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 1-19 pending with claims 2-3, 13 cancelled and claims 1, 9, 12, 18 amended. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 October 2025, with respect to all claims been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Due to amendment, prior claim objections have been withdrawn and claim rejections have been updated.
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, 7-12 and 14-19 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 110 with area S1; Para. 0050; Fig. 2);
a central chamber in fluid communication with the inlet chamber, the central chamber having a second cross-sectional area (A2) (Central 130’s smallest cross-sectional area is vent 150 with area S3; 130’s cross-sectional area increases along the airflow direction; Para. 0045,0049-0050; Fig. 2); 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 120 with area S2; Para. 0050; Fig. 2),
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).
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. 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) (Central 130’s smallest cross-sectional area S3 and outlet area S2 is at least two times greater than first area S1; Para. 0045, 0050). 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 (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 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 in 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 path in Fig. 2 from inlet 110, central 130, and outlet 120).
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 fails 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. 006 ). 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 in 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 120/220 in Fig. 2-3 directed toward outside space/rear; Pg. 20, Para. 0055).
Regarding claim 12, please not the rejection as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 4, and 9. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 1, 4, and 9; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 14 and 17, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 8 and 11. Claim 14 and 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8 and 11, respectively; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the acoustic muffler reduces the sound emitted by the food processing device (Pg. 3, Para. 0008). Zhu et al. as modified by Wang et al. fail to explicitly disclose by at least 2 dB and 4dB, respectively for claims 15 and 16.
However, Wang et al. further teaches wherein the acoustic muffler reduces sound emitted by the food processing device by at least 2 dB and 4dB (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 emitted by the food processing device by at least 2 dB and 4dB (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 18, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 12. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 12 as a food processing device having a reduced noise output (Pg. 3, Para. 0008); detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 19, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 15. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 15; 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).
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
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837