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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/7/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi (2005/0224283) in view of Barrett (2015/0068834).
With respect to claim 1, Yokoi teaches a resonance-type silencer (Figure 1, #1 – note resonance will inherently occur at certain frequencies) comprising: a housing (2) having an air supply port (defined by port near #2a) formed on one side, an air exhaust port (defined by port near #2b) formed on the other side, and a chamber (11-13) formed thereinside; an air supply pipe (5) connected to the air supply port (2a); an air exhaust pipe (6) connected to the air exhaust port (2b); wherein the air supply pipe (5) is connected to an upper end of a first side of the housing (2), and the air exhaust pipe (6) is connected to a lower end of a second side of the housing (2) opposite the first side (clearly seen), wherein the air supply pipe (5) is positioned above a centerline of the housing (2) extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the housing, and wherein the air exhaust pipe (6) is positioned below the centerline.
Yokoi fails to teach a plurality of first resonance pipes disposed in the air supply pipe; and a plurality of second resonance pipes disposed in the air exhaust pipe,
Barrett teaches a similar resonance-type silencer (Figure 8, #50A) comprising: a housing (10) having an air supply port (defined by port of housing connected within inlet pipe #12) formed on one side, an air exhaust port (defined by port of housing connected within outlet pipe #14) formed on the other side, and a chamber (defined by interior of #10) formed thereinside; an air supply pipe (12) connected to the air supply port; an air exhaust pipe (14) connected to the air exhaust port; a plurality of first resonance pipes (16i/16J) provided in the air supply pipe (12); and a plurality of second resonance pipes (16C/16D, note [0089] stating that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members (i.e. members 16), etc. can be used”) provided in the air exhaust pipe (14), such that the plurality of first and second resonance pipes produce resonance when subjected to flowing exhaust gasses, which results in noise canceling and/or sound enhancing tones ([0015]). Specifically, the resonance pipe configuration addresses problems such as "drone" and "popping", that provides a crisp and natural sound, and that potentially corrects undesirable sounds produced by an engine ([0014]).
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 Yokoi, with the apparatus of Barrett so as to improve the acoustic performance of the muffler of Yokoi by inclusion of the first and second resonance pipes of Barrett, which addresses problems such as "drone" and "popping", that provides a crisp and natural sound, and that potentially corrects undesirable sounds produced by an engine.
With respect to claim 2, Yokoi and Barrett teach wherein a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of first and second the resonance pipe (when second resonance pipes #16C/D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) and a longitudinal direction of the air supply pipe (Yokoi, #5; Barrett, #12) and the air exhaust pipe (Yokoi, #6; Barrett, #14) are arranged parallel to each other. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
With respect to claim 3, Barrett teaches wherein an outer diameter of each of the plurality of first and second resonance pipes (16i/16J, 16C/D) is formed to be less than an inner diameter of the air supply pipe (12) and the air exhaust pipe (14), when combined.
With respect to claim 4, Yokoi and Barrett teach wherein an inner diameter of the housing (Yokoi, 2; Barrett, #10) is formed to be greater than an inner diameter of each of the air supply pipe (Yokoi, #5 when combined with Barrett, #12) and the air exhaust pipe (Yokoi, #6 when combined with Barrett, #14).
With respect to claim 7, Yokoi teaches wherein an inner diameter of the housing (2) changes in the longitudinal direction (clearly seen in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 8, Yokoi teaches wherein the housing (2) includes an expansion portion (upstream end portion where diameter increases from the inlet near #2a along the longitudinal direction) whose inner diameter increases in the longitudinal direction and a reduction portion (downstream end portion where diameter decreases along the longitudinal direction toward an outlet portion near #2b) whose inner diameter decreases.
With respect to claim 10, Yokoi and Barrett teach the resonance-type silencer of claim 1. Barrett further teaches wherein two resonance pipes (16i/16J, 16C/D) are disposed in the air supply pipe (12) or the air exhaust pipe (12), and further wherein the device is not limited to particular specifications in any way, and different numbers of members (i.e. #16) can be used ([0089]).
Yokoi and Barrett fail to explicitly teach wherein seven or more resonance pipes are disposed in the air supply pipe or the air exhaust 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 seven or more resonance pipes are disposed in the air supply pipe or the air exhaust 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, because Barrett recognizes that different numbers of member #16 can be used, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill to employ seven or more pipes #16.
With respect to claim 11, Barrett teaches wherein the plurality of the first and second resonance pipes (16i/16J and 16C/16D, when second resonance pipes #16C/16D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) have the same inner diameter or outer diameter. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
With respect to claim 14, Barrett teaches wherein each of the plurality of first and second resonance pipe (16i/16J and 16C/16D, when second resonance pipes #16C/16D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) is open on both sides and has at least one resonance hole (defined by perforations – [0102]) formed on a side surface thereof. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
With respect to claim 15, Barrett teaches wherein each first pipe of the plurality of first resonance pipes (each of #16i/16J) defines a plurality of first resonance holes (defined by perforations – [0102], clearly seen in Figure 8), the plurality of first resonance holes being arranged in a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of first resonance pipes (longitudinal arrangement resonance holes clearly seen in Figure 8), and wherein each second pipe of the plurality of second resonance pipes (each of #16C/16D, when second resonance pipes #16C/16D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) defines a plurality of second resonance holes (defined by perforations – [0102], clearly seen in Figure 8), the plurality of second resonance holes being arranged in a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of second resonance pipes (longitudinal arrangement resonance holes clearly seen in Figure 8). As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
Claim 1-4, 6, 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (2,062,141) in view of Barrett (2015/0068834).
With respect to claim 1, Newman teaches a resonance-type silencer (Figure 1, #1 – note resonance will inherently occur at certain frequencies) comprising: a housing (A) having an air supply port (defined by port accommodating pipe #8) formed on one side, an air exhaust port (defined by port accommodating pipe #9) formed on the other side, and a chamber (B/C) formed thereinside; an air supply pipe (8) connected to the air supply port; an air exhaust pipe (9) connected to the air exhaust port; wherein the air supply pipe (8) is connected to an upper end of a first side of the housing (A), and the air exhaust pipe (9) is connected to a lower end of a second side of the housing (A) opposite the first side (clearly seen), wherein the air supply pipe (8) is positioned above a centerline of the housing (A) extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the housing (A), and wherein the air exhaust pipe (9) is positioned below the centerline.
Newman fails to teach a plurality of first resonance pipes disposed in the air supply pipe; and a plurality of second resonance pipes disposed in the air exhaust pipe,
Barrett teaches a similar resonance-type silencer (Figure 8, #50A) comprising: a housing (10) having an air supply port (defined by port of housing connected within inlet pipe #12) formed on one side, an air exhaust port (defined by port of housing connected within outlet pipe #14) formed on the other side, and a chamber (defined by interior of #10) formed thereinside; an air supply pipe (12) connected to the air supply port; an air exhaust pipe (14) connected to the air exhaust port; a plurality of first resonance pipes (16i/16J) provided in the air supply pipe (12); and a plurality of second resonance pipes (16C/16D, note [0089] stating that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members (i.e. members 16), etc. can be used”) provided in the air exhaust pipe (14), such that the plurality of first and second resonance pipes produce resonance when subjected to flowing exhaust gasses, which results in noise canceling and/or sound enhancing tones ([0015]). Specifically, the resonance pipe configuration addresses problems such as "drone" and "popping", that provides a crisp and natural sound, and that potentially corrects undesirable sounds produced by an engine ([0014]).
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 Newman, with the apparatus of Barrett so as to improve the acoustic performance of the muffler of Newman by inclusion of the first and second resonance pipes of Barrett, which addresses problems such as "drone" and "popping", that provides a crisp and natural sound, and that potentially corrects undesirable sounds produced by an engine.
With respect to claim 2, Newman and Barrett teach wherein a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of first and second the resonance pipe (when second resonance pipes #16C/D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) and a longitudinal direction of the air supply pipe (Newman, #8; Barrett, #12) and the air exhaust pipe (Newman, #9; Barrett, #14) are arranged parallel to each other. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
With respect to claim 3, Barrett teaches wherein an outer diameter of each of the plurality of first and second resonance pipes (16i/16J, 16C/D) is formed to be less than an inner diameter of the air supply pipe (12) and the air exhaust pipe (14), when combined.
With respect to claim 4, Newman and Barrett teach wherein an inner diameter of the housing (Newman, #A; Barrett, #10) is formed to be greater than an inner diameter of each of the air supply pipe (Newman, #8 when combined with Barrett, #12) and the air exhaust pipe (Newman, #9 when combined with Barrett, #14).
With respect to claim 6, Newman teaches wherein an inner diameter of the housing (A) is kept constant in the longitudinal direction (clearly seen in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 10, Newman and Barrett teach the resonance-type silencer of claim 1. Barrett further teaches wherein two resonance pipes (16i/16J, 16C/D) are disposed in the air supply pipe (12) or the air exhaust pipe (12), and further wherein the device is not limited to particular specifications in any way, and different numbers of members (i.e. #16) can be used ([0089]).
Newman and Barrett fail to explicitly teach wherein seven or more resonance pipes are disposed in the air supply pipe or the air exhaust 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 seven or more resonance pipes are disposed in the air supply pipe or the air exhaust 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, because Barrett recognizes that different numbers of member #16 can be used, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill to employ seven or more pipes #16.
With respect to claim 11, Barrett teaches wherein the plurality of the first and second resonance pipes (16i/16J and 16C/16D, when second resonance pipes #16C/16D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) have the same inner diameter or outer diameter. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
With respect to claim 13, Newman teaches wherein the air supply pipe (8) and the air exhaust pipe (9) are formed at positions that do not overlap each other and are misaligned with respect to the longitudinal direction of the housing (clearly seen in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 14, Barrett teaches wherein each of the plurality of first and second resonance pipe (16i/16J and 16C/16D, when second resonance pipes #16C/16D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) is open on both sides and has at least one resonance hole (defined by perforations – [0102]) formed on a side surface thereof. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
With respect to claim 15, Barrett teaches wherein each first pipe of the plurality of first resonance pipes (each of #16i/16J) defines a plurality of first resonance holes (defined by perforations – [0102], clearly seen in Figure 8), the plurality of first resonance holes being arranged in a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of first resonance pipes (longitudinal arrangement resonance holes clearly seen in Figure 8), and wherein each second pipe of the plurality of second resonance pipes (each of #16C/16D, when second resonance pipes #16C/16D are shaped to be the same as first resonance pipes 16i/16J, see [0089]) defines a plurality of second resonance holes (defined by perforations – [0102], clearly seen in Figure 8), the plurality of second resonance holes being arranged in a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of second resonance pipes (longitudinal arrangement resonance holes clearly seen in Figure 8). As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Barrett teaches that “different materials, lengths, shapes, different numbers of members, etc. can be used (see [0089]).” In reading [0089], one of ordinary skill would understand it to be obvious that members #16 located in both the inlet and outlet pipes 12/14 could be shaped as pipes #16i/16J, as [0089] clearly states that the device is not limited to any particular configuration of member #16.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (2,062,141) in view of Barrett (2015/0068834), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sampoll (3,105,571).
With respect to claim 5, Newman and Barrett teach the resonance-type silencer of claim 4. Newman further teaches wherein an inner diameter of the housing (A) is formed to be greater than an inner diameter of each of the air supply pipe (8) and the air exhaust pipe (9), wherein the end walls (1/2) of the housing are depicted as a single unit.
Newman and Barrett fail to teach wherein the air supply pipe and the air exhaust pipe form a flange that extends along a circumference of an end portion connected to the housing and is coupled while shielding at least a portion of the air supply port and the air exhaust port.
Sampoll teaches a similar muffler device (Figures 1-2), wherein a similar wherein air supply pipe (27), air exhaust pipe (28) and housing (12) are formed such that wherein the air supply pipe (27) and the air exhaust pipe (28) each form a flange (22/24) that extends along a circumference of an end portion (end portion of respective pipes #27/28) connected to the housing (12) and is coupled while shielding at least a portion of the air supply port (opening through #12 accommodating #22/27) and the air exhaust port (opening through #12 accommodating #24/28).
Because Newman teaches that the muffler housing end walls and inlet/outlet pipes are attached to one another, and Sampoll teaches wherein it is known to form a muffler housing such that the air supply/inlet pipe and the air exhaust/outlet pipe form a flange that extends along a circumference of an end portion of the respective supply and exhaust pipes, and connected to the housing and is coupled while shielding at least a portion of the air supply port and the air exhaust port, 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 Newman as modified, with the apparatus of Sampoll so as to provide simple substitution of one known method for assembling a muffler housing, end wall and inlet/outlet pipe for another, to provide the predictable result of successfully assembling the housing and pipe components of Newman as modified, by forming and attaching the corresponding components in the same manner as taught by Sampoll. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-11 and 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers the combination of Yokoi and Barrett; and Newman, Barrett and Sampoll to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
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
Prosecution Insights