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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/31/2026. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections and claim interpretations have been maintained. Claims 1-22 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first vibration insulating member” in claim 17.
“second vibration insulating member” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “first vibration insulating member”. The term “first vibration insulating member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the function of insulating the vibrations is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of insulating vibrations. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “second vibration insulating member”. The term “second vibration insulating member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the function of insulating the vibrations is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of insulating vibrations. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claims 18 and 20 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 17-20 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 limitations “first vibration insulating member” in claim 17 and “second vibration insulating member” in claim 19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 18 and 20 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch (WO2020207785A1) in view of Mizuguchi (JP2013204836A).
Regarding claim 1, Bosch teaches an outdoor unit (heat pump unit 15 Fig. 1) of an air conditioner (heat pump system 10 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0061]), comprising: a case (outer casing 55 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0065]) forming an outer appearance of the outdoor unit (Fig. 1); a barrier (second partition wall 155 Fig. 3) that divides an inner space of the case (corresponds to the inner space of outer casing 55 Figs. 1 and 3) into a heat exchange space (second housing interior space 100 Fig. 3) and an electric space (corresponds to the space that accommodates first inner housing 65 and second inner housing 70 Figs. 2-3), the electric space forming a space (Figs. 2-3) in which electrical components of the outdoor unit (compressor device 75 and control unit 80 Fig. 2) are disposed; a heat exchanger (first heat exchanger 85 Fig. 2) disposed in the heat exchange space (Fig. 2); a fan (fan 90 Fig. 2) disposed in the heat exchange space (Fig. 2); a refrigerant cycle device (corresponds to all the components accommodated in first housing interior 95 Fig. 2) including a compressor (compressor device 75 Fig. 2) disposed in the electric space (Fig. 2); a shield assembly (first inner housing 65 Fig. 3) disposed within the case (paragraph [0152]) in the electric space (Fig. 3) so as to completely surround an outside of the refrigerant cycle device (Figs. 2 and 5); and a control box assembly (second inner housing 70 Fig. 2) disposed in the electric space to face one side surface of the shield assembly (Fig. 2 where the bottom surface of second inner housing 70 is facing the upper surface of first inner housing 65 Fig. 2), wherein at least one pipe penetration hole (first feedthroughs 145 Fig. 3) through which a refrigerant pipe (first line 40 and second line 45 Fig. 1) connected to the refrigerant cycle device passes.
Bosch teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the at least one pipe penetration hole is formed on the one side surface of the shield assembly, and wherein an electric wire penetration hole through which an electric wire connected to the control box assembly passes is formed on the one side surface of the shield assembly”.
However, Mizuguchi teaches at least one pipe penetration hole (pipe outlet 58a Fig. 3 corresponds to the at least one pipe penetration hole of Bosch) is formed on one side surface (Fig. 3 where top panel 58 corresponds to the one side surface of Bosch) of a shield assembly (compressor chamber 50 Fig. 3 corresponds to the shield assembly of Bosch), and wherein an electric wire penetration hole (cable outlet 58b Fig. 3) through which an electric wire (cable bundle 63 Fig. 5) connected to a control box assembly (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0023] where electrical components box 30 corresponds to the control box assembly of Bosch) passes (Fig. 5) is formed on the one side surface of the shield assembly Fig. 3) to route the electrical wires to the control box (paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Bosch to include “the at least one pipe penetration hole is formed on the one side surface of the shield assembly, and wherein an electric wire penetration hole through which an electric wire connected to the control box assembly passes is formed on the one side surface of the shield assembly” in view of the teachings of Mizuguchi to route the electrical wires to the control box.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the shield assembly includes: a shield base (first base plate 120 Fig. 3 of Bosch) that supports the refrigerant cycle device (Figs. 2-3 of Bosch); a shield rear case (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Bosch) disposed on a rear end portion of the shield base (Figs. 2-3 of Bosch); a shield side case (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Bosch) disposed on a side end portion of the shield base (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Bosch); a shield top case (first housing cover 150 Fig. 3 of Bosch) disposed on an upper end portion of the shield rear case (Fig. 3 of Bosch); and a shield front case (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Bosch) disposed on a front end portion of the shield base (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Bosch).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the electric wire penetration hole is formed in the shield side case (Fig. 3 of Mizuguchi).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the shield rear case is disposed to face the barrier (Figs. 2-3 of Bosch).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the shield rear case forms a first side (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Bosch) and an outer appearance of a rear surface of the shield assembly (rear wall 140 Fig. 3 of Bosch), and wherein the shield side case forms an outer appearance of a second side of the shield assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Bosch).
PNG
media_image2.png
696
1146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the shield base includes a recessed portion (the middle of base plate 120 Fig. 3 of Bosch is recessed when compared to the outer perimeter of base plate 120), the recessed portion being a portion of a center of an upper surface of the shield base (corresponds to a portion of the middle upper surface of base plate 120 Fig. 3 of Bosch) which is recessed downward (Fig. 3 of Bosch), and wherein the compressor is disposed above the recessed portion (Figs. 2 and 8 of Bosch).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the shield base further includes at least one bracket coupling portion (decoupling element 205 Figs. 2 and 8 of Bosch) configured to be coupled to a compressor bracket (corresponds to the base plate of the compressor illustrated by the dotted lines in Fig. 7 of Bosch) that supports the compressor (Figs. 2 and 7).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Mizuguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuyanagi et al. (JP2012072961A, herein after referred to as Mitsuyanagi) and Clendenin et al. (US 5151018, herein after referred to as Clendenin).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a heat storage tank (domestic water tank 30 Fig. 1 of Bosch).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the heat storage tank disposed in the electric space to face the shield side case”.
However, Mitsuyanagi teaches a heat storage tank (heat storage tank 32 Fig. 4 corresponds to the heat storage tank of Bosch) disposed in an electric space (the space that accommodates soundproof material 64 Fig. 17 corresponds to the electric space of Bosch) to face a shield side case (Fig. 17 where the right side of soundproof material 64 corresponds to the shield side case of Bosch) to shorten the conduits that connect the outdoor unit to the heat storage tank.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the heat storage tank disposed in the electric space to face the shield side case” in view of the teachings of Mitsuyanagi to shorten the conduits that connect the outdoor unit to the heat storage tank.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one pipe penetration hole is formed in the shield side case”.
However, Clendenin teaches wherein at least one pipe penetration hole (aperture 14 Fig. 3) is formed in a shield side case (Fig. 3 where front side 33 corresponds to the shield side case of Bosch) to provide the holes at any convenient location when routing the refrigerant lines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the at least one pipe penetration hole is formed in the shield side case” in view of the teachings of Clendenin to provide the holes at any convenient location when routing the refrigerant lines.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Mizuguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oku et al. (US 20210010712 A1, herein after referred to as Oku) and Clendenin.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the shield side case includes: a first side case disposed on a side end portion of the shield base; and a second side case coupled to an upper end portion of the first side case”.
However, Oku teaches wherein a shield side case includes (outer peripheral surface 60a, side fixing element 63, and draining element 80 Fig. 4 correspond to the shield side case of Bosch): a first side case (outer peripheral surface 60a Fig. 4) disposed on a side end portion of the shield base (Figs. 3 and 4 where the right side end portion of bottom panel 4 corresponds to the side end portion of the shield base); and a second side case (side fixing element 63 Fig. 4) coupled to an upper end portion of the first side case (Fig. 10) to provide drainage for the top portion of the shield assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the shield side case includes: a first side case disposed on a side end portion of the shield base; and a second side case coupled to an upper end portion of the first side case” in view of the teachings of Oku to provide drainage for the top portion of the shield assembly.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one pipe penetration hole is formed in the shield side case”.
However, Clendenin teaches wherein at least one pipe penetration hole (aperture 14 Fig. 3) is formed in a shield side case (Fig. 3 where front side 33 corresponds to the shield side case of Bosch) to provide the holes at any convenient location when routing the refrigerant lines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the at least one pipe penetration hole is formed in the shield side case” in view of the teachings of Clendenin to provide the holes at any convenient location when routing the refrigerant lines.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the shield side case further includes a third side case (draining element 80 Fig. 4 of Oku) coupled to an upper end portion of the second side case (Fig. 10 of Oku), and wherein the shield top case (top cover 70 Fig. 10 of Oku corresponds to the shield top case of Bosch) is coupled to an upper end portion of the third side case (Fig. 10 of Oku).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Mizuguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin (KR100667100B1).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a locking groove is formed in the shield front case, and wherein a locking protrusion configured to be coupled to the locking groove is formed on the shield top case”.
However, Shin teaches wherein a locking groove (engaging grooves 31 Fig. 4) is formed in a shield front case (Fig. 3 where side plate 14 corresponds to the shield front case of Bosch), and wherein a locking protrusion (locking projection 32 Fig. 4) configured to be coupled to the locking groove (Fig. 4) is formed on a shield top case (Fig. 3 where full-length plate 28 corresponds to the shield top case of Bosch) to provide a top cover that can be secured to the shield assembly but can also be easily removed to access components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a locking groove is formed in the shield front case, and wherein a locking protrusion configured to be coupled to the locking groove is formed on the shield top case” in view of the teachings of Shin to provide a top cover that can be secured to the shield assembly but can also be easily removed to access components.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Mizuguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gotou et al. (US 20180080666 A1, herein after referred to as Gotou).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a refrigerant hole through which the refrigerant is discharged in a downward direction is formed in the recessed portion”.
However, Gotou teaches wherein a refrigerant hole (drain hole 33 Fig. 1) through which refrigerant (the disclosed “moisture” in paragraph [0041] corresponds to the refrigerant of Bosch) is discharged in a downward direction (from top to bottom Fig. 1) is formed in a recessed portion (the inner area surrounded by reinforcing ribs 34 Fig. 1 corresponds to the recessed portion of Bosch) to remove any leaked refrigerant from the shield assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a refrigerant hole through which the refrigerant is discharged in a downward direction is formed in the recessed portion” in view of the teachings of Gotou to remove any leaked refrigerant from the shield assembly.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the shield base further includes at least one refrigerant slit through which the refrigerant is discharged in a downward direction”.
However, Gotou teaches wherein a shield base (sound-insulating material bottom portion 31 Fig. 1 corresponds to the shield base of Bosch) further includes at least one refrigerant slit (corresponds to one of the holes located between the two reinforcing ribs 34 Fig. 1) through which a refrigerant (referring to paragraph [0041] and Fig. 1, a person skilled in the art would recognize that any moisture/refrigerant flowing down on the sidewalls of the compressor can be drained through the holes located between the two reinforcing ribs 34) is discharged in a downward direction (from top to bottom Fig. 1) is formed in a recessed portion (the inner area surrounded by reinforcing ribs 34 Fig. 1 corresponds to the recessed portion of Bosch) to remove any leaked refrigerant from the shield assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the shield base further includes at least one refrigerant slit through which the refrigerant is discharged in a downward direction” in view of the teachings of Gotou to remove any leaked refrigerant from the shield assembly.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one refrigerant slit comprises a plurality of refrigerant slits (corresponds to the two holes located between the two reinforcing ribs 34 Fig. 1 of Gotou) spaced apart along an outer circumference of the recessed portion (Fig. 1 of Gotou).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Mizuguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonifas (US 9153225 B2).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one bracket coupling portion comprises a plurality of the bracket coupling portions (Fig. 7 of Bosch).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the plurality of the bracket coupling portions spaced apart along an outer circumference of the recessed portion”.
However, Bonifas teaches a plurality of the bracket coupling portions (second apertures 48 Fig. 2 corresponds to the plurality of the bracket coupling portions of Bosch) spaced apart along an outer circumference of a recessed portion (Fig. 2 where the circular region in the middle of base 24 corresponds to the recessed portion of Bosch) to provide more bracket coupling portions allowing for a tighter coupling between the two parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the plurality of the bracket coupling portions spaced apart along an outer circumference of the recessed portion” in view of the teachings of Bonifas to provide more bracket coupling portions allowing for a tighter coupling between the two parts.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: a first vibration insulating member that connects the compressor bracket and the at least one bracket coupling portion”.
However, Bonifas teaches further comprising: a first vibration insulating member (third isolation member 44 Fig. 2) that connects a compressor bracket (lower shell member 34 Fig. 2 corresponds to the compressor bracket of Bosch) and at least one bracket coupling portion (Figs. 2 and 6 where second aperture 48 corresponds to the bracket coupling portion of Bosch) to dampen the compressor vibrations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising: a first vibration insulating member that connects the compressor bracket and the at least one bracket coupling portion” in view of the teachings of Bonifas to dampen the compressor vibrations.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the shield base (base 24 Figs. 2 and 6 of Bonifas corresponds to the shield base of Bosch) further includes at least one base coupling portion (fastener 38 Figs. 2 and 6 of Bonifas) configured to be coupled to a base panel (mounting structure 97 Fig. 6 of Bonifas) that forms a bottom surface of the case (Fig. 6 of Bonifas where mounting structure 97 corresponds to the bottom surface of the case of Bosch).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a second vibration insulating member (second isolation member 42 Figs. 2 and 6 of Bonifas) that connects the base panel and the at least one base coupling portion (Fig. 6 of Bonifas).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one base coupling portion comprises a plurality of base coupling portions (fasteners 38 Fig. 2 of Bonifas) spaced apart along an outer edge of the shield base (Figs. 2 and 6 of Bonifas).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 filed on 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the terms “first vibration insulating member” and “second vibration insulating member” should not invoke 112f, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “member,” coupled with functional language (“insulating”), without reciting sufficient structure in the Specification. Further the term “member” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claims 17 and 19, invokes § 112(f). Therefore, the Applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights