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
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 8, 15 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (JP 2010116118).
With respect to claim 1, Nakamura et al. teach a silencer for a ventilation passage that includes a housing (Fig.8, Item 11) and deadens sound in a ventilation passage, wherein an internal space of the housing forms a part of the ventilation passage, the silencer for a ventilation passage comprising an inlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 111) that is formed in the housing and is positioned on one end side of a part of the ventilation passage; an outlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 112) that is formed in the housing and is positioned on the other end side of a part of the ventilation passage; and a vibration portion (Fig.8, Item 12) that is provided on the housing and reduces sound passing through the ventilation passage (Abstract and Specification: text regarding Figure 8 – 11).
With respect to claim 2, Nakamura et al. teach wherein at least a part of an outer wall surface of the housing is a flat surface (Figs.8 and 9), and a portion, of which the outer wall surface is a flat surface, of the housing forms the vibration portion (Figs.8 and 9, Item 12).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Nakamura et al. inherently teach wherein the inlet opening is formed in one edge surface of an inner wall surface of the housing in a first direction, the outlet opening is formed in the other edge surface of the inner wall surface of the housing in the first direction, and in a case where a distance between the inlet opening and the outlet opening is denoted by L and a sound speed is denoted by c, a first natural frequency of the vibration portion is less than c/(2 × L), since c/(2 × L) and c/(4 × L) are well-known general formulas to calculate the first natural frequency.
With respect to claim 8, Nakamura et al. teach wherein the inlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 111) is formed in one edge surface of an inner wall surface of the housing in a first direction, the outlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 112) is formed in the other edge surface of the inner wall surface of the housing in the first direction, and a range in which the inlet opening is present and a range in which the outlet opening is present overlap with each other in a second direction intersecting with the first direction and in a third direction intersecting with both the first direction and the second direction (Figs.8, 9 and 11).
With respect to claim 15, Nakamura et al. teach wherein openings formed in the housing are only the inlet opening and the outlet opening.
With respect to claim 19, Nakamura et al. teach wherein a part of the internal space of the housing forms a resonance space that absorbs sound via resonance (Fig.9; Specification: text regarding Figure 9).
With respect to claim 16, 17 and 20, Nakamura et al. teach wherein the vibration portion is capable of deadening sound having a frequency of 2400 Hz or less by vibrating at the first natural frequency (Fig.13).
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.
Claims 5 – 7, 9 – 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2010116118) in view of Ogino (JP H1172051).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Nakamura et al. teach wherein the housing includes a wall surrounding the internal space of the housing (Fig.8), and the wall includes the vibration portion (Fig.8, Item 12), but fail to disclose wherein each portion of the wall is made of the same material.
On the other hand, Ogino teaches a wall (Fig.1b, Item 1) including a vibration portion (Fig.1b, Item 4) wherein each portion of the wall is made of the same material (Figs.1 and 3; Specification: text related to Figures 1 and 3), and wherein the vibration portion (Fig.3, Item 6) and a peripheral portion of the vibration portion are continuous with each other in the wall (Fig.3, Item 1).
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 Ogino configuration with the Nakamura et al. design because it would facilitate the fabrication of the silencer by eliminating a step of attaching the vibration portion to the housing, it would also prevent failure of the vibration portion due to any detachment that could occur.
With respect to claim 7, Nakamura et al. teach wherein the inlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 111) is formed in one edge surface of an inner wall surface of the housing in a first direction, the outlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 112) is formed in the other edge surface of the inner wall surface of the housing in the first direction. The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a housing configuration exhibiting with regard a contour line of a cross section of which a normal direction is the first direction among cross sections of the housing, a ratio of a length of a longest side of the contour line to a length of a shortest side of the contour line is 1.2 or more because it would tune the silencer to provide a predetermined gas flow profile and/or acoustic performance as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
With respect to claim 9, Nakamura et al. teach wherein the inlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 111) is formed in one edge surface of an inner wall surface of the housing in a first direction, the outlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 112) is formed in the other edge surface of the inner wall surface of the housing in the first direction. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide a silencer housing wherein a length of the housing in a second direction intersecting with the first direction is longer than a length of the housing in a third direction intersecting with both the first direction and the second direction, and each of the inlet opening and the outlet opening is provided at a position closer to an end of the housing than to a middle of the housing in the second direction because it would tune the silencer to provide a predetermined gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application, disclose by Fukuda (JP 61040409) or Boor (US 3,958,660).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Nakamura et al. teach wherein the inlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 111) is formed in one edge surface of an inner wall surface of the housing in a first direction, the outlet opening (Figs.8 and 9, Item 112) is formed in the other edge surface of the inner wall surface of the housing in the first direction. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide a silencer with a connecting member being connected to at least one opening of the inlet opening or the outlet opening in the internal space of the housing, a connecting member-side opening portion connected to the at least one opening is provided on an inner side of the connecting member, and a size of the connecting member-side opening portion is increased as a distance from the at least one opening in the first direction is increased because when the connecting member is connected to the inlet it would work as a diffuser, permitting the gases to expand as they enter the silencer, improving the sound attenuation characteristic of the silencer; and when the connecting member is connected to the outlet it would work as a collector, increasing the speed of the gases toward the outlet, in this manner improving the backpressure performance of the silencer as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application, as disclosed by Esmond (US 8,936,133) or Kuroki (JP 2000248920).
With respect to claim 12, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a weight mounted on the vibration portion because it would tune the vibration portion to oscillate to a predetermined frequency range.
With respect to claim 13, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide the silencer with a sound absorbing member housed in the housing, the inlet opening is formed in one edge surface of an inner wall surface of the housing in a first direction, the outlet opening is formed in the other edge surface of the inner wall surface of the housing in the first direction, the sound absorbing member is disposed to avoid a range in which the inlet opening is present and a range in which the outlet opening is present in a second direction intersecting with the first direction and in a third direction intersecting with both the first direction and the second direction because it would tune the silencer to absorb sound in a predetermined sound frequency while providing a desired gas flow profile, as disclose by Weiss et al. (US 4,263,981).
With respect to claim 14, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the silencer with a ratio of a region, which is occupied by the sound absorbing member, to a volume of a space, which excludes a flow channel portion in the housing, of the internal space of the housing is 80% or more because it would tune the silencer to absorb sound in a predetermined sound frequency while providing a desired gas flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application. Furthermore, 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.
With respect to claim 18, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the housing with a plurality of the vibration portions because each portion could be tune to a different frequency range, in this manner broadening the sound frequency range to be silence. Additionally, 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.
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
September 27, 2025