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Claims 1-20 pending with 10-11 and 18-19 withdrawn. Prior drawing objections are withdrawn due to amendment of specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pazé (US 8,397,863) in view of Dmytrow et al. (US 10,443,479 B2); 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foltz, Jr. (US 5,959,263) in view of Dmytrow et al. (US 10,443,479 B2); and 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foltz, Jr. (US 5,959,263), respectively, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Winkel (DE-102019128764-A1) in view of Matsueda (US-7918311-B2).
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) 1-2,4,6-9, 12-13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkel (DE-102019128764-A1) in view of Matsueda (US-7918311-B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Winkel (DE-102019128764-A1) discloses a system (40; Para. 23), comprising:
a muffler body (Body of 40), including:
a first pipe defining a first flow path through the muffler body, wherein the first flow path is a non-muffled flow path (First pipe 28 with first flow path 22 described as undamped; Para. 25), and
a second pipe defining a second flow path through the muffler body, wherein the second pipe is a muffled flow path (Second pipe 29/27 with second flow path 24 described as high acoustic damping; Para. 24), wherein the second pipe includes a 90-degree elbow within the muffler body (Elbow formed by 62/64 within body 40), and a first end of the first pipe and a first end of the second pipe are in parallel (First end near 26 of first pipe 28 and second pipe 29/27) and a second end of the first pipe and a second end of the second pipe are orthogonal (Second end near 84 of pipe 28 and 64 of second pipe 29/27 are orthogonal), wherein the first end of the second pipe is connected directly to the first pipe proximate a valve disposed in the first flow path (First end near 26 connected directly to first pipe 28 at 82 proximate valve 26 in first flow path 22; Para. 25) and the second end of the first pipe is connected directly to the first pipe within the muffler body (Second end near 84 first pipe 28 within body 40);
wherein when the valve is in an open position exhaust gases flow through the first flow path and when the valve is in a closed position exhaust gases flow through the second flow path (Exhaust flap/valve 26; Para. 25-26); and
a controller configured to selectively cause the valve to transition from the open position to the closed position (Controller 90 controlling valve 26; Para. 25-27,30).
Winkel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second pipe includes a plurality of perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing therethrough to disperse out of the second pipe (29/27) and into an interior volume of the muffler body (into interior 46, 48, 50) and dispersethe second pipe (29/27) extends continuously from the first end of the second pipe to the second end of the second pipe (Extending from 26 and 84).
However, Matsueda (US-7918311-B2) teaches wherein the second pipe includes a plurality of perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing therethrough to disperse out of the second pipe and into an interior volume of the muffler body and the second pipe extends continuously from the first end of the second pipe to the second end of the second pipe (Matsueda: Second pipe 8 with perforations 8C-8D allows gas to disperse to interior volume 52; Col. 10, Lines 50-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-10; Fig. 4,17. Pipes of 8 connected in series/continuously between 8A and 8B; Col. 14, Lines 1-25; Fig. 14,26). Matsueda and Winkel are in similar fields comprising mufflers. Modifying Winkel with teachings of Matsueda 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 pipe includes a plurality of perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing therethrough to disperse out of the second pipe and into an interior volume of the muffler body for the purpose of reducing noise (Similar to use of Matseuda’s other perforations 72H; Col. 14, Lines 1-25) and the second pipe extends continuously from the first end of the second pipe to the second end of the second pipe for the purpose of directing exhaust throughout the muffler body.
Regarding Claim 2, Winkel as modified by Matsueda disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising a baffling material disposed into the interior volume of the muffler body outside the first pipe and the second pipe (Baffling material 70 disposed in interior volume 50 outside first pipe 28 and second pipe 29/27; Para. 24).
Regarding Claim 4, Winkel as modified by Matsueda disclose the system of claim 1. Winkel as modified by Matsueda fail to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the first pipe is equal to a diameter of the second pipe (First pipe 28 compared to second pipe 29/27). 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 gas flow rate through the muffler since it has been held that discovering an 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 6, Winkel as modified by Matsueda disclose the system of claim 1, wherein an output of the second pipe is in fluid connection with the first pipe within the muffler body (Output 84 of second pipe 29/27 directly connects to first pipe 28 within body 40).
Regarding Claim 7, Winkel (DE-102019128764-A1) discloses a system (40; Para. 23), comprising:
a muffler body (Body of 40), including:
a first internal baffle (52),
a second internal baffle (54), wherein the first internal baffle defines a first end volume between the first internal baffle and the muffler body, the second internal baffle defines a second end volume between the second internal baffle and the muffler body, and the first internal baffle and the second internal baffle define a central volume between the first end volume and the second end volume (First baffle 52 with first end volume 46, second baffle 54 with second end volume 50, and central volume 48 between first baffle 52 and second baffle 54; Para. 23),
a first pipe defining a first flow path through the muffler body, wherein the first flow path is a non-muffled flow path (First pipe 28 with first flow path 22 described as undamped; Para. 25),
a second pipe extending between the first internal baffle and the second internal baffle (Second pipe 27 between first baffle 52 and second baffle 54),
a third pipe extending between the first internal baffle and the second internal baffle (Third pipe 64 between first baffle 52 and second baffle 54), and
a second flow path defined through the muffler body, wherein the second flow path extends through the second pipe, the first end volume, the third pipe, and the second end volume, the second flow path is a muffled flow path (Second flow path 24 described as higher acoustic damping extends through second pipe 27, first end 46, third pipe 64, and second end 50; Para. 24);
a valve disposed in the first flow path (Valve 26 in first flow path 22; Para. 25), wherein when the valve is in an open position exhaust gases flow through the first flow path and when the valve is in a closed position exhaust gases flow through the second flow path (Para. 25-26);
a controller configured to selectively cause the valve to transition from the open position to the closed position (Controller 90 controlling valve 26; Para. 25-27,30),
wherein the first internal baffle (52) includes perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing through the first end volume (46) to disperse out of the first end volume and into the central volume (48) of the muffler body (Para. 24), and
wherein the second internal baffle (54) includes perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing through the second end volume (50) to disperse out of the second end volume and into the central volume (48) of the muffler body (Para. 24).
Winkel fails to explicitly disclose at least one of the second pipe (27) and the third pipe (64) includes a plurality of perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing therethrough to disperse out of the at least one of the second pipe and the third pipe and into the central volume of the muffler body (into central volume 48).
However, Matsueda (US-7918311-B2) teaches at least one of the second pipe and the third pipe includes a plurality of perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing therethrough to disperse out of the at least one of the second pipe and the third pipe and into the central volume of the muffler body (Matsueda: Flow path 8 with second pipe 83 and third pipe 81, 83 with perforations 8C-8D allows gas to disperse to central volume 52; Col. 10, Lines 50-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-10; Fig. 4,17,26). Matsueda and Winkel are in similar fields comprising mufflers. Modifying Winkel with teachings of Matsueda would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein at least one of the second pipe and the third pipe includes a plurality of perforations configured to allow exhaust gasses flowing therethrough to disperse out of the at least one of the second pipe and the third pipe and into the central volume of the muffler body for the purpose of reducing noise (Similar to use of Matseuda’s other perforations 72H; Col. 14, Lines 1-25).
Regarding Claim 8, Winkel as modified by Matsueda discloses the system of claim 7. Winkel as modified by Matsueda fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a fourth pipe extending between the first internal baffle and the second internal baffle (Between first baffle 52 and second baffle 54), wherein the second flow path includes the fourth pipe.
However, Matsueda teaches further comprising a fourth pipe extending between the first internal baffle and the second internal baffle, wherein the second flow path includes the fourth pipe (Matsueda: Flow path 8 with fourth pipe 86/85, area near 5, extending between baffles 45 and 46; Fig. 7,14,26). Modifying Winkel as modified by Matsueda with additional teachings of Matsueda would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further comprising a fourth pipe extending between the first internal baffle and the second internal baffle, wherein the second flow path includes the fourth pipe for the purpose of optimizing pipe lengths within the muffler for packaging requirements or sound requirements between pairs of flow paths.
Regarding Claim 9, Winkel as modified by Matsueda discloses the system of claim 7. Winkel as modified by Matsueda fail to explicitly disclose further comprising a baffling material disposed in the central volume and outside the first pipe, the second pipe, and the third pipe (Baffling 70 disposed in end 50 (instead of central volume 48)and outside of first pipe 22, second pipe 27, and third pipe 64. At least one volume having absorbing material; Para. 12). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the purpose of insulating and deadening noise within a particular volume of the muffler.
Regarding Claim 12, Winkel as modified by Matsueda discloses the system of claim 7. Winkel as modified by Matsueda fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the second pipe (27) is from 70 percent to 80 percent of a diameter of the first pipe (28) and a diameter of the third pipe (64) is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the diameter of the second pipe. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the purpose of optimizing gas flow rate through the muffler since it has been held that discovering an 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 13, Winkel as modified by Matsueda discloses the system of claim 12. Winkel as modified by Matsueda fail to explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the first internal baffle (52) and the second internal baffle (54) is between 120 percent and 140 percent of the diameter of the first pipe (28). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the purpose of optimizing velocity of gas through the muffler since it has been held that discovering an 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 15, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 7. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 16, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 8. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 17, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 9. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 20, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 12; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkel (DE-102019128764-A1) in view of Matsueda (US-7918311-B2) and Dmytrow et al. (US-10443479-B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Winkel as modified by Matsueda disclose the system of claim 1. Winkel as modified by Matsueda fail to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is a remote controller enabling a user to control a position of the valve wirelessly (Controller 90 controls position of valve 26 generally; Para. 25-27,30).
However, Dmytrow et al. (US-10443479-B2) teaches wherein the controller is a remote controller enabling a user to control a position of the valve wirelessly (Dmytrow: Controller 30 controlled by user modality 31 programmed via cloud software/smart phone ; Col. 9, Lines 1-45; Fig. 1. Cloud software/smart phone being remote/wireless). Dmytrow et al., Matsueda, and Winkel are in similar fields comprising exhaust passages controlled via valves. Modifying Winkel as modified by Matsueda with teachings of Dmytrow 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 controller is a remote controller enabling a user to control a position of the valve wirelessly for the purpose of user optimization (Dmytrow: Col. 9, Lines 1-45).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkel (DE-102019128764-A1) in view of Matsueda (US-7918311-B2) and Lim (KR-20190092878-A).
Regarding Claim 5, Winkel as modified by Matsueda disclose the system of claim 1. Winkel as modified by Matsueda fail to explicitly disclose wherein the valve (26) is vacuum operated and further comprising a vacuum pump connected to the valve, wherein the controller (90) is configured to control an operation of a vacuum pump to cause the valve to transition from the open position to the closed position.
However, Lim (KR-20190092878-A) teaches wherein a valve is vacuum operated and further comprising a vacuum pump connected to the valve, wherein the controller is configured to control an operation of a vacuum pump to cause the valve to transition from the open position to the closed position (Lim: Vacuum pump 24 connected to valve plate 10; Para. 0021 Fig. 1-3). Lim, Matsueda, and Winkel are in similar fields comprising exhaust passages controlled via valves. Modifying Winkel as modified by Matsueda with teachings of Lim have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the valve is vacuum operated for the purpose of being a commonly used valve to prevent unwanted gas from escaping and further comprising a vacuum pump connected to the valve, wherein the controller is configured to control an operation of a vacuum pump to cause the valve to transition from the open position to the closed position for the purpose of using suction power to vary position of the valve.
Regarding Claim 14, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 5. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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