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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surprise (US 1,033,963) in view of Owens (US 2009/0133957).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 19 and 22, Surprise teaches a sound muffler device (Fig.2, Item 18) adapted for use with a ductwork system (Fig.2, Item 13) of a house, comprising a baffle housing (Fig.3, Item 18) having an inlet section (Fig.3, Item 19 top), and an outlet section (Fig.3, Item 19 bottom); at least one first baffle plate (Fig.3, Item 20), and at least one second baffle plate (Fig.3, Item 20) are configured within the baffle housing, and a labyrinth channel (Fig.3, arrows) formed within the baffle housing, wherein the air and sound entering and traveling through the ductwork system passes through the inlet section to the outlet section and out from a register vent is attenuated with minimal impact to airflow within the ductwork system (Page 1, Line 57 – Page 2, Line 16).
However, Surprise fails to particularly disclose the baffle housing comprising at least a top housing wall, a bottom housing wall, a front housing wall, a first rear housing wall, and a pair of lateral side walls, wherein inner surfaces of at least one of the top housing wall, the bottom housing wall, the front housing wall, the first rear housing wall, and the pair of lateral sides are covered with sound-absorbing material; wherein, the inlet section extends from an end of the bottom housing wall to an end of the first rear housing wall, and the outlet section is configured on the top housing wall opposingly positioned to the bottom housing wall; wherein each of the first baffle plate, and the second baffle plate is covered with the sound-absorbing material on either one side or both sides; and wherein the air and sound entering and traveling through the ductwork system passes through the inlet section to the outlet section and out from a register vent is absorbed by the sound-absorbing material.
Nevertheless, Owens teaches sound muffler device (Fig.14) comprising a baffle housing (Fig.14, Item 100) having an inlet section (Fig.14, Item 65), and an outlet section (Fig.14, Item 65); at least one first baffle plate (Fig.14, Item 75) configured within the baffle housing, and a labyrinth channel (Fig.14, Item 35) formed within the baffle housing; wherein the baffle housing comprising at least a top housing wall, a bottom housing wall, a front housing wall, a first rear housing wall, and a pair of lateral side walls (Fig.14), wherein inner surfaces of at least one of the top housing wall, the bottom housing wall, the front housing wall, the first rear housing wall, and the pair of lateral sides are covered with sound-absorbing material (Fig.14, Item 60); wherein, the inlet section extends from an end of the bottom housing wall to an end of the first rear housing wall, and the outlet section is configured on the top housing wall opposingly positioned to the bottom housing wall; wherein the first baffle plate (Fig,14, Item 75) is covered with the sound-absorbing material (Fig.14, Item 60) on either one side or both sides; and wherein the air and sound entering and traveling through the ductwork system passes through the inlet section to the outlet section and out from a register vent is absorbed by the sound-absorbing material with minimal impact to airflow within the ductwork system (¶ [0020] and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Owens configuration with the Surprise deign because it would permit the sound muffler device to be place in a ductwork with rectangular cross-section and the sound absorbing material would improve the sound muffling characteristics of the device. Additionally, it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 3, Surprise teaches wherein each of the at least one first baffle plate (Fig.3, Item 20) is located distanced apart and coupled to the inner surface of the housing wall (Fig.3, Item 18), and each of the at least one second baffle plate (Fig.3, Item 20) is located distanced apart and coupled to the inner surface of the housing wall (Fig.3, Item 18).
With respect to claim 4, Surprise teaches wherein each of the at least first baffle plate, and the at least second baffle plate is alternatively disposed on the inner surfaces of the front housing wall, and the first rear housing wall to form the labyrinth channel (Fig.3).
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Owens teaches wherein the sound absorbing material (Fig.14, Item 60) is an acoustic foam in at least plain, wedge, and pyramid shape known in the art. The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the sound absorbing material being made of a predetermined material because it would tune the device to absorb sound in a desired frequency range and would provide desired physical properties as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application. Furthermore, 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.
With respect to claims 6, 22 and 23, Surprise teaches wherein the sound muffler device (Fig.2, Item 18) is inserted into the register vent such that the inlet section, and the bottom housing wall of the sound muffler device is operatively laid facing the duct lines through which the air and sound in the ductwork travel (Fig.2). Additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to insert the sound muffler device into a register vent such that the inlet section, and the bottom housing wall of the sound muffler device is operatively laid facing the duct lines through which the air and sound in the ductwork travel, as disclosed by Hedges (CA 3 095 281).
With respect to claims 7 – 11, 18, 20, 21 and 24 – 26, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to cover the outer surfaces of the sound muffler device and to provide an outlet cover because it would provide protection against foreign objects getting into the muffler device that could affect the performance and cleanliness of the device. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to choose from the finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397). In this case, selecting to cover the outer surfaces of the sound muffler device would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
With respect to claims 12 – 15 and 17, Surprise teaches wherein the at least one first baffle plate (Fig.3, Item 20), and the at least one second baffle plate (Fig.3, Item 20) have the same orientations with respect to the housing wall (Fig.3, Item 18) from which they extend; wherein the at least one first baffle plate, and the at least one second baffle plate have a substantially same shape; wherein the at least one first baffle plate, and the at least one second baffle plate extend partially or along the entire length of the sound muffler device; or wherein the at least one first baffle plate, and the at least one second baffle plate have different orientations with respect to the housing wall from which they extend (Fig.3). Also, 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.
Conclusion
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
January 29, 2026