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 Status
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are pending. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: elastic insulating element is different terminology than the first and second resilient insulating elements used in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-9 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2013/0160479 A1), hereafter referred to as “Webster,” in view of Lehmann (5,839,295).
Regarding Claim 1: Webster teaches a heat pump (34), comprising a housing (10), at least one load transfer element (23) arranged on an underside (11) of the housing (10), a compressor (25) arranged in the housing (see Figure 1) so that a center of gravity of the compressor (25) is perpendicularly above the load transfer element (23), and further heat pump components (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]), which are likewise arranged in the housing (10), wherein a first resilient insulating element (26, 21, first 18 under 25) connected to the housing (11, 10, within the over system of 10) is arranged (within the system) between the compressor (25) and the load transfer element (29), wherein several the further heat pump components (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]) are positioned on a common carrying element (17) arranged so that a center of gravity of the carrying element (17) is perpendicularly above a load transfer element (23), wherein a second resilient insulating element (other 18) connected to the housing (11 of 10) is arranged between the carrying element (17) and the load transfer element (23), wherein the compressor (25) and the further heat pump components (paragraph [0016]) are connected via the first and second resilient insulating elements (18, 21, 26) to a floor (11) of the housing (10), wherein the compressor (25) and the carrying element (17) are assigned to the same load transfer element (23), and wherein the carrying element (17) is formed in a compressor-free manner (paragraph [abstract], compressor 25 is mounted onto 19).
Webster fails to teach wherein the underside of the housing is made of a sheet metal arranged between the load transfer element and the first and second resilient insulating elements.
Lehmann teaches an underside (45) of a housing (40) is made of a sheet metal (Column 4, lines 40-45) arranged between a load transfer element (floor) and a first and second resilient insulating elements (59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the underside of the housing is made of a sheet metal arranged between the load transfer element and the first and second resilient insulating elements to the structure of Webster as taught by Lehmann in order to advantageously provide rigid supper to the various interior components (see Lehmann, Column 4, lines 40-45).
Regarding Claim 3: Webster teaches wherein the carrying element (17) is formed in a plate-shaped manner (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5: Webster teaches wherein the heat pump components (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]) are arranged so as to be fastened (mounted onto 17, intended use) to the carrying element (17).
Regarding Claim 6: Webster teaches wherein except for the contact via the bases resulting from the arrangement above the load transfer element (23), the carrying element (17) is moreover formed so as to be connected in a fixation-free manner (see Figure 1) to the load transfer element (23).
Regarding Claim 9: Webster teaches wherein the elastic insulating element (18, 21, 22) is at least partially made of an elastomer (rubber, paragraph [0019]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2013/0160479 A1), hereafter referred to as “Webster,” in view of Lehmann (5,839,295), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Draper et al. (4,449,376), hereafter referred to as “Draper.”
Regarding Claim 2: Webster teaches wherein a heat exchanger and a valve means are optionally arranged, respectively, on the carrying element (abstract, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
Webster modified supra fails to teach a coolant accumulator is optionally arranged, respectively, on the carrying element.
Draper teaches that heat pump components include a valve means and/or a coolant accumulator (Column 1, lines 25-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the heat pump components include a valve means and/or a coolant accumulator to the structure of Webster modified supra as taught by Draper in order to advantageously provide known components in a refrigeration circuit (see Draper, Column 1, lines 25-41).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2013/0160479 A1), hereafter referred to as “Webster,” in view of Lehmann (5,839,295), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Salunkhe et al. (US 2021/0265106 A1), hereafter referred to as “Salunkhe.”
Regarding Claim 4: Webster modified fails to teach wherein the plate-shaped carrying element has first and second edge sides provided with chamfers.
Salunkhe teaches a plate-shaped carrying element (194) has first and second edge sides (212, 218) provided with chamfers (224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the plate-shaped carrying element has first and second edge sides provided with chamfers to the structure of Webster modified supra as taught by Salunkhe in order to advantageously provide increased structural integrity to the mounting plate (see Salunkhe, paragraph [0053]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2013/0160479 A1), hereafter referred to as “Webster,” in view of Lehmann (5,839,295), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (3, 524, 329), hereafter referred to “Smith.”
Regarding Claim 8: Webster modified supra fails to teach wherein the load transfer element is formed as profile rail made of sheet metal.
Smith teaches a load transfer element (30) is formed as profile rail (see Figure 4) made of sheet metal (Column 3, lines 30-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the load transfer element is formed as profile rail made of sheet metal to the structure of Webster modified supra as taught by Smith in order to advantageously provide improved access to the components for service (see Smith, Column 3, lines 55-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizuno et al. (5,141,201).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights