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 –
(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.
Claims 1 – 3, 8 – 13 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fabien (FR 2 902 632).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Fabien teaches a vacuum comprising a vacuum motor (Fig.8, Item 240); and a muffler (Fig.8, Items 260, 270 and 220) coupled to the vacuum motor for exhausting air and for noise reduction, the muffler comprising a main body including an inlet (Fig.8, opening at bottom of Item 240) for air exhausted by the vacuum motor and forming one or more chambers (Fig.8, volume between Items 240 and 260, and volume between Items 260 and 270) fluidically connected to the inlet; a foam layer (Fig.8, Item 270) for noise absorption and disposed within one of the chambers of the main body; and a sealing plate (Fig.8, Item 280) affixed to the main body including an outlet (Fig.8, Item 220) to exhaust air from the chambers to an external environment of the vacuum.
Regarding the vacuum being autonomous, the Examiner has given little patentable weight to the limitation because it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Fabien wherein the main body comprises a rigid layer (Fig.8, Item 260) with an array of holes (Fig.8, Item 262) separating two chambers: a bottom chamber and a middle chamber (Fig.8, volume between Items 240 and 260, and volume between Items 260 and 270, respectively), wherein the bottom chamber is fluidically connected to the inlet (Fig.8, opening at bottom of Item 240) and the middle chamber is fluidically connected to the outlet (Fig.8, Item 220).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Fabien teaches wherein the foam layer (Fig.8, Item 270) is disposed within the middle chamber and coupled to a bottom surface of the sealing plate (Fig.8, Item 280).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Fabien teaches wherein the foam layer (Fig.8, Item 270) is formed of a foam material selected from at least one of: open-cell foam, closed-cell foam, polyurethane foam, melamine foam, or acoustic foam (Specification language describing Item 270).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Fabien teaches wherein each chamber (Fig.8, volume between Items 240 and 260, and volume between Items 260 and 270) has a substantially small height relative to a length and a width of the chamber.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Fabien teaches the muffler further comprising foam (Fig.8, Item 220) disposed within the outlet for added noise absorption (Specification language describing Items 220 and 270).
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.
Claims 4 – 7 and 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabien (FR 2 902 632) in view of Chen (US 5,696,361).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Fabien teaches the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fails to disclose the muffler further comprising a fabric layer coupled to the rigid layer for additional noise absorption.
On the other hand, Chen teaches a sound absorbing structure comprising a fabric layer (Fig.4, Item 17) coupled to a rigid layer for additional noise absorption (Col.3, Lines 5 – 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Chen fabric with the Fabien design because it would help control the airflow through the muffler and provide additional sound absorbing properties at different frequency range than the foam layer.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 15 and 16, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the fabric layer in any predetermined configuration because it would provide a desired airflow through the muffler and sound absorbing properties at a target frequency range as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Fabien and Chen inventions. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to choose from the finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Chen teaches wherein the fabric layer is formed of a fabric material selected from at least one of: cotton, felt, wool, mass-loaded vinyl, acoustical cotton batts, fiberglass, or polyester fiber (Col.3, Line 8).
Conclusion
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights