maximum transmission loss at approximately at 2300 Hz.
However, Xinqiang et al. teaches wherein the acoustic muffler has a cutoff frequency at approximately 500 Hz, with a maximum transmission loss at approximately at 2300 Hz (Xinqiang: Device reduces noise frequency 500Hz-3000Hz; Para. 0004. 500Hz and 2300Hz both within stated range). Xinqiang et al., Wang et al., and Zhu et al. are in similar fields comprising kitchen appliances with sound reducing chambers. Modifying Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. with teachings of Xinqiang et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of matching the frequency of noise source to reduce noise, such as from motor and fan blades (Xinqiang: Para. 0063), since 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 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109864620).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang et al. discloses a method of reducing sound emitted by a food processing device (Para. 0077; Fig. 1,6), the method comprising:
operating a motor of the food processing device (Motor 3 drives 6; Para. 0077; Fig. 1);
directing air exhausted by the motor and noise generated by the motor into a funnel- shaped region leading to an acoustic muffler having an inlet chamber fluidly connected to a central chamber that is fluidly connected to an outlet chamber open to an external environment (In Examiner Annotated Wang Fig. 10: Directing air exhaust by motor 3 into funnel shape 33 leading to inlet chamber A (of muffler 12 and 39) connected to central chamber C (44 and 47) connected to outlet chamber B (between 36 and 9) open to external environment through exit 9; Para. 0061,0070-0071; Fig. 1,6,9), wherein the inlet chamber comprises a curved back sidewall configured to divert downwardly flowing air into the central chamber (In Examiner Annotated Wang Fig. 10: See leftward curved side wall E directing air from A into central chamber C; Fig. 9), wherein the inlet chamber has a first cross-sectional area (A1), the central chamber has a second cross-sectional area (A2), and the outlet chamber has a third cross-sectional area (A3), each measured along a plane perpendicular to a direction of sound propagation (Ds) through the acoustic muffler (Cross sectional areas of chambers A, B, C perpendicular to plane formed by path D in Examiner Annotated Wang Fig. 10), and
directing the air exhausted by the motor and the noise generated by the motor through the acoustic muffler and into the external environment (Air exhausted by motor 3 passes through 35,39, 12 and exits into external environment via 9; Para. 0070,0077; Fig. 6,9).
Wang et al. fails to explicitly disclose the second cross-sectional area (A2) is at least three times greater than each of the first cross-sectional area (A1) and the third cross-sectional area (A3). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of optimizing surface area to meet a resonance frequency of a particular noise source, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image2.png
1297
1650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner annotated Wang Fig. 10
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. discloses wherein the motorized food processing device is an ice cream maker, a blender, a mixer, a micro puree machine, or a type of food processing device capable of blending, mixing, pureeing, slicing, dicing, chopping, grating, shaving, peeling, grinding, squeezing, folding, and/or kneading (Fig. 1 is a blender).
Regarding Claims 15, Wang et al. discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the acoustic muffler reduces the sound emitted by the food processing device by at least 2 dB (Noise reduced from original 30dB to 5dB by muffler 39 through outlet 9; Para. 0050,0070, 0075; Fig.9-11, Reduction greater than 2dB).
Regarding Claims 16, Wang et al. discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the acoustic muffler reduces the sound emitted by the food processing device by at least 4 dB (Noise reduced from original 30dB to 5dB by muffler 39 through outlet 9; Para. 0050,0070, 0075; Fig.9-11, Reduction greater than 4dB).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. discloses the acoustic muffler of claim 1, wherein the outlet chamber is directed toward a rear of the motorized food processing device (See outlet 36 open to external environment through exit 9 and oppositely oriented (rearward) of a button; Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights