Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/033,647

EXHAUST PORT FOR A PNEUMATIC VALVE OR AN AIR VALVE OF A VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 22, 2025
Priority
Feb 19, 2024 — EU 24158261.8
Examiner
SAN MARTIN, EDGARDO
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Volvo Group
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
908 granted / 1195 resolved
+16.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1217
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
58.0%
+18.0% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1195 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydemir et al. (DE 10 2016 100 139) in view of Rauen (US 2,274,460). With respect to claims 1 and 10, Aydemir et al. teach an exhaust port for a pneumatic valve or an air valve of a vehicle, such as at an air drier or air processing unit of a vehicle (Specification: Description ¶ [0001] and [0002]), comprising an outer shell (Fig.2), the outer shell comprising a bell mouth shell portion (Fig.2, Item 10’) configured to receive air from said pneumatic valve or air valve, the bell mouth shell portion having a narrow end and a wide end, wherein the bell mouth shell portion guides the received air from the narrow end towards the wide end, a cylindrical shell portion (Fig.2, Item 16’) located adjacent to the wide end of the bell mouth shell portion, the cylindrical shell portion comprising an open upper end configured to receive air that has passed through the bell mouth shell portion, and an opposite closed lower end (Fig.2, Item 16’), but fail to disclose a plurality of elongated elements contained within the cylindrical shell portion and extending in an axial direction of the cylindrical shell portion towards, but ending before, the closed lower end, thereby presenting a resonance chamber between the closed lower end and said elongated elements. On the other hand, Rauen teaches an exhaust port comprising an outer shell comprising a bell mouth shell portion (Fig.1, Item 32) configured to receive air, wherein the bell mouth shell portion guides the received air from a narrow end towards a wide end, a cylindrical shell portion (Fig.1, Item 46) located adjacent to the wide end of the bell mouth shell portion, the cylindrical shell portion comprising an open upper end configured to receive air that has passed through the bell mouth shell portion, and an opposite closed lower end (Fig.1, Item 53), a plurality of elongated elements (Fig.1, Item 48) contained within the cylindrical shell portion and extending in an axial direction of the cylindrical shell portion towards, but ending before, the closed lower end (Fig.1, Item 53), thereby presenting a resonance chamber (Fig.1, Item 53) between the closed lower end and said elongated elements (Fig.1, Items 48). 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 Rauen configuration with the Aydemir et al. design because it would improve the acoustic performance of the exhaust port by providing a configuration that would permit the sound waves traveling in the air inside the cylindrical shell to be reflected at the closed end and cancel each other. With respect to claim 2, Rauen teaches wherein said plurality of elongated elements is in the form of a plurality of perforated tubes (Fig.1, Items 48). With respect to claim 3, Rauen teaches wherein each perforated tube (Fig.1, Items 48) has an upper section (Fig.1, Item 49) located nearest the open upper end of the cylindrical shell portion (Fig.1, Item 46), and a lower section (Fig.1, Item 49’) located nearest the closed lower end (Fig.1, Item 53) of the cylindrical shell portion, wherein the lower section is provided with perforations (Fig.1, Item 50) allowing air that has entered through the upper section to exit through the perforations in the lower section. With respect to claim 4, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide the upper section of an exhaust tube void of perforations because it would help control the airflow through the system in this manner providing a desired airflow and acoustic profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application. Fukano et al. (US 7,753,167) teach such a configuration. With respect to claim 5, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide the upper sections of a plurality of perforated tubes present an array in the form of a honeycomb chamber because it would improve the airflow performance of the system as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application, as disclosed by Everett (US 2,998,860). With respect to claim 6, Rauen teaches further comprising an upper plate (Fig.1, Item 47) and a lower plate (Fig.1, Item 56), each plate being provided with a plurality of holes (Figs.1 and 2, Items 48) and at least one of the plates being attached to the cylindrical shell portion, wherein each tube extends from a respective hole of the upper plate to a respective hole of the lower plate (Fig.1). With respect to claims 7 – 9, Aydemir et al. teach a cylindrical shell portion being defined by a circumferential wall extending from the open upper end to the closed lower end, wherein the circumferential wall is provided with perforations (Fig.2, Items 36’) for expelling air to the environment. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide a circumferential wall being provided with downwardly inclined perforations for expelling air downwardly to the environment because it would direct the exhaust air in a predetermined direction away from harm ways, and wherein the direction of extension of the downwardly inclined perforations, and thus the expelling direction, presents an angle in the range of 300 - 450 relative to the circumferential wall, as disclosed by Jatcko (US 3,923,120). 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 September 13, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748228
VIBRATOR SOURCE BASEPLATE ERGONOMIC CONTROL
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745025
SPEAKER BOX
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12736252
SOUND MUFFLER DEVICE FOR RESIDENTIAL DUCTWORK SYSTEM
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12738790
STATOR FOR ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12732042
MOTOR
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 4m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1195 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month