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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 depends from claim 4, which defines “the axial end of the outlet pipe” as being at least partially sealed. Claim 9 then requires that “the axial end of the outlet pipe associated with the outlet chamber is tulip-shaped,” which is indefinite. Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to teach an outlet pipe having an axial end that is at least partially sealed and tulip shaped. The tulip shaped is provided in order to prevent additional flow noise, which one of ordinary skill would understand that the reduction/prevention of additional flow noise is due to the increased cross-sectional area of the tulip shape relative to the rest of the pipe. Including a seal or partial seal at the axial end would restrict a flow area, and would not prevent additional flow noise in combination with the tulip shape. While the tulip shape is not well described, based on the function of the tulip shape being to “prevent additional flow noise,” the Examiner interprets the tulip shape to include an open axial end that is not restricted, or partially sealed. Further clarification or amendment is necessary.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthilkumar (WO 2021/210020 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (2005/0126850).
With respect to claim 1, Senthilkumar teaches a muffler (Figures 2-3b, #225) for an exhaust system, comprising: a muffler housing (360) having an inlet chamber (could be #301 or #301/311) fluidically connected to an outlet chamber (could be #321 or #321/302); wherein the inlet chamber (301 or 301/311) has an inlet pipe (211/366) to supply an exhaust gas stream into the inlet chamber (301 or 301/311), and the outlet chamber (321 or 321/302) has an outlet pipe (345) to discharge the exhaust gas stream from the outlet chamber (321 or 321/302); wherein the inlet pipe (211/366) and the outlet pipe (345) each have a first pipe portion (imperforate portion, clearly seen) a second pipe portion (perforated section, clearly seen); wherein the inlet pipe (211/366) and the outlet pipe (345) are impermeable to the exhaust gas stream in respective first pipe portions and are porous in respective second pipe portions; and wherein the first pipe portions each have a predetermined length such that a resonator is formed between the respective first pipe portion (imperforate portions of pipes 211/366 and #345) and an inner wall of the muffler housing (360) associated with the respective first pipe portion, in the same way as Applicant’s.
Senthilkumar fails to explicitly teach wherein the first pipe portions each have a predetermined length such that a λ/4 resonator is formed between the respective first pipe portion and an inner wall of the muffler housing associated with the respective first pipe portion.
Yamaguchi teaches wherein in a similar muffler, it is known to provide a pipe with perforate (i.e. second portion) and imperforate portions (i.e. first portion) of predetermined lengths, such that such that a λ/4 resonator is formed between the respective first pipe portion and an inner wall of the muffler housing (2) associated with the respective first pipe portion ([0007], [0031]-[0032]), as the λ/4 resonator will function to reduce air column resonance generated in the pipe by generating an interference effect, as is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Senthilkumar, with the apparatus of Yamaguchi, so as to reduce air column resonance generated in the pipe by generating an interference effect.
With respect to claim 2, Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi are relied upon for the reason and disclosure set forth above. Senthilkumar further teaches wherein a ratio of a porosity in the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe (211/366) is of an obvious, but unspecified amount relative to a porosity in the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe (345).
Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a porosity in the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe is three to six times a porosity in the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a ratio of a porosity in the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe is three to six times a porosity in the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely tuning the device to a achieve a desired acoustical performance, which tuning is well known and obvious.
With respect to claim 3, Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi are relied upon for the reason and disclosure set forth above. Senthilkumar further teaches wherein a ratio of a length of the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe (211/366) to a length of the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe (345) is of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a length of the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe to a length of the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe is in a range of 1 to 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a ratio of a length of the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe to a length of the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe is in a range of 1 to 2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely tuning the device to a achieve a desired acoustical performance, which tuning is well known and obvious.
With respect to claim 4, Senthilkumar teaches wherein the inlet pipe (211/366) and/or the outlet pipe (345) have an axial end associated with the inlet chamber (301) or the outlet chamber (321), which axial end is at least partially sealed (clearly seen in Figure 3b).
With respect to claim 5, Senthilkumar teaches wherein an exhaust gas aftertreatment element that treats at least one pollutant contained in the exhaust gas stream is arranged between the inlet chamber (301) and the outlet chamber (321) ([0035] – note chamber #302 can accommodate the exhaust gas aftertreatment element).
With respect to claim 7, Senthilkumar teaches wherein the inlet chamber (301/311) and/or the outlet chamber (321/302) have multiple partial chambers (301/311 or 321/302) which are delimited from one another by a partition wall (331 or 333) through which the exhaust gas stream can flow.
With respect to claim 8, Senthilkumar teaches wherein the partition wall (331 or 333) has one or more connecting pipes (341 or 343) which fluidically connect the partial chambers to one another.
With respect to claim 9, Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi are relied upon for the reason and disclosure set forth above. Senthilkumar further teaches wherein the inlet pipe (211/366) and/or the outlet pipe (345) have an axial end associated with the inlet chamber (301) or the outlet chamber (321), which axial end is at least partially sealed (clearly seen in Figure 3b).
Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein the axial end of the outlet pipe associated with the outlet chamber is tulip-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the axial end of the outlet pipe associated with the outlet chamber is tulip-shaped, 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 Senthilkumar.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greif (2020/0386132) in view of Yamaguchi (2005/0126850).
With respect to claim 1, Greif teaches a muffler (Figures 6, #20) for an exhaust system, comprising: a muffler housing (22) having an inlet chamber (58) fluidically connected to an outlet chamber (56); wherein the inlet chamber (58) has an inlet pipe (68) to supply an exhaust gas stream into the inlet chamber (58), and the outlet chamber (56) has an outlet pipe (82) to discharge the exhaust gas stream from the outlet chamber (56); wherein the inlet pipe (68) and the outlet pipe (82) each have a first pipe portion (imperforate portion, clearly seen) a second pipe portion (perforated section, clearly seen); wherein the inlet pipe (68) and the outlet pipe (82) are impermeable to the exhaust gas stream in respective first pipe portions and are porous in respective second pipe portions; and wherein the first pipe portions each have a predetermined length such that a resonator is formed between the respective first pipe portion (imperforate portions of pipes 68 and #82) and an inner wall of the muffler housing (22) associated with the respective first pipe portion, in the same way as Applicant’s.
Greif fails to explicitly teach wherein the first pipe portions each have a predetermined length such that a λ/4 resonator is formed between the respective first pipe portion and an inner wall of the muffler housing associated with the respective first pipe portion.
Yamaguchi teaches wherein in a similar muffler, it is known to provide a pipe with perforate (i.e. second portion) and imperforate portions (i.e. first portion) of predetermined lengths, such that such that a λ/4 resonator is formed between the respective first pipe portion and an inner wall of the muffler housing (2) associated with the respective first pipe portion ([0007], [0031]-[0032]), as the λ/4 resonator will function to reduce air column resonance generated in the pipe by generating an interference effect, as is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Greif, with the apparatus of Yamaguchi, so as to reduce air column resonance generated in the pipe by generating an interference effect.
With respect to claim 2, Greif and Yamaguchi are relied upon for the reason and disclosure set forth above. Greif further teaches wherein a ratio of a porosity in the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe (68) is of an obvious, but unspecified amount relative to a porosity in the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe (82).
Greif and Yamaguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a porosity in the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe is three to six times a porosity in the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a ratio of a porosity in the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe is three to six times a porosity in the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely tuning the device to a achieve a desired acoustical performance, which tuning is well known and obvious.
With respect to claim 3, Greif and Yamaguchi are relied upon for the reason and disclosure set forth above. Greif further teaches wherein a ratio of a length of the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe (68) to a length of the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe (82) is of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Greif and Yamaguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a length of the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe to a length of the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe is in a range of 1 to 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a ratio of a length of the second pipe portion of the inlet pipe to a length of the second pipe portion of the outlet pipe is in a range of 1 to 2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely tuning the device to a achieve a desired acoustical performance, which tuning is well known and obvious.
With respect to claim 4, Greif teaches wherein the inlet pipe (68) and/or the outlet pipe (82) have an axial end associated with the inlet chamber (58) or the outlet chamber (56), which axial end is at least partially sealed (via plugs 72 and 88, respectively).
With respect to claim 7, Greif teaches wherein the inlet chamber (58) and/or the outlet chamber (56) have multiple partial chambers (when chamber #60 is considered art of the inlet or outlet chamber) which are delimited from one another by a partition wall (54) through which the exhaust gas stream can flow.
With respect to claim 10, Greif teaches wherein at least one inner wall of the muffler housing (22) is lined at least partially with a sound-absorbing material (64).
Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthilkumar (WO 2021/210020 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (2005/0126850), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Park (2019/0112953).
With respect to claim 6, Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi are relied upon for the reason and disclosure set forth above. Senthilkumar further teaches wherein an exhaust gas aftertreatment element that treats at least one pollutant contained in the exhaust gas stream is arranged between the inlet chamber (301) and the outlet chamber (321) ([0035] – note chamber #302 can accommodate the exhaust gas aftertreatment element).
Senthilkumar and Yamaguchi fail to explicitly teach wherein the inlet pipe is a mixing pipe that mixes the exhaust gas stream with a treatment chemical.
Park teaches a similar exhaust/muffler device (0003), wherein it is known to include wherein the inlet pipe (of Senthilkumar, #311/366) is a mixing pipe that mixes the exhaust gas stream with a treatment chemical (via urea injector #50 – [0076]), such that nitrogen oxide included in the exhaust gas may be reduced through oxidation-reduction reaction with the reducing agent in the DeNOx catalyst ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Senthilkumar as modified, with the apparatus of Park, such that that nitrogen oxide included in the exhaust gas may be reduced through oxidation-reduction reaction with the reducing agent in the DeNOx catalyst.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837