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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2033247 to Walker et al. (hereinafter referred to as Walker).
In regard to claim 1, as best shown in figures 1 and 4, Walker discloses a tube (18) that forms a sound attenuator for a separator device for gas. The tube (18) includes at least one tubular member having at least one gas inlet opening in the top area and at least one gas outlet opening (25) at the other end. The at least one gas outlet opening (25) is shown to be placed in the circumferential wall of the at least one tubular member at the one end. The end face at this end of the at least one tubular member is inherently closed by a closing part so that the gas exits the outlet opening (25).
In regard to claim 2, as shown in figures 1 and 4, the surface of the closing part facing the gas inlet opening is flat.
In regard to claim 3, as shown in figure 1, multiple gas outlet openings (25) are arranged in a circumferential wall of the tubular member (18).
In regard to claim 4, the gas inlet opening is shown to be arranged at the top face of the tubular member (18).
In regard to claim 5, the tubular member (18) has a circular internal cross-section.
In regard to claim 6, in the embodiment of figure 3, as further discussed in page 3 lines 103 – 106, an alternate tubular member (39) can have an internal cross-section that reduces in diameter toward the gas outlet opening.
In regard to claim 7, as shown in figure 1, the at least one tubular member (18) has a constant internal cross-section.
In regard to claim 8, the tubular member (18) can be considered to be connected to an end member, as broadly recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker.
Walker is discussed above in section 3. In regard to claim 9, Walker does not specifically disclose the ratio of the total area of the gas outlet openings (25) to the area of the gas inlet opening. There is no evidence this ratio is critical. As discussed in page 2 lines 105 – 116, the exit velocity of flow from the tubular member can affect oil separation. Predictably, a larger outlet opening area can reduce the velocity of the gas from the tubular member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose or optimize the total area of the gas outlet openings in Walker to be between 0.2 and 3 times the area of the gas inlet opening given this allows for the flow leaving the gas outlet openings to be at a desire velocity. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934.
In regard to claim 10, as shown in figures 1, 3 and 4, the tubular sound attenuator (18, 39) is part of a separator device having at least one separating medium (3, 29) surrounding an interior of the separator device and the at least one sound attenuator (18, 39) serving as a gas conduit to the interior. As discussed above, the sound attenuator includes at least one tubular member (18, 39) having at least one gas inlet opening in the area of one end and at least one gas outlet opening (25, 47) in the area of the other end, where the at least one tubular member extends at least partly into the interior of the separator device, and serves as a gas conduit to the interior of the separator device. In the embodiment of figure 3, each one of the at least one gas outlet opening (47) is placed in a circumferential wall of the at least one tubular member (39) at the other end and an end face at the other end is inherently closed by a closing part to direct the flow through the openings (47). Additionally, as discussed in page 3 lines 108 – 111, the air can be discharged through the end of the tube (39) instead of being discharged through the ports (47). Which implies when the air is discharged through the ports (47), it is not discharged through the end of the tube (39). Figure 3 does not show the tubular member (39) to have an axial length that is less than half of a length of the separator device. As discussed in page 3 lines 111 – 113, Walker discloses the length of the tubular member should be at least 20% of the length of the filter element, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than half the length of the separator device.
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549; In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
In regard to claim 11, the sound attenuator is inherently one of a separate part attached to an end member covering the separating medium, or in one piece with an end member covering the separating medium.
In regard to claim 12, the separator device of Walker includes all of the required structural limitations and can be considered a gas de-oiling device, as broadly recited in the claim, and is capable of being used as an air de-oiling device for an air compressor or a vacuum pump.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant argues that the central tube (18) and the diffuser tube (39) are not equivalent to the claimed “at least one tubular member”. Applicant argues the silencing element (7) in Walker is the sound attenuator. The examiner agrees that Walker discloses a silencing element (7), but respectfully disagrees that the tubular member (18, 39) in Walker cannot be considered a sound attenuator. Walker discloses all of the features required and is considered to have all of the features of the claimed sound attenuator. While Walker does not specifically disclose the tubular member (18, 39) to have an end face that is closed, the examiner considers this to be an inherent feature. The ed face would need to be closed for the flow to pass through the ports (25, 47). Additionally, as discussed in page 3 lines 108 – 111 of Walker, the air can be discharged through the end of the tube (39) instead of being discharged through the ports (47). Which implies when the air is discharged through the ports (47), it is not discharged through the end of the tube (39).
In regard to claim 10, applicant also argues that Walker the tubular member (18, 39) having a length that is less than half the length of the filter element (3, 29). The examiner agrees Figure 3 does not show the tubular member (39) to have an axial length that is less than half of a length of the separator device. As discussed in page 3 lines 111 – 113, however, Walker discloses the length of the tubular member should be at least 20% of the length of the filter element, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than half the length of the separator device. Therefore, this feature is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights