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 § 102
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 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 –
Claims 1-5, 8, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (KR 10-2014-014251).
With respect to claim 1, Cho teaches a ventilation system (device of Figures 4-5, see title/abstract provided by Applicant) comprising: a ventilation path (defined by flow path through 20/10/20 and through central opening #32); and a silencer (10) that is disposed at an intermediate position of the ventilation path, wherein the silencer includes a housing (defined by outer housing of silencer #10) that includes an inlet opening (upstream end opening of #10) and an outlet opening (downstream end opening of #10) and that includes an in-housing ventilation path (path through #10) extending from the inlet opening to the outlet opening therein, and a sound absorbing member (30) that is disposed in the housing in a state of surrounding the in-housing ventilation path, the ventilation path has a first ventilation path (path through upstream one of #20) that is adjacent to the inlet opening and that is continuous to the in-housing ventilation path and a second ventilation path (path through downstream one of #20) that is adjacent to the outlet opening and that is continuous to the in-housing ventilation path, the closer to the in-housing ventilation path, the larger a size of a cross section of at least one ventilation path of the first ventilation (path through upstream one of #20) path or the second ventilation path (path through downstream one of #20), and a size of a cross section of an end of the at least one ventilation path (path through one of upstream or downstream ones of #20) on an in-housing ventilation path side and a size of an opening of the inlet opening or the outlet opening, which is adjacent to the end, are identical to each other (clearly seen in Figure 4-5).
With respect to claim 2, Cho teaches wherein the closer to the in-housing ventilation path, the larger a size of a cross section of each of the first ventilation path and the second ventilation path (note that connectors #20 have a larger cross-section on a side adjacent or closer to #10), the size of the cross section of the end of the first ventilation path (path through upstream one of #20) on the in-housing ventilation path side and the size of the inlet opening (upstream end opening of #10) are identical to each other, and the size of the cross section of the end of the second ventilation path (path through downstream one of #20) on the in-housing ventilation path side and the size of the outlet opening (downstream end opening of #10) are identical to each other.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Cho teaches further comprising: an upstream tube body that forms an upstream ventilation path of the ventilation path (defined by upstream air conditioning pipe connected to #20, not shown in the Figures – see abstract), which is on an upstream side of the first ventilation path (path through upstream one of #20); a downstream tube body (defined by downstream air conditioning pipe connected to #20, not shown in the Figures – see abstract) that forms a downstream ventilation path (path through downstream one of #20) of the ventilation path, which is on a downstream side of the second ventilation path; a tubular first connecting portion (defined by body of upstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe) that includes the first ventilation path therein and that links the upstream ventilation path and the first ventilation path to each other by being connected to the upstream tube body; and a tubular second connecting portion (defined by body of downstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe) that includes the second ventilation path therein and that links the downstream ventilation path and the second ventilation path to each other by being connected to the downstream tube body.
With respect to claim 4, Cho teaches wherein the in-housing ventilation path extends along a first direction (defined by flow direction through #20/10/20), the first connecting portion (defined by body of upstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe) protrudes from one end of the housing in the first direction, and the second connecting portion (defined by body of downstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe) protrudes from the other end of the housing in the first direction.
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Cho teaches wherein the in-housing ventilation path extends along a first direction (defined by flow direction through #20/10/20), and each of the first connecting portion (defined by body of upstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe) and the second connecting portion (defined by body of downstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe) has an outer peripheral surface in which unevenness is formed along the first direction (unevenness defined by tapering outer surfaces of #20).
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Cho teaches wherein the in-housing ventilation path extends along a first direction (defined by flow direction through #20/10/20), a peripheral surface (outer surface of one of #20) surrounding the at least one ventilation path is inclined (defined by incline of taper of #20) with respect to the first direction, and an inclined angle of the peripheral surface with respect to the first direction is 0.1 degrees or more and 45 degrees or less (angle clearly seen).
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 7, 9-11, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 10-2014-014251).
With respect to claims 7, 15 and 20, Cho teaches the ventilation system of claims 3-5. Cho further teaches wherein the wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion (defined by body of each of #20) are composed of an obvious, but unspecified material.
However, 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 first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are composed of resin forming products, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, resin forming products, including the list of plastic materials in Applicant’s Specification [0023], are all well-known plastic materials that are widely available and would have been known to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Cho teaches the ventilation system of claims 1, 2. Cho further teaches wherein the in-housing ventilation path extends along a first direction, and a range in which the inlet opening is present and a range in which the outlet opening is present are the same as each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction and a third direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction (clearly seen in Figures 4-5).
Cho fails to explicitly teach a range in which the inlet opening is present and a range in which the outlet opening is present are different from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction.
It would have been an obvious design choice to a range in which the inlet opening is present and a range in which the outlet opening is present are different from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, changing the size of one of the inlet or outlet openings would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for a number of reasons including adjusting a flow through the device or tuning purposes.
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Cho teaches the ventilation system of claims 1 and 2. Cho further teaches wherein the ventilation path further includes, on an opposite side to the in-housing ventilation path (path through #10), an adjacent ventilation path (defined by path through air conditioning pipe connected to #20, not shown in the Figures – see abstract) that is adjacent to the at least one ventilation path (path through one of #20), and the farther from the in-housing ventilation path, the size of a cross section of the adjacent ventilation path is unspecified, but obvious.
Cho fails to explicitly teach the farther from the in-housing ventilation path, the larger a size of a cross section of the adjacent ventilation path.
It would have been an obvious design choice to provide wherein the farther from the in-housing ventilation path, the larger a size of a cross section of the adjacent ventilation path, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, defining a size of the unspecified air conditioning pipe connected to #20 (i.e. the adjacent ventilation path), such that the farther from the in-housing ventilation path, the larger a size of a cross section of the adjacent ventilation path, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, so as to define or alter a desired air flow pressure/amount in the air conditioning pipe, relative to the device #20/20/20 of Cho, as is well known in the art.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Cho teaches the ventilation system of claims 1 and 2. Cho further teaches wherein a diameter of the end of each of the first ventilation path and the second ventilation path (defined by ventilation paths through upstream and downstream ones of #20) on the in-housing ventilation path side is of an unspecified, but obvious amount.
Cho fails to explicitly teach wherein the unspecified diameter is 150 mm or less.
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 diameter of the end of each of the first ventilation path and the second ventilation path on the in-housing ventilation path side is 150 mm or less, 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, setting the diameters of the ends of connectors #20 connected to silencer body #10 to be 150 mm or less would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, and involves routine skill.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 10-2014-014251) in view of Tsuburaya (JP 2008-144874 A).
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Cho teaches the ventilation system of claims 5 and 13.
Cho fails teach wherein in each of the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion, the farther from the housing, the smaller an outer diameter of a portion where the outer peripheral surface has a convex shape.
Tsuburaya teaches a similar connecting configuration (Figures 1-3), wherein in each of the first connecting portion (defined by #4, when combined with Cho body of upstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe) and the second connecting portion (defined by #4, when combined with Cho body of downstream one of #20 connecting to air conditioning pipe), the farther from the housing (Cho, outer housing of silencer #10, when combined), the smaller an outer diameter of a portion (defined by tapered portion #42, extending from #41 to #40) where the outer peripheral surface has a convex shape (defined by convex tapered portion #42, similar to Applicant’s).
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 Cho, with the apparatus of Tsuburaya so as to provide a pipe connection allowing insertion of the pipe fitting, but not allowing movement in a removal direction (see Tsuburaya, Abstract), as Cho does not specify any particular connection configuration between the air conditioning pipe and connectors #20.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/631,524 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the current application is contained in the copending claims previously indicated.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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