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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to the communication filed 05/29/2025. Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 3 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the limitations using the term substantially such as “substantially curvilinear flow path” (claim 1), “substantially circumferential direction” (claim 3), “substantially tubular shape” (claim 12) and “substantially to a quarter of the wavelength” (claim 12).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the circumferential distance between the two resonators" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for both the circumferential distance and the resonators.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the spacing between two resonators" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the direction going from the inlet to the inlet to the outlet" in line 3-4. It is unclear if reference is being made to the “a circumferential direction of the channel” in claim 1 or if a new distance is being introduced.
Claims 2-4 and 6-19 are indefinite based on their dependency on claim 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) 1-4, 6, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0293076 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Patent 3,144,913 to Bailey (Bailey).
In Reference to Claim 1
Park discloses an acoustic attenuation device (abstract, Fig. 3, 100 for instance) for an electromechanical device (intended use, see note below) through which passes a gas stream capable of propagating acoustic waves (¶ [0010], fluid flow for which noise is to be reduced for instance), comprising inlet and outlet ports for a gas stream (Fig. 2, inlet 111a and outlet 111b for instance), the device comprising
a channel (Figs. 6a-b, 210 for instance) of an overall shape that is generally curvilinear (as seen in figure 6a for instance) around a main axis of the device (an axis at D1 for instance), defining a substantially curvilinear flow path for the gas stream between the inlet and outlet ports (flow within 200 for instance), and comprises
a plurality of acoustic attenuator elements (211 and 212 for instance) tuned to an attenuation resonance frequency (see ¶ [0048] for instance), arranged consecutively in series along said channel so as to interact with the gas stream flowing in the channel (see flow in direction D2 for instance),
and being referred to as resonators (see ¶ [0006] for instance), a wall of the channel (of 211 and of 212 for instance) having a stepped profile defining an incremental depth which varies from one cavity to another along a circumferential direction of the channel (incrementally increasing and decreasing along 200, see figures 6a-b).
Examiner notes that it has been held that ‘A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.’ Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II).
Park does not teach “... the acoustic attenuator elements being formed by cavities of quarter-wave resonators ....”
Bailey is related to an acoustic attenuation device (Fig. 1, 32 for instance) for an electromechanical device (col 1, ll 11-24, high speed rotary fluid machines and predictably electromechanical for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein acoustic attenuator elements (Fig. 10, 53 for instance) being formed by cavities of quarter-wave resonators (see col 4, ll 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park wherein the acoustic attenuation device (of Park) is for an electromechanical device (as taught by Bailey) and wherein the acoustic attenuator elements (of Park) is formed by cavities of quarter-wave resonators (as taught by Bailey), so as to use an art known technique (of forming resonators to attenuate sound as taught by Bailey) into the system of Park and predictably attenuate sounds in the system.
In Reference to Claim 2
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim1, wherein the channel (Park Figs. 6a-b, 210 for instance) has an overall shape that is generally annular around the axis (Park, axis relative to D1 for instance), defining a near-circular flow path (Park, as seen in figure 6a for instance) between the inlet and outlet ports (Park, inlet and outlet 111a and 111b for instance, see figure 2), or the channel (Park, 210 for instance) at least partially winds in an outwardly expanding spiral configuration (Park, as seen in figure 6a for instance) between the inlet port and the outlet port (Park, inlet and outlet 111a and 111b for instance, see figure 2).
In Reference to Claim 3
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the channel (Park Figs. 6a-b, 210 for instance) is provided with an internal geometric structure (Park, inside of 200 for instance) extending inside the channel (Park, as seen) in a substantially circumferential direction (Park, see figure 6a), configured to define the plurality of cavities (Park, of 211 and 212 for instance) and to leave free of obstructions to the flow of the gas stream a main passage which the cavities are open to (Park, in the middle of 200 for instance, see figure 6b).
In Reference to Claim 4
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim3, wherein the internal geometric structure (Park, inside of 200 for instance) comprises a plurality of radial separation partitions which define, with the walls of the channel (Park, of 211 and 212 for instance), a plurality of compartments forming the plurality of cavities (Park, 211 and 212 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 6
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim1, wherein the depth from one cavity to another (Park Figs. 6a-b, from 211 to 212 for instance) varies increasingly or decreasingly over the series of resonators (Park, increasingly form 211 to 212 for instance and decreasingly from 212 to 211 for instance), in the direction going from the inlet to the outlet (through 200 for instance, from 111a to 111b, see figure 2).
In Reference to Claim 11
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the resonators are all dimensionally different when compared pairwise (Park Fig. 6a-b, between 211 and 212 and between 212 to 211 for instance), so as to ensure an absorption at a different resonance frequency (Park ¶ [0047]-[0048], the attenuation of sound in specific frequency ranges for instance).
In Reference to Claim 12
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the cavity of each resonator (Park Fig. 6a-b, of 211 and of 212 for instance) has a substantially tubular shape (Park, as seen in figure 6) configured to be open to the channel (Park, 210 for instance) and has a depth corresponding substantially to a quarter of the wavelength of the acoustic wave of predefined resonance frequency (as taught by Bailey, see col 4, ll 24-29).
In Reference to Claim 13
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 12, wherein the cross-section of each resonator cavity has curvilinear edges which follow interior and exterior curvatures of the channel (Park Fig. 6a, the cavity of 211 and 212 as connected to central spiraled portion for instance).
In Reference to Claim 14
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the channel is defined radially by outer and inner peripheral walls which are annular around the axis, and transversely by upper and lower walls (Park Fig. 6a, the configuration of 210 and 211 and 212 to be a tubular structure for instance).
In Reference to Claim 15
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 14, wherein the upper wall is configured to axially define the depth of the resonance cavities forming the resonators (Park Fig. 6a-b, portions of 211 and 212 forming depth for resonance cavities for instance).
In Reference to Claim 16
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the centrifugal pump (as taught by Bailey, see Fig. 1, 22 for instance), comprising a casing (Bailey, of 22, not labeled), a shaft (Bailey, see left central portion of 24, not labeled) extending along a main axis (Bailey, 32a for instance) of the pump, an impeller (Bailey, 24 for instance) mounted on the shaft, a motor for rotating the impeller (Bailey, predictably of high speed fluid machines, see col 1, ll 21-24), defining a flow path for a gas stream inside the casing of the pump (Bailey, see flow arrows in figure 1 for instance) between an intake port (Bailey, bottom left of figure 1, not labeled) and a discharge port (Bailey, at right portion of 28 for instance) for the gas stream, the centrifugal pump comprising the acoustic attenuation device (Bailey, portion 28 as modified to have acoustic system as taught by Park for instance) according to claim 1, the acoustic attenuation channel (Park, 210 for instance) being arranged in a curvilinear configuration around the main axis (as taught by Park and around main axis of Bailey as modified) of the pump inside the casing (within 28 of Bailey for instance) so that the gas stream circulating in the pump flows through said attenuation channel (Bailey, flows from 22 through 28, as modified) before being discharged into the atmosphere through the discharge port of the downstream casing (Bailey, through 28 for instance).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0293076 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Patent 3,144,913 to Bailey (Bailey) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,340,275to Eisinger (Eisinger) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0066245 to Lee et al. (Lee).
In Reference to Claim 7
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein at least first and second resonators (Park Figs. 6a-b, 211 and 212 for instance) having first and second resonance frequencies respectively associated with first and second frequency bands of attenuation (Park ¶ [0047]-[0048], each resonator attenuation of different frequencies for instance), but does not teach “... greater than twenty decibels ...”, or teach “... the circumferential distance between the two resonators is determined so as to produce a coupling phenomenon between the two resonators over a continuous frequency band of attenuation greater than twenty decibels ....”
Eisinger is related to an acoustic attenuation device (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein resonators of the system may be configured to attenuate sounds greater than 20 decibels (see col 3, ll 65-68).
Lee is related to an acoustic attenuation device (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches a distance (Fig. 1B, S1 for instance) between two resonators (122 and 124 for instance) is determined so as to produce a coupling phenomenon between the two resonators (¶ [0037], such as resonance frequency of pairs of resonators) over a continuous frequency band of attenuation (¶ [0005], such as sound absorption of a broad frequency range for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park wherein at least first and second resonators has first and second resonance frequencies respectively associated with first and second frequency bands of attenuation (of Park) is greater than twenty decibels (as taught by Eisinger of the configuration of resonators), and the circumferential distance between the two resonators (of Park) is determined so as to produce a coupling phenomenon between the two resonators over a continuous frequency band of attenuation (as taught by Lee of the factoring of distance between resonators for instance) is greater than twenty decibels (as taught by Eisinger of the configuration of resonators), so as to use an art known technique (of the configuration of resonators to attenuate sounds of a certain level and including factoring distance between adjacent resonators as taught by Eisinger and Lee) into the system of Park and predictably attenuate sound in the system of Park.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0293076 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Patent 3,144,913 to Bailey (Bailey) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0066245 to Lee et al. (Lee).
In Reference to Claim 8
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 1, except, “... wherein an optimal spacing Popt(i) between two consecutive resonators Ai and Ai+1 being given by the following formula:
P
o
p
t
i
=
V
8
X
(
1
f
0
i
+
1
f
0
i
+
1
)
where f0(i) is the resonance frequency of resonator Ai, f0(i+ 1) is the resonance frequency of resonator Ai+1, and v is the speed of sound, the spacing P(i) between two consecutive resonators Ai and Ai+1 is within a range of values extending from 50% to 150% of the value of Popt(i) ....”
However, Park further teaches that two consecutive resonators (211 and 212 for instance) can be configured to attenuate different frequencies (¶ [0010) and that various factors in configuration contributes to sound attenuation (¶ [0048]).
Further, Lee is related to an acoustic attenuation device (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches that spacing between consecutive resonators (Fig. 1B, 122 and 124 for instance) may be configured factoring resonance frequency and the speed of sound (see ¶ [0037] for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park spacing between consecutive resonators that may be optimized (as taught by Lee), so as to use an art known technique (of the configuration of resonators to attenuate sounds including factoring distance between adjacent resonators as taught by Lee) into the system of Park and predictably attenuate sound in the system of Park.
Therefore, regarding the claimed limitations “... wherein an optimal spacing Popt(i) between two consecutive resonators Ai and Ai+1 being given by the following formula:
P
o
p
t
i
=
V
8
X
(
1
f
0
i
+
1
f
0
i
+
1
)
where f0(i) is the resonance frequency of resonator Ai, f0(i+ 1) is the resonance frequency of resonator Ai+1, and v is the speed of sound, the spacing P(i) between two consecutive resonators Ai and Ai+1 is within a range of values extending from 50% to 150% of the value of Popt(i) ....”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (such as optimizing spacing between consecutive resonators for instance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park such that an optimal spacing Popt(i) between two consecutive resonators Ai and Ai+1 is given by the following formula:
P
o
p
t
i
=
V
8
X
(
1
f
0
i
+
1
f
0
i
+
1
)
where f0(i) is the resonance frequency of resonator Ai, f0(i+ 1) is the resonance frequency of resonator Ai+1, and v is the speed of sound, the spacing P(i) between two consecutive resonators Ai and Ai+1 is within a range of values extending from 50% to 150% of the value of Popt(i) because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 9
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the device according to claim 1, except, "... wherein the spacing between two resonators varies increasingly or decreasingly along the series of resonators, in the direction going from the inlet to the outlet ....”
Lee is related to an acoustic attenuation device (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches that spacing between consecutive resonators (Fig. 1B, between 122 and 124 and between 132 and 134 for instance) may be configured with various values (see ¶ [0037]-[0038] for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park spacing between consecutive resonators that may be optimized (as taught by Lee), so as to use an art known technique (of the configuration of resonators to attenuate sounds including factoring distance between adjacent resonators as taught by Lee) into the system of Park and predictably attenuate sound in the system of Park.
Therefore, regarding the claimed limitations “... wherein the spacing between two resonators varies increasingly or decreasingly along the series of resonators, in the direction going from the inlet to the outlet ....”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (such as optimizing spacing between consecutive resonators for instance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park wherein the spacing between two resonators varies increasingly or decreasingly along the series of resonators, in the direction going from the inlet to the outlet because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 10
Park, as modified by Bailey and Lee, discloses the device according to claim 8, wherein the spacing (as taught by Lee) between two consecutive resonators Ai and Ai+1 (of Park) is constant along the series of a number N of resonators and corresponds to the mean value of the minimum and maximum values of the optimal spacing Popt(i) over the series of resonators Ai, with i from 1 to N (Park Fig. 2, constant configuration form of 111 and 112 for instance).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0293076 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Patent 3,144,913 to Bailey (Bailey) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US Patent 4,411,592 to Traver et al. (Traver).
In Reference to Claim 17
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses the centrifugal pump (as taught by Bailey for instance) according to claim16, wherein the channel of an attenuation device (32 as taught by Bailey for instance) extends between two outer and inner walls of a downstream casing (28 as taught by Bailey for instance), except explicitly, “... wherein the casing comprises an upstream casing configured to house the impeller and a downstream casing configured to house the motor, the downstream casing comprising a body in the general shape of a cowling defining an outer peripheral wall and an inner peripheral wall extending around a central space for housing the motor ....”
Traver is related to a centrifugal pump with an associated sound attenuation device (abstract, see also Fig. 1), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a casing (Fig. 1, of system for instance, not labeled) comprises an upstream casing (19 for instance) configured to house an impeller (16 for instance) and a downstream casing (right portion about 15 for instance, not labeled) configured to house a motor (15 for instance), the downstream casing comprising a body in the general shape of a cowling defining an outer peripheral wall and an inner peripheral wall extending around a central space for housing the motor (casing as surrounding and housing motor 15 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park wherein a casing comprises an upstream casing configured to house the impeller and a downstream casing configured to house the motor (as taught by Traver), the downstream casing comprising a body in the general shape of a cowling defining an outer peripheral wall and an inner peripheral wall extending around a central space for housing the motor (as taught by Traver), the channel of the attenuation device (of Park) extending between the two outer and inner walls of the downstream casing (as taught by Bailey), so as to use an art known technique (of centrifugal pump having a system including a casing to house a motor and attenuation system included into the pump casing as taught by Bailey and Traver) to incorporate a attenuation device of Park and predictably attenuate sounds of the pump.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0293076 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Patent 3,144,913 to Bailey (Bailey) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0355230 to Arnault et al. (Arnault).
In Reference to Claim 18
Park, as modified by Bailey, discloses a centrifugal pump according to claim 16 (as taught by Bailey, see claim 16), except teaching, "... Pollution-removing device for recovering brake dust particles, the device comprising a housing with an inlet port for a flow of dirty air laden with particles and an outlet port for the discharging a flow of purified air, and at least one separation member, housed in the housing, through which the air flow circulates between the inlet and outlet ports in order to separate particles from the flow of dirty air, wherein the device comprises a suction member comprising a centrifugal pump according to claim 16 and wherein the intake port of the pump is configured to be connected to the outlet port of the housing ....”
Arnault is related to a pollution-removing device for recovering brake dust particles (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches the device (Fig. 1, 1 for instance) comprising a housing (2 for instance) with an inlet port (3 for instance) for a flow of dirty air laden with particles and an outlet port (9a for instance) for the discharging a flow of purified air (see ¶ [0010]), and at least one separation member (5 for instance), housed in the housing (2), through which the air flow circulates between the inlet and outlet ports (3 and 9a for instance) in order to separate particles from the flow of dirty air (¶ [0010]), wherein the device comprises a suction member comprising a centrifugal pump (¶ [0195], turbine for suction for instance), and wherein the intake port of the pump (¶ [0195], a turbine as formed in portion 2c for instance) is configured to be connected to the outlet port of the housing (connected outlet at 9a and air out at 4 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park a pollution-removing device for recovering brake dust particles (as taught by Arnault), the device comprising a housing with an inlet port for a flow of dirty air laden with particles and an outlet port for the discharging a flow of purified air (as taught by Arnault), and at least one separation member (as taught by Arnault), housed in the housing (as taught by Arnault), through which the air flow circulates between the inlet and outlet ports in order to separate particles from the flow of dirty air (as taught by Arnault), wherein the device comprises a suction member comprising a centrifugal pump (as taught by Arnault), and wherein the intake port of the pump is configured to be connected to the outlet port of the housing (as taught by Arnault), so as to use an art known technique (of a pollution-removing device and centrifugal pump system as taught by Arnault) to incorporate a attenuation device of Park and predictably attenuate sounds of the pump and clean pollutants from air in a system.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0293076 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Patent 3,144,913 to Bailey (Bailey) and in view of US Patent 4,411,592 to Traver et al. (Traver) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0355230 to Arnault et al. (Arnault).
In Reference to Claim 19
Park, as modified by Bailey and Traver, discloses a centrifugal pump according to claim 17 (as taught by Bailey, see claim 17), except teaching, "... Pollution-removing device for recovering brake dust particles, the device comprising a housing with an inlet port for a flow of dirty air laden with particles and an outlet port for the discharging a flow of purified air, and at least one separation member, housed in the housing, through which the air flow circulates between the inlet and outlet ports in order to separate particles from the flow of dirty air, wherein the device comprises a suction member comprising a centrifugal pump according to claim 17 and wherein the intake port of the pump is configured to be connected to the outlet port of the housing ....”
Arnault is related to a pollution-removing device for recovering brake dust particles (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches the device (Fig. 1, 1 for instance) comprising a housing (2 for instance) with an inlet port (3 for instance) for a flow of dirty air laden with particles and an outlet port (9a for instance) for the discharging a flow of purified air (see ¶ [0010]), and at least one separation member (5 for instance), housed in the housing (2), through which the air flow circulates between the inlet and outlet ports (3 and 9a for instance) in order to separate particles from the flow of dirty air (¶ [0010]), wherein the device comprises a suction member comprising a centrifugal pump (¶ [0195], turbine for suction for instance), and wherein the intake port of the pump (¶ [0195], a turbine as formed in portion 2c for instance) is configured to be connected to the outlet port of the housing (connected outlet at 9a and air out at 4 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park a pollution-removing device for recovering brake dust particles (as taught by Arnault), the device comprising a housing with an inlet port for a flow of dirty air laden with particles and an outlet port for the discharging a flow of purified air (as taught by Arnault), and at least one separation member (as taught by Arnault), housed in the housing (as taught by Arnault), through which the air flow circulates between the inlet and outlet ports in order to separate particles from the flow of dirty air (as taught by Arnault), wherein the device comprises a suction member comprising a centrifugal pump (as taught by Arnault), and wherein the intake port of the pump is configured to be connected to the outlet port of the housing (as taught by Arnault), so as to use an art known technique (of a pollution-removing device and centrifugal pump system as taught by Arnault) to incorporate a attenuation device of Park and predictably attenuate sounds of the pump and clean pollutants from air in a system.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show sound attenuating systems with spaced resonators, pollutant separation units for brake pads, and sound attenuating systems used with suction devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights