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). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-050890, filed on March 25th, 2021
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the rear surface space” is read as “the first rear surface space”. The examiner respectfully asks the applicant to look for similar informalities, if any found. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubomoto (JP S5360436 A See translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Kubomoto (See English translation) discloses an acoustic impedance change structure through which a sound propagates (Pg. 2-3; Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1), the acoustic impedance change structure comprising at least in this order:
a first impedance matching region that is connected to an inlet portion and in which an acoustic impedance gradually decreases (First region A connected to inlet 5; A increasing in cross-area from 5 to 6, decreases in acoustic impedance);
an acoustic impedance constancy region (Constancy region B); and
an outlet portion, wherein Zcham< Zin and Zcham< Zout are satisfied (Follows from cross-area of B is greater than inlet 5 and outlet 6),
where Zin is an acoustic impedance in the inlet portion (5), Zcham is an acoustic impedance in the acoustic impedance constancy region (B), and Zout is an acoustic impedance in the outlet portion (6), and
a first terminal structure acoustically connected to the acoustic impedance constancy region is provided (First terminal D connected to constancy region B).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotate Kubomoto Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 2, Kubomoto discloses the acoustic impedance change structure according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal structure is acoustically connected to the acoustic impedance constancy region and the first impedance matching region (First terminal D connected to constancy region B and first matching region A. Acoustically connected since 7 between A and D has small effect on noise and presence of sound absorbing material 8; Pg. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 3, Kubomoto discloses the acoustic impedance change structure according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second impedance matching region that is disposed between the acoustic impedance constancy region and the outlet portion, that is connected to the outlet portion, and in which an acoustic impedance gradually increases (Second matching region C between constancy region B and outlet 6. C decreasing in cross-area from 5 to 6, increases in acoustic impedance); and
a second terminal structure that is connected to the acoustic impedance constancy region (Second terminal E connected to constancy region B).
Regarding Claim 4, Kubomoto discloses an air passage type silencer (Pg. 2-3; Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) comprising:
an inlet-side ventilation pipe (5);
an expansion portion that communicates with the inlet-side ventilation pipe and of which a cross-sectional area is larger than a cross-sectional area of the inlet-side ventilation pipe (Expansion portion 1 communicates with and is larger than inlet 5);
an outlet-side ventilation pipe that communicates with the expansion portion and of which a cross-sectional area is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the expansion portion (Outlet 6 communicates with and is smaller expansion portion 1);
a first opening portion structure in which an acoustic impedance gradually decreases from a connection portion between the expansion portion and the inlet-side ventilation pipe toward an outlet-side ventilation pipe side (First opening portion A between expansion portion 1 and inlet 5; A increasing in cross-area from 5 to 6, decreases in acoustic impedance); and
a first rear surface space that is surrounded by the first opening portion structure (First rear surface space D surrounds first opening portion A), a side surface of the expansion portion that is on an inlet-side ventilation pipe side (Side surface 3 on inlet side 5), and a peripheral surface of the expansion portion and that is open on the outlet-side ventilation pipe side of the expansion portion (Read as: “; wherein the first rear surface space is open on the outlet-side ventilation pipe side (Peripheral surface 2 of expansion portion 1; wherein first rear surface space D open on its outlet side at intersection of B-A since D is away from 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4, further comprising:
a second opening portion structure of which a cross-sectional area gradually decreases from an inside of the expansion portion toward a connection portion between the expansion portion and the outlet-side ventilation pipe (Second opening C decreases from inside a portion of expansion portion 1 between 1 and outlet pipe 6; Pg. 4; Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1); and
a second rear surface space that is surrounded by the second opening portion structure (Second rear surface space E surrounds second opening portion C), a side surface of the expansion portion that is on the outlet-side ventilation pipe side (Side surface 4 on outlet side 6), and the peripheral surface of the expansion portion and that is open on the inlet-side ventilation pipe side of the expansion portion (Peripheral surface 2 of expansion portion 1; wherein second rear surface space E open on its inlet side at intersection of C-B since D is away from 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4, wherein a sound absorption structure is provided in at least a portion of the expansion portion (Sound absorption structure 8 of glass fiber, rock wool, or mineral wool on housing of expansion portion 2; Pg. 4 Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 11, wherein the sound absorption structure is a porous sound absorbing material (Sound absorption structure 8 of glass fiber, rock wool, or mineral wool are known as porous; Pg. 4 Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 11, wherein at least a portion of the sound absorption structure is disposed along a housing of the expansion portion (Sound absorption structure 8 of glass fiber, rock wool, or mineral wool on housing of expansion portion 2; Pg. 4 Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 11, wherein the sound absorption structure is in contact with a maximum diameter portion of at least one of the first opening portion structure or the second opening portion structure (Sound absorption structure 8 contacts maximum diameter of first and second opening portions A-C; Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 11, wherein the sound absorption structure is disposed between the first opening portion structure and the second opening portion structure, and the sound absorption structure is not disposed in at least one of the first rear surface space or the second rear surface space (Sound absorption structure 8 between A and C, 8 not entirely on 3 of space D and 4 of Space E).
Regarding Claim 19, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4, wherein the first opening portion structure is not closed in a cross section at an end portion on the outlet-side ventilation pipe side (First opening portion structure A not closed towards outlet 6 in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 7, wherein the second opening portion structure is not closed in a cross section at an end portion on the inlet-side ventilation pipe side (Second opening portion structure C not closed towards inlet 5 in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1).
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) 5, 8, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubomoto (JP S5360436 A See translation).
Regarding Claim 5, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a cutoff frequency fc of the first opening portion structure (A in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1), which is determined by a shape of the first opening portion structure, is 2000 Hz or less (Attenuation in dB related to frequency of noise f and area A1 of first opening portion A; Pg. 2). 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 reducing mid-frequency range noise based on introduced noise such as from an internal combustion engine (Pg. 4), 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 8, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 7. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a cutoff frequency fc of the second opening portion structure (C in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1), which is determined by a shape of the second opening portion structure, is 2000 Hz or less (Attenuation in dB related to frequency of noise f and area; Pg. 2). 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 reducing mid-frequency range noise based on introduced noise of reflections from within the silencer (Pg. 5), 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 10, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio between an acoustic impedance in an inlet portion of the (first) rear surface space and a minimum acoustic impedance in the (first) rear surface space is 1.1 or more (Ratio of D near B/A and minimum near 3). 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 tuning the silencer to a particular frequence or sound absorption range as impedance is related to cross-sectional area, 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 18, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4. Kubomoto fails to explicitly wherein a cross-sectional shape of the expansion portion (1; Fig. 1) is circular or rectangular. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since 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). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Kubomoto.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubomoto (JP S5360436 A) in view of Lu et al. (CN 102927675 A See translation).
Regarding Claim 6, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein 0.2 ≤ a/L ≤ 0.8, where L is a length of the expansion portion (1; Fig. 1) and a is a length of the first opening portion structure (A in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) in a flow path direction of a sound wave in the air passage type silencer.
However, Lu et al. teaches wherein 0.2 ≤ a/L ≤ 0.8, where L is a length of the expansion portion and a is a length of the first opening portion structure in a flow path direction of a sound wave in the air passage type silencer (Lu: Expansion portion 105 with length L1 and first opening portion 2 with length L2 is 1/2 of L1; Pg. 24; Para. 0087; Pg. 27; Para. 0099; Fig. 1,5. a/L=1/2 is between 0.2 and 0.8). Lu et al. and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Lu 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 0.2 ≤ a/L ≤ 0.8, where L is a length of the expansion portion and a is a length of the first opening portion structure in a flow path direction of a sound wave in the air passage type silencer for the purpose of filtering sound waves a specific frequency according to production requirements (Lu: Pg. 27; Para. 0099-0100).
Regarding Claim 9, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 7. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein 0.2 ≤ a2/L ≤ 0.8, where L is a length of the expansion portion (1; Fig. 1) and a2 is a sum of lengths of the first opening portion structure and the second opening portion structure (A and C in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) in a flow path direction of a sound wave in the air passage type silencer.
However, Lu et al. teaches wherein 0.2 ≤ a2/L ≤ 0.8, where L is a length of the expansion portion and a2 is a sum of lengths of the first opening portion structure and the second opening portion structure in a flow path direction of a sound wave in the air passage type silencer (Lu: Expansion portion 105 with length L1, first opening portion 2 with length L2 is 1/2 of L1, second opening portion 3 with length L3 is 1/4 of L1; Pg. 24; Para. 0087; Pg. 27; Para. 0099; Fig. 1,5. a2/L=3/4 is between 0.2 and 0.8). Lu et al. and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Lu 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 0.2 ≤ a2/L ≤ 0.8, where L is a length of the expansion portion and a2 is a sum of lengths of the first opening portion structure and the second opening portion structure in a flow path direction of a sound wave in the air passage type silencer for the purpose of filtering sound waves a specific frequency according to production requirements (Lu: Pg. 27; Para. 0099-0100).
Regarding Claim 25, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 7. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the first opening portion structure (A in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) is larger than a length of the second opening portion structure (C in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) in a flow path direction.
However, Lu et al. teaches wherein a length of the first opening portion structure is larger than a length of the second opening portion structure in a flow path direction (Lu: Length L2 of first opening 2 longer than length L3 of second opening 3; Pg. 27; Para. 0099-0100; Fig. 5). Lu et al. and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Lu 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 a length of the first opening portion structure is larger than a length of the second opening portion structure in a flow path direction for the purpose of silencing specific frequencies according to production requirements (Lu: Pg. 27; Para. 0099-0100).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubomoto (JP S5360436 A) in view of Dyck et al. (US 7,806,228 B2).
Regarding Claim 16, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a change in acoustic impedance in at least one of the first opening portion structure or the second opening portion structure continues to an outside of the expansion portion (First opening structure A second opening structure C continues to an outside of expansion 1 in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1).
However, Dyck et al. teaches wherein a change in acoustic impedance in at least one of the first opening portion structure or the second opening portion structure continues to an outside of the expansion portion (Dyck: See opening 305 continue outside of 306 in Fig. 3; Col. 3, Lines 55-67). Dyck et al. and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Dyck 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 a change in acoustic impedance in at least one of the first opening portion structure or the second opening portion structure continues to an outside of the expansion portion for the purpose of providing additional space for air to occupy to prevent build up of pressure (Dyck: Col. 3, Lines 55-67).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubomoto (JP S5360436 A) in view of Wen et al. (CN 207422621 U See translation).
Regarding Claim 17, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4, wherein an average roughness Ra of an inner surface of at least one of the first opening portion structure or the second opening portion structure (Surface 7 of first opening structure A or second opening structure C in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) is 1 mm or less.
However, Wen et al. teaches wherein an average roughness Ra of an inner surface of at least one of the first opening portion structure or the second opening portion structure is 1 mm or less (Wen: Surface 30 with roughness as holes 201 having diameter 0.5 mm or 1 mm; Pg. 15-16, Para. 0041-0042;Fig. 1,3 ). Wen et al. and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Wen 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 an average roughness Ra of an inner surface of at least one of the first opening portion structure or the second opening portion structure is 1 mm or less for the purpose of reducing flow noise (Wen: Pg. 15; Para. 0041) , 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).
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubomoto (JP S5360436 A) in view of Esmond (US 8,936,133 B2).
Regarding Claim 21, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 4. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first opening portion structure includes a region in which a wall thickness decreases toward the outlet-side ventilation pipe side (First opening portion structure A with wall 7 toward outlet side 6 in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1).
However, Esmond teaches wherein the first opening portion structure includes a region in which a wall thickness decreases toward the outlet-side ventilation pipe side (Esmond: First opening portion 43/45 decreases towards outlet 18; Fig. 4). Esmond and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Esmond would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first opening portion structure includes a region in which a wall thickness decreases toward the outlet-side ventilation pipe side for the purpose of absorbing a specific frequency.
Regarding Claim 22, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 7. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second opening portion structure includes a region in which a wall thickness decreases toward the inlet-side ventilation pipe side (Second opening portion structure C with wall 7 toward inlet side 5 in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1).
However, Esmond wherein the second opening portion structure includes a region in which a wall thickness decreases toward the inlet-side ventilation pipe side (Esmond: Second opening portion 47/45 decreases towards inlet 12; Fig. 4). Esmond and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Esmond 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 opening portion structure includes a region in which a wall thickness decreases toward the inlet-side ventilation pipe side for the purpose of absorbing a specific frequency.
Regarding Claim 23, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 7. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a position of connection to the first opening portion structure and a position of connection to the second opening portion structure at side surfaces of the expansion portion (First opening portion structure A and second opening portion structure C at side surfaces of 3 and 4 in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) are positioned at centers of the side surfaces.
However, Esmond teaches wherein a position of connection to the first opening portion structure and a position of connection to the second opening portion structure at side surfaces of the expansion portion are positioned at centers of the side surfaces (Esmond: See 43 and 47 symmetrically centered with 22 in Fig. 4). Esmond and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Esmond would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a position of connection to the first opening portion structure and a position of connection to the second opening portion structure at side surfaces of the expansion portion are positioned at centers of the side surfaces for the purpose of fitting requirements within a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 24, Kubomoto discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 7. Kubomoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein shapes of the first opening portion structure and the second opening portion structure (A and C in Examiner Annotated Kubomoto Fig. 1) have two-fold or greater-fold symmetry.
However, Esmond teaches wherein shapes of the first opening portion structure and the second opening portion structure have two-fold or greater-fold symmetry (Esmond: Cone shaped first and second opening portion structures 43 and 47; Col. 7, Lines 55-67; Fig. 4. Cones are known to have a two or greater fold symmetry). Esmond and Kubomoto are in similar fields comprising exhaust silencers. Modifying Kubomoto with teachings of Esmond would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein shapes of the first opening portion structure and the second opening portion structure have two-fold or greater-fold symmetry for the purpose of matching both the expansion chamber and inlet/outlet-side ventilation pipes and for fitment within the vehicle (Esmond: Col. 7, Lines 30-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-7624841-B2, US-2936041-A, US-2474555-AAny 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
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837