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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 22, 2023, June 20, 2024, and February 13, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the telescopically fitted tubing subs, and/or telescopically fitted side wall stubs, of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 includes material that is objected to due to not being shown in the drawings, and further for being dependent on a rejected base claim. However, the claim would be allowable if the drawings are corrected and the claim rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (US 5,663,536).
In regards to claim 1, Kaplan teaches a ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus (a sound attenuation assembly for utilization with air-cooling apparatus, col 1 lines 5-10; apparatus [10; FIG 7], col 2 line 40), comprising a sound-diminishing housing (a generally rectangular housing [25], col 2 lines 59-60 & col 3 line 55) having a gas flow channel (the air flow direction is through chamber [28] between inlet air-port [30] and exhaust port [32], col 3 lines 27-31) wherein flow channel side walls of the gas flow channel comprise a first flow channel side wall and a second flow channel side wall ([25; FIG 7]; the housing and resultant flow chamber clearly have a left and right wall as well as an upper and lower wall surrounding the chamber [28]) that are arranged opposite to and spaced apart from each other in a first direction (25; FIG 7), wherein a plurality of first scattering bodies extending toward the interior of the gas flow channel (cylindrical baffles [46] are arranged in a first row 48 and a second row [50] across cross-sectional area 'x' in chamber [28]. In this array. baffles [46] in each of rows [48] and [50] have a gap [52] between adjacent baffles [46], col 3 lines 25-32) and arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns at intervals are provided on an inner surface of the first flow channel side wall (col 3 lines 25-32).
Kaplan does not explicitly teach a plurality of second scattering bodies extending toward the interior of the gas flow channel and arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns at intervals are provided on an inner surface of the second flow channel side wall, and a preset distance is maintained between the first scattering bodies and the second scattering bodies in the first direction.
Kaplan however does teach that there can be any number of rows of cylindrical baffles (Housing [25] in FIG. 7 is illustrated with first row [48] and second row [50] of baffles [46], however. it is understood that there may be any number of rows of baffles arranged across chamber [28], col 3 lines 55-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the number of baffles so there were at least 4 rows, such that there was a plurality of second scattering bodies, as it is explicitly taught in Kaplan that any number of rows can be arranged. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
In regards to claim 2, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first flow channel side wall is a first straight and flat flow channel side wall ([25; FIG 7], col 2 lines 59-60), the second flow channel side wall is a second straight and flat flow channel side wall ([25; FIG 7], col 2 lines 59-60), and the first straight and flat flow channel side wall and the second straight and flat flow channel side wall are arranged in parallel to each other ([25; FIG 7], col 2 lines 59-60).
In regards to claim 3, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first scattering bodies and the corresponding second scattering bodies are aligned to each other in the first direction (this follows from the modification).
In regards to claim 5, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first scattering bodies and the second scattering bodies are solid ones; or the first scattering bodies and the second scattering bodies are hollow ones (while not explicitly stated it is clear that the baffles of Kaplan are either hollow or solid as the baffles are identical and there are no other alternatives other than being hollow, solid, or hollow and filled).
In regards to claim 6, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first scattering bodies and the second scattering bodies are cylinders (col 3 lines 25-32).
In regards to claim 7, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Kaplan does not teach in the primary embodiment wherein the first scattering bodies and the second scattering bodies are fins, which are in the same orientation and arranged perpendicular to the gas flow direction within the gas flow channel.
Kaplan does teach prior art wherein the baffles are finned ([40; FIG 4-5], col 3 lines 20-25) and that their baffles can be any shape (col 2 lines 60-61). As stated by Kaplan “although these absorbing shapes can be effective in confined spaces where air movement is only nominal. the cost of the sound suppressing devices as well as the installation cost are considered to be expensive for use in a forced air moving environment,” and as such Kaplans preferred embodiment does not incorporate these shapes from the prior art.
However, it is clear that the inclusion of such shapes would not destroy the application of the prior art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to incorporate these shapes in structures in projects should the benefits of using such structures for sound attenuation and tuning purposes outweigh that cost. It has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Further modified Kaplan does not teach wherein the fins are in the same orientation and arranged perpendicular to the gas flow direction within the gas flow channel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to orient the fins perpendicular to the gas flow direction as a matter of tuning, and would have required no more a mere rearrangement of the parts. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 8, further modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 7, wherein each of the fins comprises a cylinder and wings extending opposite to each other on the outer surface of the cylinder (40; FIG 4-5).
In regards to claim 10, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cross section of the sound-diminishing housing is rectangular or square ([25; FIG 7], col 2 lines 59-60).
In regards to claim 11, modified Kaplan the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Kaplan does not explicitly teach wherein the preset distance is adjustable.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, or allow for adjustment, the distance for the purposes of tuning and performance of the silencer. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (US 5,663,536) in view of Jangili (US 8,459,407 B2).
In regards to claim 4, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of the scattering bodies in the cross-sectional direction of the gas flow channel is defined as a number of columns (the prior art is capable of being defined this way, and as such this is considered fulfilled), the number of the scattering bodies arranged in the extension direction of the gas flow channel is defined as a number of rows (the prior art is capable of being defined this way, and as such this is considered fulfilled).
Kaplan does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the sound-diminishing housing in the extension direction of the gas flow channel is greater than the width of the cross section of the sound-diminishing housing, so that the gas flow channel is formed as an elongated flow channel, and the number of columns is smaller than the number of rows in the elongated flow channel.
Jangili, in the same field of endeavor, does teach wherein the length of the sound-diminishing housing in the extension direction of the gas flow channel is greater than the width of the cross section of the sound-diminishing housing, so that the gas flow channel is formed as an elongated flow channel, and the number of columns of sound attenuating openings is smaller than the number of rows of sound attenuating openings in the elongated flow channel (FIG 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the structure of the housing and baffles such that they were like Jangili, as Kaplan does teach that the shape of the housing is used as an example, and may be any suitable shape (Kaplan, col 2 lines 60-61), and that there are any number of rows (Kaplan, col 3 lines 55-63) needed to meet sound attenuation requirements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (US 5,663,536) in view of Koga et al (US 11,168,474 B2).
In regards to claim 9, modified Kaplan teaches the ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus of claim 1.
Kaplan does not teach wherein the first flow channel side wall and the second flow channel side wall are elastic side walls; and/or, the outer surfaces of the first scattering bodies and the second scattering bodies are elastic outer surfaces.
However, Koga, in a related field of endeavor, does teach elastic walls (Koga, the sheet [11; FIG 6] is a sheet having rubber elasticity, col 6 lines 25-30) and scattering bodies with elastic outer surfaces (Koga, rib-like projecting portions [31; FIG 6], col 5 lines 55-67). (further see Koga, col 1-2 discussing background art and the technical problem, particularly col 2 lines 4-6 “sound insulating plates provided with a plurality of independent stubby projections (resonators) made of silicone rubber and tungsten” being used for preferential sound attenuation in buildings and other structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Koga et al such that the side wall was elastic, the baffles were elastic, or both as they provide superior sound attenuation and are lower cost. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (US 5,663,536) in view of Lindell (WO 2005/097244 A1).
In regards to claim 13, Kaplan teaches a ventilation sound-diminishing apparatus (a sound attenuation assembly for utilization with air-cooling apparatus, col 1 lines 5-10; apparatus [10; FIG 7], col 2 line 40), comprising a sound-diminishing housing (a generally rectangular housing [25], col 2 lines 59-60 & col 3 line 55) having a gas flow channel (the air flow direction is through chamber [28] between inlet air-port [30] and exhaust port [32], col 3 lines 27-31) wherein flow channel side walls of the gas flow channel comprise a first flow channel side wall and a second flow channel side wall ([25; FIG 7]; the housing and resultant flow chamber clearly have a left and right wall as well as an upper and lower wall surrounding the chamber [28]) that are arranged opposite to and spaced apart from each other in a first direction (25; FIG 7), wherein a plurality of first scattering bodies extending toward the interior of the gas flow channel (cylindrical baffles [46] are arranged in a first row 48 and a second row [50] across cross-sectional area 'x' in chamber [28]. In this array. baffles [46] in each of rows [48] and [50] have a gap [52] between adjacent baffles [46], col 3 lines 25-32) and arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns at intervals are provided on an inner surface of the first flow channel side wall (col 3 lines 25-32).
Kaplan does not explicitly teach a plurality of second scattering bodies extending toward the interior of the gas flow channel and arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns at intervals are provided on an inner surface of the second flow channel side wall, and a preset distance is maintained between the first scattering bodies and the second scattering bodies in the first direction.
Kaplan however does teach that there can be any number of rows of cylindrical baffles (Housing [25] in FIG. 7 is illustrated with first row [48] and second row [50] of baffles [46], however. it is understood that there may be any number of rows of baffles arranged across chamber [28], col 3 lines 55-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the number of baffles so there were at least 4 rows, such that there was a plurality of second scattering bodies, as it is explicitly taught in Kaplan that any number of rows can be arranged. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Modified Kaplan does not teach this system as part of a ventilation therapy device, and that the gas flow channel serves as a channel section of a gas delivery channel of the ventilation therapy device.
However, Lindell does teach a gas flow channel (flexible membrane conduit section 44, pg 12 line 24) as part of a ventilation therapy device with noise reduction characteristics (noise reducing characteristics of the ventilator 1, pg 11 lines 9-12).
While Kaplan is primarily focused on air cooling and silencing systems within buildings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to see that the acoustic silencing system could be incorporated in a silencer to approve noise attenuation. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jangili et al (US 8,240,427 B2) – housing, side walls, flow path, baffles.
Van Dinther et al (US 9,765,516 B2) – baffles, cylinders, scattering.
Swallow et al (US 9,607,600 B2) – cylinder, baffles, scattering.
Alexander et al (US 8,381,872) – cylinder, baffles, scattering.
Koshitouge et al (US 11,931,990 B2) -cylinder, baffles, scattering, elastic, miniaturized (50 μm to 10 mm thickness).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph J Illicete whose telephone number is (703)756-4564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0730 - 1630 EST.
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.
/JOSEPH JAMES PETER ILLICETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights