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 § 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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the phrase “at least one baffle arranged in the air passage to separate the air passage in several channels” is indefinite. The term “several” implies a number greater than two, but the claim allows for a single baffle (i.e. “at least one baffle”), which would only yield two channels, not several as required by the claim. For the rejection, the examiner will interpret the phrase “at least one baffle” as meaning “at least two baffles,” but appropriate correction is necessary.
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 1-2, 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kojima (4,533,015).
With respect to claim 1, Kojima teaches a noise damper (Figure 18), comprising: a casing (defined by the outermost walls of the bundles units #56) delimiting an air passage (defined by passage through units, when unit is formed as the modification of Figure 12), the casing having walls each comprising an acoustic insulation layer (see abstract, note that the pipe can be made from porous metal, plastic or ceramic, which are all broadly known materials for use in acoustic insulation), wherein the noise damper comprises: at least one baffle (defined by outer pipe of each of units #56 within the casing) arranged in the air passage to separate the air passage in several channels, each channel extending substantially parallel to a longitudinal direction of the noise damper (clearly seen); and a helical deflector (defined by spiral blades within each cylinder as depicted in Figure 1-5) arranged in each channel, extending parallel to the longitudinal direction, wherein said at least one baffle (defined by outer pipe of each of units #56 within the casing) is inclined in regard to the longitudinal direction (when formed as in the modification of Figure 12), so that the channels do not have a constant cross section along the longitudinal direction.
With respect to claim 2, Kojima teaches wherein the casing is made of metal (see abstract).
With respect to claim 6, Kojima teaches wherein each baffle (defined by outer pipe of each of units #56 within the casing) comprises an acoustic insulation layer on its faces (see abstract, note that the pipe can be made from porous metal, plastic or ceramic, which are all broadly known materials for use in acoustic insulation, and are considered to be “on its faces”).
With respect to claim 7, Kojima teaches wherein each helical deflector has a helical surface extending around a central axis and extending radially from the central axis to an inner surface delimiting a corresponding channel (clearly seen in Figures 1-5 and 12).
With respect to claim 11, Kojima teaches comprising a plurality of baffles (Figure 18, (defined by outer pipe of each of units #56 within the casing), wherein the plurality of baffles is arranged in a plane comprising the longitudinal direction.
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 3-4, 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (4,533,015).
With respect to claim 3, Kojima teaches the noise damper of claim 1. Kojima further teaches wherein the casing is made from a metal material (see abstract).
Kojima fails to explicitly teach wherein the casing is made of metal or aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the casing is made of metal or aluminum., 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, selecting material or aluminum for forming outer members #56 would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 4, Kojima teaches the noise damper of claim 1. Kojima further teaches the noise damper having a length, in the longitudinal direction, of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Kojima fails to explicitly teach the noise damper having a length, in the longitudinal direction, substantially equal to 1 meter.
It would have been an obvious design choice to provide wherein the noise damper having a length, in the longitudinal direction, substantially equal to 1 meter, 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, selecting a particular length for the device would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claims 8, Kojima teaches the noise damper of claim 1.
Kojima fails to explicitly teach an assembly of a railway vehicle comprising the noise damper of claim 1.
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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). The muffler device of Kojima is capable of being used in an assembly of a railway vehicle, so as to reduce exhaust or any other fluid flow noise.
With respect to claim 12, Kojima teaches the noise damper of claim 1. Kojima further teaches wherein said several channels (defined by passages through units #56 of Figure 18, when shaped as in the modification of Figure 12) comprise two central channels (defined by two of central units #56) which cross section is increasing along the longitudinal direction and two lateral channels.
Kojima fails to explicitly teach two lateral channels which cross section is decreasing along the longitudinal direction.
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 two lateral channels in which cross section is decreasing along the longitudinal direction, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse at least two of the lateral channels of units #56 from the flow direction depicted in Figure 12, so as to tune the device.
With respect to claim 13, Kojima teaches a noise damper (Figure 18), comprising: a casing (defined by the outermost walls of the bundles units #56) delimiting an air passage (defined by passage through units, when unit is formed as the modification of Figure 12), the casing having walls each comprising an acoustic insulation layer (see abstract, note that the pipe can be made from porous metal, plastic or ceramic, which are all broadly known materials for use in acoustic insulation), at least one baffle (defined by outer pipe of each of units #56 within the casing) arranged in the air passage to separate the air passage in several channels, each channel extending substantially parallel to a longitudinal direction of the noise damper (clearly seen); and a helical deflector (defined by spiral blades within each cylinder as depicted in Figure 1-5) arranged in each channel, extending parallel to the longitudinal direction, wherein the noise damper has a length, in the longitudinal direction, of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Kojima fails to explicitly teach the noise damper having a length, in the longitudinal direction, substantially equal to 1 meter.
It would have been an obvious design choice to provide wherein the noise damper having a length, in the longitudinal direction, substantially equal to 1 meter, 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, selecting a particular length for the device would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers Kojima to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights