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. GB2303800.3, filed on 15 March 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the third orifice” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for exceeding 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and the sound outlet is located on the dashboard is located on the dashboard of the vehicle” is read as “and the sound outlet is located on the dashboard .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 and 24 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the rate of increase" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “wherein the rate of increase of the cross-sectional area of the first volume is constant along the length of the first volume” is read as “wherein has a constant rate of increase along the length of the first volume”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the cabin" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “the cabin of the vehicle” is read as “a cabin of the vehicle”.
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) 1,8-9,12, 16-17, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofmann et al. (US 6,644,436 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Hofmann et al. (US 6,644,436 B2) discloses a sound bypass device configured to transmit engine-generated sound pulses from an engine of a vehicle to an auditory environment whilst preventing the flow of gases to the auditory environment (Device 1 transmits sound; Col. 9, Lines 50-67; Col. 10, Lines 1-10; Fig. 11-13), the sound bypass device comprising:
a sound inlet configured to receive gases exiting or entering the engine of the vehicle (Inlet 10 receiving gases exiting in Fig. 2 or entering in Fig. 1 engine 7; Col. 4, Lines 40-67; Col. 7, Lines 30-45);
a sound outlet configured to transmit sound pulses to the auditory environment (Outlet 16 transmits sound to interior environment 2; Col. 5, Lines 24-35; Fig. 12-15);
a chamber connected to the sound inlet at a first end and to the sound outlet at a second end, the chamber being enclosed between the sound inlet and the sound outlet (Chamber 12 between inlet 10, with first end between 10 and 12, and outlet 16, with second end between 12 and 16; Fig. 12-14); and
a first membrane located within the chamber, the first membrane being configured to transmit engine-generated sound pulses from the gases whilst preventing the movement of gases through the sound bypass device (First membrane 18c transmits waves and prevents gas via connection of 34 to walls 12 to ensures leak tightness; Col. 9, Lines 50-67; Col. 10, Lines 1-2; Fig. 14);
wherein the sound outlet is defined by a second membrane extending radially from the second end of the chamber, the second membrane extending outwardly from a central point of the sound outlet, and the second membrane being configured to move in response to sound pulses from the chamber to emit sound pulses from the chamber to the auditory environment (See in Fig. 14: Sound outlet 16 with second membrane 18d; Col. 9, Lines 50-56).
Regarding Claim 8, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1, wherein the chamber is defined by a first axis that extends between its first end and its second end, and wherein the second membrane extends outwardly of the chamber in (i) a radial direction that extends away from the first axis, and (ii) and an axial direction that is coincident with the first axis and extends away from the chamber (35 as a central axis extends through chamber 12’s first end between 10 and 12 of Fig. 13 and through chamber 12’s second end between 12 and 16 in Fig. 14. See second membrane 18d curved concave shape radial and extend outwardly from 12).
Regarding Claim 9, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1, wherein the second membrane comprises a cross-sectional area that extends perpendicularly to (In Fig. 14: in structure of second membrane 18d’s curved concave shape radial and extend outwardly from 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1, wherein the chamber further comprises: a first volume located between the sound inlet and the first membrane (Volume of 12 left of membrane 18c; Fig. 13); and a second volume located between the sound outlet and the first membrane (Volume of 12 right of membranes 18c; Fig. 13); wherein the first membrane is configured to prevent the movement of gasses between the first volume from the second volume (First membrane 18c transmits waves and prevents gas via connection of 34 to walls 12 to ensures leak tightness; Col. 9, Lines 50-67; Col. 10, Lines 1-2; Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 16, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 12, further comprising a connecting means for transferring engine-generated sound pulses waves between the first membrane and the second membrane (Fig. 14: membranes “18c and 18d connected to each other ”; Col. 9, Lines 50-56).
Regarding Claim 17, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 16, wherein the connecting means is a rod (Fig. 14: membranes “18c and 18d connected to each other ”; Col. 9, Lines 50-56. Details in similar embodiment Fig. 6: Membranes18a and 18b connected via rod 27a; Col. 8, Lines 15-55).
Regarding Claim 22, Hoffman et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim1, wherein the sound inlet is provided by an input tube and is connected to a first location on the exhaust system of a vehicle that is located before a catalytic converter of the vehicle (Sound inlet 10 connected to exhaust system 8 located before/upstream of catalytic converter; Device 1; Col. 7, Lines 30-45; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 26, Hoffman et al. discloses a vehicle comprising the sound bypass device of claim 1 (Device 1 arranged in motor vehicle; Col. 4, Lines 39-60; 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) 2-5, 7, 10-11, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (US 6,644,436 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1. Hofmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first membrane comprises bellows attached to an internal wall of the chamber). However, an alternative embodiment of Hofmann et al. teaches wherein the first membrane comprises bellows attached to an internal wall of the chamber (Fig. 5: 17 comprises concertinas/bellows 13a attached to left end internal wall of 12; Col. 7, Lines 45-60. Concertinas/bellows being a corrugated spring.). Modifying Hofmann et al. with teachings of the alternative embodiment of Hofmann 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 the first membrane comprises bellows attached to an internal wall of the chamber for the purpose of executing vibrations in the axial direction or sound transmission (Col. 7, Lines 50-55,62-64).
Regarding Claim 3, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2, wherein a corrugated spring (Hofmann’s concertinas are a corrugated spring) is claimed instead of bellows; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 4, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 2, wherein the internal wall is an end wall of the chamber (In Fig. 5: see 13a attached to left end internal wall of 12).
Regarding Claim 5, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 2, wherein the internal wall is a side wall of the chamber (In Fig. 5: see 13a attached to left end internal wall of 12. An end wall is a side wall).
Regarding Claim 7, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1. Hofmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first membrane is composed as a single sheet of material (First membrane 18c being a plate; Col. 9, Lines 50-56). 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 minimizing manufacturing costs, since it has been held that discovering the 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, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1,wherein the second end of the chamber comprises an orifice, the orifice having a first cross-sectional area (Fig. 14: Orifice of 16). Hofmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second membrane has a cross-sectional area at its furthest point from the chamber that is greater than the cross-sectional area of the orifice (Fig. 14: Second membrane’s cross-sectional area away from chamber 12 is appears approximately the same size as orifice of 16). 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 optimizing transmission behavior via cross-sectional area (Col. 6, Lines 64-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-11), 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.
Regarding Claim 11, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1. Hofmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second membrane is conical in shape (In Fig. 14: Second membrane 18d’s curved concave shape). 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 optimizing transmission behavior via cross-sectional area (Col. 6, Lines 64-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-11), 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 Hoffman et al.
Regarding Claim 13, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 12, wherein the first volume has a first end located at the first end of the chamber (First volume of 12 left of membrane 18c’s 34; Fig. 13) and a second end that is proximal to the second volume (First volume of 12 at 18c proximal to second volume right of membrane 18c; Fig. 13). Hoffman et al. fails to explicitly disclose and wherein the first volume has a cross-sectional area that is greater at the second end than it is at the first end, wherein cross-sectional area of the first volume is has a constant rate of increase along the length of the first volume, and the second volume has a cross-sectional area that is consistent along the length of the second volume. 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 optimizing transmission behavior via geometry and volume of the chamber (Col. 6, Lines 64-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-11), 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.
Regarding Claim 18, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 16. Hofmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connecting means is a volume of air comprised within the second volume. However, an alternative embodiment of Hofmann et al. teaches wherein the connecting means is a volume of air comprised with in the second volume (Fig. 6: Similar embodiment of first volume 11a (left of membrane 18a) and second volume 11b (right of membrane 18a) connected via pressure/air variations of duct 20; Col. 7, Lines 60-67; Col. 8, Lines 1-5,25-45). Modifying Hofmann et al. with an alternative embodiment of Hofmann 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 the connecting means is a volume of air comprised with in the second volume for the purpose of preventing static forces from acting on the membranes that would impair their dynamic properties (Col. 8, Lines 30-37).
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (US 6,644,436 B2) in view of Silver (US 8,085,968 B2).
Regarding Claim 19, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1. Hofmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a protective cap located at a centre point of the second membrane (18d; Fig. 14), the protective cap being configured to isolate the chamber from the auditory environment, wherein the protective cap is coupled to the second membrane by an insulting seal.
However, Silver (US 8,085,968 B2) teaches further comprising a protective cap located at a centre point of the second membrane, the protective cap being configured to isolate the chamber from the auditory environment, wherein the protective cap is coupled to the second membrane by an insulting seal (Silver: Protective cap 120 couples to center of membrane 102 and isolates chamber 122 from auditory environment 142, wherein 120 is coupled via rubber joint 162 ; Col. 6, Lines 55-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-15 Fig. 5A). Silver and Hofmann et al. are in similar fields comprising sound outputting devices with vibrating membranes. Modifying Hofmann et al. with teachings of Silver would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein further comprising a protective cap located at a centre point of the second membrane, the protective cap being configured to isolate the chamber from the auditory environment, wherein the protective cap is coupled to the second membrane by an insulting seal for the purpose of improving high frequency performance and increasing the range of frequencies at which the device operates (Silver: Col. 7, Lines 1-15 ).
Regarding Claim 21, Hofmann et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1. Hofmann et al. fails to explicitly disclose a frame for supporting the second membrane (18d) as it extends radially from the chamber (12; Fig. 14); and a suspension mechanism coupling the second membrane to the frame.
However, Silver (US 8,085,968 B2) teaches further comprising a frame for supporting the second membrane as it extends radially from the chamber; and a suspension mechanism coupling the second membrane to the frame (Silver: Frame 110 for supporting membrane 102 coupled by suspension mechanism 112 and 116; Col. 3, Lines 10-25; Fig. 2). Silver and Hofmann et al. are in similar fields comprising sound outputting devices with vibrating membranes. Modifying Hofmann et al. with teachings of Silver would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein further comprising a frame for supporting the second membrane as it extends radially from the chamber; and a suspension mechanism coupling the second membrane to the frame for the purpose of supporting components of the device, broad resonant response of the second membrane, and stability against the centermost area of the membrane from rocking (Silver: Col. 2, Lines 10-20; Col. 5, Lines 43-55; Col. 6, Lines 5-16).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (US 6,644,436 B2) in view of Ohta et al. (US 8,322,486 B2).
Regarding Claim 24, Hoffman et al. discloses the sound bypass device of claim 1. Hoffman et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the auditory environment is a cabin of the vehicle and the sound outlet is located on the dashboard(Outlet 16 leads to interior 2; Col. 5, Lines 24-35; Fig. 14-15).
However, Ohta et al. (US 8,322,486 B2) teaches wherein the auditory environment is a cabin of the vehicle and the sound outlet is located on the dashboard of the vehicle (Ohta: Sound emitted from opening 7a oriented toward dash panel; Col. 5, Lines 1-17; Col. 6, Lines 28-45; Fig. 2-3). Ohta et al. and Hoffman et al. are in similar fields comprising engine intake sound generating devices. Modifying Hoffman et al. with teachings of Ohta et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the auditory environment is a cabin of the vehicle and the sound outlet is located on the dashboard of the vehicle for the purpose of generating audible sound effects (Ohta: Col. 5, Lines 40-55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-7188703-B2, US-10419837-B2, DE-10149169-C1, DE-10102923-C1.
Any 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
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights