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
(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.
Claim(s) 1,3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A1 as being anticipated by 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.
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 5 Rudsund further discloses wherein one external surface of the muffling body is the sound ingress and egress surface (see again figure 1, element 6).
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) 2,4,6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydsund (US20160066699).
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 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 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 7 as it regards the range of 3-6%, it would have been obvious to select such a range. I 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydsund (US20160066699) 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 ad 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US12536985) discloses a sound mitigating device for a duct; Maeta (US20230162716) discloses a noise suppressor; Hakuta (US202102335605) discloses an acoustic duct silencer; and Lee (US20190056439) discloses a low frequency noise measuring apparatus with cabinet thereof.
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