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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no teaching in the prior art which would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range of 3% to 7% for the ratio of the communication port (14) in relation to the area of the sound ingress and egress surface. As originally applied the rejection was a 103 applied to dependent claims. As such the claimed combination of claim 1 is now treated as a 103 and the range per se on the merits will be argued.
In view of Rydsund a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found such a range obvious. The communication port in Rydsund is an aperture. As such the defining characteristic of the aperture is it’s size. The size of the aperture would have a direct effect on the linear velocity of the flow form the fan through the silencing device. The fan of Rudsun is taught be one of multiple speed fan or an continuously variable speed fan, but in either event at a given operational speed there will be a consistent volume of air moved through the fan. It is conventional for fans to be rated in terms of cfm, or cubic feet per minute. The volumetric flow will be consistent and as such the area of the opening though which the moved air passed will determine the linear velocity. The linear velocity of the flow will generate sounds as is known in the art of airflows. This flowing air will then strike the sound absorbing means and pass through the egress openings of Rydsund. As the only variable of the aperture is the size of opening which will have a known effect on the flow therethrough it is considered by the examiner to constitute a results effective variable in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand without the need of express teaching from the Rydsund reference. This variable when taken in conjunction with the size of the surfaces which are on constant size in Rydsund will then arrive at a percentage ratio. Taken as a whole the constant size and the controlled and designed variable of the aperture size will result in the claimed ratio which is then tuned for based upon the knowledge in the art that such tuning controls the flow. From this knowledge one would have found the range needed for the desired sound output. Such would have been in the realm one of skill in the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Applicant further argues the art as applied are from different fields which one would not look to in order to find solutions to problems. Examiner disagrees as both are concerned with sound reduction.
Applicant further argues that the prior art teaches away from the claimed technical solution which uses enclosed muffling chambers and resonant port size to realize sound wave destructive interference. Examiner disagrees as there is no such claimed limitation as resonance, resonator, or resonant port, neither is there any claimed limitation directed to destructive interference.
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) 1-6,9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydsund (US20160066699).
With respect to claim 1 Rydsund discloses a muffling device comprising a muffling body (1) having a sound ingress and egress surface (6), at least one muffling chamber is provided inside the muffling body, the sound ingress and egress surface is provided with at least one communication port (14), each of the communication port connecting one or more of the muffling chamber each of the muffling chamber is connected to the outside of the sound ingress and egress surface through at least one of the communication port.
As it regards the selection of the total area of the communication port in relation to the area of the sound ingress and egress surface has a ratio greater than 3% and less than 7%, the selection of such a range would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing. The selection would have determined the airflow characteristics and by extension the sound characteristics of the output. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 2 Rydsund discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the length of the muffling chamber is between 0.0085m and 0.85m. The selection of such length would have been an obvious smatter based upon the available space and the needed muffling, as would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 3 Rydsund further discloses wherein the muffling bod is provided with a through hole, a hole wall of the through hole being the sound ingress and egress surface (see again figure 1).
With respect to claim 4 Rydsund further discloses wherein the muffling body is provided with a blind hole, a peripheral wall of the blind holes being the sound ingress and egress surface or 'the peripheral wall and bottom wall of the blind hole being the sound ingress and egress surface (see manner of opening for inlet 14).
With respect to claim 5 Rydsund further discloses wherein one external surface of the muffling body is the sound ingress and egress surface (see again figure 1, element 6).
With respect to claim 6 As it regards the selection of total area of the communication port being greater than 3%, this would have constituted only an optimization of the system. The optimization of a results effective variable, in this case the communication area, would have been understood to one of ordinary skill. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 9 the use of the muffling device in conjunction with the refrigerator device would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill, it is known from at least applicant's background submission that such silencing of refrigeration devices is known, The use of the known silencer to silence a device known to be in need of silencing would have been an obvious smatter. Further 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 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
With respect to claim 10 Rydsund as modified further discloses wherein the cabinet is provided with an airflow hole for airflow through (conventional structures in a refrigerator) the sound ingress and egress surface of the muffling device being part or all of a periphery wall surface of the airflow hole (see figure 1 Rydsund) or The cabinet is provided with an airflow channel for airflow through the sound ingress and egress surface of the muffling device being part of a peripheral wall surface of the airflow channel.
2.Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydsund (US20160066699) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Opoku (US8500525) and Suguwara (US20200124320).
With respect to claim 8 Rydsund discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein at least one of the muffling chambers is labyrinthine; The lengths of at least two muffling chambers are unequal ad the lengths of these two muffling chambers are between 0.0085m and 0.85m; Each of the communication ports connects to one of the muffling chambers, each of the muffling chambers is connected to the outside of the sound ingress and egress surface through one of the communication ports.
Opoku discloses the use of a labyrinthine ventilation silencer (abstract and figure 1). It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Opoku to use a labyrinthine silencer pathway with the silencer of Rydsund to provide additional silencing within the same space. Suguwara discloses a silencing system (figure 27) which utilizes different length silencing bodies which serve to attenuate different frequency bandwidths. It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Suguwara to provide additional frequency attenuation by means of different sized silencing bodies with the device of Rydsun so as to enhance the sound reduction by reducing a greater bandwidth of noise.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 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) 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 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights