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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/01/2026. The abstract objection is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the insert being connectable to the base pan via a first mechanism engageable with an underside of the base pan in claim 1” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recite “the insert being connectable to the base pan via a first mechanism engageable with an underside of the base pan”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the insert is connectable to the base pan via a first mechanism engageable with an underside of the base pan as it does not appear that the insert to be engageable with the underside of base pan 24 (as shown on figure 3) but rather the upper portion of base pan 24. Additionally, is it the first mechanism that is engageable with the underside of base pan 24 or is it the insert that is engageable with the underside of base pan 24. Clarity is advised.
Claim 12 recite “at least one resilient tab protruding from the lower surface and engageable with an underside of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the tab is engageable with the underside of base pan 24 when it appears that it would engage with the upper portion of base pan 24. Clarity is advised.
Claim 17 recite “at least one resilient tab aligned with the sidewall and engageable with an underside of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the tab is engageable with the underside of base pan 24 when it appears that it would engage with the upper portion of base pan 24 in order to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan 24. Clarity is advised.
Claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Larson et al (US 20230015855 A1, hereinafter Larson) in view of Xue et al (CN 106382202 A, hereinafter Xue).
Regarding claim 1, in view of indefiniteness, Larson teaches an assembly (figure 1B) comprising: a base pan (base pan 106) having an opening formed therein (an opening surrounding support structure 154, figure 1B).
Larson teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach the insert being connectable to the base pan via a first mechanism engageable with an underside of the base pan and the insert being directly connectable to a compressor via a second mechanism, the second mechanism being different from the first mechanism.
However, Xue teaches the insert (plate 12) being connectable to the base pan (chassis 3) via a first mechanism (cavity 21) engageable with an underside of the base pan (underside of plate 12, figure 3) and the insert (plate 12) being directly connectable to a compressor (compressor main body 1) via a second mechanism (connecting bolt 5), the second mechanism (connecting bolt 5) being different (figure 3) from the first mechanism (cavity 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Larson to include the insert being connectable to the base pan via a first mechanism engageable with an underside of the base pan and the insert being directly connectable to a compressor via a second mechanism, the second mechanism being different from the first mechanism in view of the teachings of Xie in order to yield the predictable results of allowing the connecting bolt to be fixed on the compressor main body.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (support structures 154 of Larson) is one of a plurality of interchangeable inserts (multiple support structures 154, as shown on figure 1B of Larson) mountable within the opening (the opening surrounding support structure 154, figure 1B of Larson).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Xue, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wu (CN 111486080 A, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein each of the plurality of inserts has a different configuration associated with a different compressor.
However, Wu teaches wherein each of the plurality of inserts (mounting base 202) has a different configuration (rectangle shape, figure 4) associated with a different compressor (compressor 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein each of the plurality of inserts has a different configuration associated with a different compressor in view of the teachings of Wu in order to yield the predictable results of supporting the compressor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Xue, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Timmons et al (US 6168248 B1, hereinafter Timmons).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the base pan is formed from a composite material.
However, Timmons teaches wherein the base pan (base pan 32) is formed from a composite material (material for base pan is azdel, a composite, col 5 lines 9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Larson to include wherein the base pan is formed from a composite material in view of the teachings of Timmons in order to yield the predictable results of providing a non-corrosive or corrosion-resistant material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Xue, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Huang et al (CN 204572392 U, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the insert further comprises: a base having a lower surface; and a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base, wherein the base extends beyond the sidewall to form an overhang configured to overlap with a surface of the base pan when installed within the opening.
However, Huang teaches wherein the insert (plate 3) further comprises: a base (base of plate 3, figure 1) having a lower surface (lower portion of plate 3, figure 1); and a sidewall (sidewall portion extending below the base of plate 3, figure 1) protruding from the lower surface of the base (from the base of plate 3, figure 1), wherein the base (base of plate 3, figure 1) extends beyond the sidewall (portion where cushions 4 are located, figure 1) to form an overhang (via cushions 4, as shown on figure 1) configured to overlap with a surface of the base pan when installed within the opening (overlaps and extends outward from the base of plate 3 when plate 3 is installed on the middle opening of plate 2, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein the insert further comprises: a base having a lower surface; and a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base, wherein the base extends beyond the sidewall to form an overhang configured to overlap with a surface of the base pan when installed within the opening in view of the teachings of Huang in order to yield the predictable results of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation.
Further, it is understood, claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larso as modified by Xue and Huang, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Sun et al (CN 110761970 A, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising an isolator material being positioned between the overhang and the surface of the base pan.
However, Sun teaches further comprising an isolator material (anti-vibration pad 4) being positioned between the overhang (between the overhang of mounting hole 33, figures 1-3) and the surface of the base pan (corresponding to the base of plate 3, as modified).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include further comprising an isolator material being positioned between the overhang and the surface of the base pan in view of the teachings of Sun in order to yield the predictable results of improving the vibration isolation efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach further comprising an isolator material (anti-vibration pad 2 of Sun) positioned between (as shown on figure 2 of Sun) the insert (platform 31 of Sun) and a portion of the compressor that is connectable to the insert (portion of compressor 1 that is connected to platform 31, figure 2 of Sun).
Further, it is understood, claim 10 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Xue and Huang, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Mathis et al (US 6011336 A, hereinafter Mathis).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein at least one notch is formed in an outer periphery of the base such that a clearance exists between the base pan and the base of the insert at the at least one notch.
However, Mathis teaches wherein at least one notch (bore 46, figure 2) is formed in an outer periphery of the base (outer periphery base of mount 12, figure 2) such that a clearance (clearance between bore 46, figure 2) exists between the base pan (floor 16) and the base of the insert (base of mount 12, figure 2) at the at least one notch (as shown on figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein at least one notch is formed in an outer periphery of the base such that a clearance exists between the base pan and the base of the insert at the at least one notch in view of the teachings of Mathis in order to yield the predictable results of securing the mount to the supporting floor.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (mount 12 of Mathis) is mountable to the base pan (to floor 16, figure 2 of Mathis, corresponding to base of plate 3 of Huang) via a snap fit connection (via clamp formation 42, figure 2 of Mathis).
Further, it is understood, claim 8 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…mountable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (mount 12 of Mathis) further comprises at least one resilient tab (tab 44 of Mathis) protruding from the base (protruding outwards from the base of mount 12, figure 2 of Mathis) and the base pan (floor 16 of Mathis) further comprises a groove (interpreted to include a groove in which bolt 48 is inserted into, abstract of Mathis), a portion of the at least one resilient tab being engagable with the groove to form the first mechanism (a tab 44 that extends over a marginal portion of the motor mount 12 and includes a thru-bore 46 through which a thru-bolt 48 and washer 50 are passed to secure the motor mount 12 and the vibration-isolation pad 14 to the floor or other support structure, col 3 lines 61-65 of Mathis).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Xue, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Heflin et al (US 5221192 A, hereinafter Heflin).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising another insert mountable to the base pan within the opening, the another insert being connectable to a another compressor, wherein a configuration of the another insert is different from the insert.
However, Heflin teaches further comprising another insert (insert 10, figure 1) mountable to the base pan (to base pan 12, figure 1) within the opening (opening below insert 10, figure 1), the another insert being connectable to a another compressor (connectable to compressor 11, figure 1), wherein a configuration of the another insert (insert 10, figure 1) is different from the insert (different from support structures 154 of Larson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Larson to include further comprising another insert mountable to the base pan within the opening, the another insert being connectable to a another compressor, wherein a configuration of the another insert is different from the insert in view of the teachings of Heflin in order to yield the predictable results of providing improved vibrational damping performance.
Further, it is understood, claim 11 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al (CN 106382202 A, hereinafter Xue) in view of Sun et al (CN 110761970 A, hereinafter Sun) and Zhang et al (CN 110410293 A, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 12, Xue teaches an assembly (figure 3) comprising: an insert (plate 12), the insert (plate 12) being receivable within a corresponding opening (within chassis 3, figure 3) formed in a base pan (chassis 3); and a compressor (compressor main body 1), the compressor (compressor main body 1) being removably connected (via connecting bolt 5) directly to the insert (plate 12); wherein the insert (plate 12) further comprises: a base (base plate 122) having an upper surface (figure 4) and a lower surface (figure 3); wherein the compressor (compressor main body 1) is connected to the insert (plate 12) at a position offset (triangular form, figure 3) from the upper surface (figure 4) of the base (base plate 122).
Xue teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach an isolator material positioned between the upper surface of the insert and the compressor.
However, Sun teaches an isolator material (pad 2) positioned between (as shown on figure 2 of Sun) the upper surface of the insert (upper surface of platform 31, figure 2) and the compressor (compressor 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Xue to include an isolator material positioned between the upper surface of the insert and the compressor in view of the teachings of Sun to improving the vibration isolation efficiency.
Further, it is understood, claim 12 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach at least one resilient tab protruding from the lower surface and engageable with a surface of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan.
However, Zhang teaches at least one resilient tab (tabs 7) protruding from the lower surface (as shown on figure 3) and engageable with a surface of the base pan (engageable to the surface of support frame 4, as shown on figure 2) to restrict separation (support frame 4 of each tab 9 acts as a stop to prevent the corresponding tabs 7 of circumferential direction of possible movement, paragraph 0009) of the insert (mounting plate 3) from the base pan (support frame 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include at least one resilient tab protruding from the lower surface and engageable with a surface of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan in view of the teachings of Zhang in order to yield the predictable results of preventing circumferential direction of possible movement.
Claims 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue as modified by Sun and Zhang, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Xie (CN 203161486 U, hereinafter Xie).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the insert further comprises at least one mounting post extending from the upper surface, the compressor being connectable to a distal end of the at least one mounting post.
However, Xie teaches wherein the insert (feet 4, figure 1) further comprises at least one mounting post (foot 3, figure 3) extending from the upper surface (figure 3), the compressor (compressor 1) being connectable to a distal end (compressor 1 being connected away from feet 3, figures 1-2) of the at least one mounting post (foot 3, figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein the insert further comprises at least one mounting post extending from the upper surface, the compressor being connectable to a distal end of the at least one mounting post in view of the teachings of Xie in order to yield the predictable results of preventing the compressor in operation and transportation process of shaking, the damping to be achieved.
Further, it is understood, claim 13 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the isolator material (guide part 31 of Xie) is positioned at the distal end (outer end, figure 3 of Xie) of the at least one mounting post (of feet 3, figure 3 of Xie).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach further comprising a threaded insert (bolt 52 of Xie) arranged adjacent to the distal end of the at least one mounting post (positioned next to the outer end of feet 3, as shown on figures 1-2 of Xie).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (platform 31 of Sun) further comprises another the isolator material (anti-vibration pad 4 of Sun) positioned at a portion of the lower surface of the base (lower portion from the base of platform 31, as shown on figures 1-2 of Sun) configured to overlap with the base pan (corresponding to base pan 106 of Larson, as modified).
Further, it is understood, claim 16 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN 203161486 U, hereinafter Xie) in view of Huang et al (CN 204572392 U, hereinafter Huang), Zhang et al (CN 110410293 A, hereinafter Zhang) and Sun et al (CN 110761970 A, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 17, Xie teaches an insert (foot 4) receivable within a corresponding opening (opening within bottom plate 2, figure 1) formed in a base pan (base plate 2) of an outdoor unit (outdoor machine, paragraph 0002) and being removably connectable to a compressor (as shown on figure 1 and as described in paragraph 0024).
Xie teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach the insert comprising: a base having an upper surface and a lower surface.
However, Huang teaches the insert (plate 3) comprising: a base (top portion as the base of plate 3, figure 1) having an upper surface (plate 3 having an upper surface, figure 1) and a lower surface (plate 3 having an lower surface, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Xie to include the insert comprising: a base having an upper surface and a lower surface in view of the teachings of Huang in order to yield the predictable results of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base at a position offset from an outer periphery of the base to form an overhang between the sidewall and the outer periphery of the base positioned in overlapping engagement with an upper surface of the base pan when installed within the opening.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having “a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base at a position offset from an outer periphery of the base to form an overhang between the sidewall and the outer periphery of the base positioned in overlapping engagement with an upper surface of the base pan when installed within the opening” does anything more than produce the predictable result of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation. Since it has been held that changes in shape has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, [In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)], see MPEP 2144.04 IV B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the plate to include a sidewall protruding from the lower surface at a position offset from the outer periphery of the base to form an overhang when installed within the base plate 2 of Huang and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach at least one resilient tab aligned with the sidewall and engageable with an underside of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan.
However, Zhang teaches at least one resilient tab (tabs 7) aligned with the sidewall (outer sides 22) and engageable with an underside of the base pan (plate body 6) to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan (support frame 4 of each tab 9 acts as a stop to prevent the corresponding tabs 7 of circumferential direction of possible movement, paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include at least one resilient tab aligned with the sidewall and engageable with an underside of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan in view of the teachings of Sun in order to yield the predictable result of preventing the corresponding tabs of circumferential direction of possible movement.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach and an isolator material positioned about the insert and configured to absorb vibration.
However, Sun teaches an isolator material (anti-vibration pad 4) positioned about the insert (platform 31) and configured to absorb vibration (via pad 4 to improve vibration isolation efficiency, paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Huang to include an isolator material positioned about the insert and configured to absorb vibration in view of the teachings of Sun in order to yield the predictable result of improving vibration isolation efficiency.
Further, it is understood, claim 17 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xue et al (CN 106382202 A) see claims 1 and 12 rejection above, in which the motivation to combine the references is allowing the connecting bolt to be fixed on the compressor main body.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument for claim 17 that “However, Zhang does not teach or suggest that the tabs 7 are formed with any resiliency”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Zhang teaches that tabs 7 of the skirt 21 the applied downward force will cause the anti-vibration pad 5 generates the tendency of rotating inwards and so that the inner side surface 24 of the elastic pad body 12 more tightly against the tab 7 of the outer side, so as to better limit and absorb the vibration and twisting of the compressor. In addition, the skirt 21 of the upper surface 27 and the tab 7 between the pressure contact can also tab 7 movement may produce significant friction resistance, so as to further improve the damping vibration attenuation performance of the anti-vibration pad, paragraph 0016, and interpreted as the tabs 7 consisting of sufficient resiliency to resist vibrations. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights