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 1-2, 14-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “the vent” in line 7 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear what the vent is and how it relates to the rest of the invention as it has not been previously claimed. Is it not clear how the vent relates to the rest of the invention with respect to the compressor compartment. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is a vent which is connected to the silencing device.
Claim 1 “recites “a circumference of an inner side of the vent” which is considered indefinite. The claims have not previously recited that the vent has a circumference or described any specific shape that would have a circumference. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the vent has a circumferential surface on the inner side.
Claim 1 recites “the silencing body is also set to be circular” which is considered indefinite as it unclear what is mean “is also set to be” and how an object that has dimension and contains multiple components is circular. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the silencing body has at least one circular surface.
Claim 2 recites “multiple silencing cavities inside the silencing body, each opening is communicated with at least one silencing cavity” which is considered indefinite. The claims have previously recited the configuration of a singular silencing cavity, but it is unclear if as claimed the additional silencing cavities are arranged in the same way as the silencing cavities of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, all of the silencing cavities are considered to be the same.
Claim 14 recites “wherein multiple silencing cavities are communicated with multiple openings separately, and volumes of the silencing cavities communicated with at least two openings separate are different” is considered indefinite. It is unclear what communicated separately means in this context and it is also unclear if these are the same multiple openings and the same multiple silencing cavities referred to in claim 2. For the purpose of examination these limitations are understood that some silencing cavities communicated with more than one opening, and any cavity that communicates with more than one opening has a different volume than silencing cavities communicating with only one hole.
Claim 15 and 16 both recite “the volume of the silencing cavity determined a frequency range of sound capable of being eliminated” which is considered indefinite. The claim appears to only be stating why the volume of the cavity is chosen, which does not appear to further limit the claims. For the purpose of examination, claims 15 and 16 are not considered to further limit the claim language.
Claim 18 recites “another vent” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 has provided limitations that are specific to the event and as such it is unclear if the vent of claim 18 is required to have those limitations as well or only if another vent is required to be present. For the purpose of examination, as long as a second vent is present, the limitation is met.
Claim 18 recites “on another sidewall and opposite to the through hole” which is considered indefinite. No location has been specifically recited where the location of the through hole was with respect to silencing device, so it unclear how to determine where opposite to the through hole would be located. For the purpose of examination, as long as the another vent is on a different sidewall the limitation is met.
Claim 17 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 2/25/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2 has been withdrawn.
Although no art is applied above, as the prior art as prevails applied, which is considered the closest prior art to the claims does not provide a teaching of obviousness to the claims as best understood. Specifically as best understood, the prior art does not teach the silencing body being circular and embedded on a circumference of an inner side of the vent in the way as claimed, but as those understandings of the claims are based on the rejections made under 35 USC 112(b), a determination of allowability cannot be made until those rejections are resolved.
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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights