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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
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 2 and 7-8 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 7-8, the phrase "about" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2020/0143784).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. discloses an appliance hub (Figs. 28-29), comprising a frame (100) having a first side and a second side opposite the first side; one or more panels (101) positioned on the first side; and an insulating layer (103) positioned on the second side. Huang et al. does not specifically disclose the one or more panels are configured to attenuate sound within a first frequency range, and the insulating layer is configured to attenuate sound within a second frequency range different that the first frequency range. However, Huang et al. teaches that the one or more panels and the insulating layer to be comprised of different materials (Para [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more panels and insulating layer be configured to have attenuate sound within different frequencies since different materials may result in different properties.
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. discloses wherein individual ones of the one or more panels (101) comprise perforated metal having perforations and an acoustically insulating material (Para [0027]- [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. discloses wherein perforated metal has an area, but does not disclose the perforations defining “about” 23% of the area of the perforated metal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the necessary amount of perforations needed to achieve the desired acoustic properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results from having a panel with perforations needed for acoustic properties that accounted for a percentage of the surface area of a panel.
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. discloses the acoustically insulating material as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose the material comprising an acoustically insulating fabric. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a material that comprised of an acoustically insulating fabric as an efficient option to provide acoustic properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using a material with desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. discloses wherein the acoustically insulating material comprises a cotton acoustic material (Para [0035]), but does not disclose the material being a blanket. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a material that was in a form of a blanket for ease of use and placement.
Regarding claim 6, Huang et al. discloses wherein individual ones of the one or more panels comprise acoustic insulation as set forth above, but does not disclose the acoustic insulation being of medium density. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a material that comprised of acoustic insulation being of medium density, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using a material with desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claims 7-8, Huang et al. discloses the medium density acoustic insulation as set forth above, but does not disclose the insulation having a thickness of “about” 1 or 2 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an insulation with a thickness in the range of 1 or 2 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having an insulation with appropriate thickness to achieve the desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claim 9, Huang et al. discloses the insulating layer as set forth above, but does not disclose the insulation layer includes a baffle system having a thickness of up to 12 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an insulation layer that comprised of a baffle system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It also would have been obvious to have a thickness having a thickness of up to 12 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from selecting a material having optimum characteristics and size to achieve the desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claim 10, Huang et al. discloses wherein individual ones of the one or more panels comprise acoustic insulation as set forth above, but does not disclose the acoustic insulation being of low density. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a material that comprised of acoustic insulation being of low density, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using a material with desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claim 11, Huang et al. discloses the medium density acoustic insulation as set forth above, but does not disclose the insulation having a thickness of 4-6 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an insulation with a thickness of 4-6 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having an insulation with appropriate thickness to achieve the desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claim 12, Huang et al. discloses the first and second frequency range, but does not disclose that the first frequency range being lower than the second frequency range. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have a first and second frequency range wherein the first frequency range is higher or lower than the second as an optimum design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Huang et al. discloses the first and second frequency range, but does not disclose that the first frequency range is up to 500 Hz, and wherein the second frequency range is greater than 2,000 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first frequency range is up to 500 Hz, and wherein the second frequency range is greater than 2,000 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having an insulation with appropriate frequency range to achieve the desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claim 14, Huang et al. discloses the one or more panels and the insulating layer as set forth above, but does not disclose that the panels or insulating layer attenuate sound in both the first frequency range and the second frequency range; relative to the insulating layer, the one or more panels have improved attenuation in the first frequency range; and relative to the one or more panels, the insulating layer has improved attenuation in the second frequency range. However, it would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more panels and the insulating layer attenuate sound in both the first and second frequency ranges, wherein relative to the insulating layer, the one or more panels have improved attenuation in the first frequency range; and relative to the one or more panels, the insulating layer has improved attenuation in the second frequency range to help achieve the desired acoustic properties.
Regarding claim 15, Huang et al. discloses the one or more panels comprise one or more first panels including perforated metal and an acoustically insulating material(Para [0027]- [0028]), one or more second panels (98) but does not disclose and one or more second panels including medium density acoustic insulation; the insulating layer comprises a plenum or duct board, or low density acoustic insulation; the one or more first panels are coupled to the first side of the frame; and the one or more second panels are coupled to the first side of the frame adjacent the one or more first panels. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second panel coupled to the first side of the frame adjacent the first panel to provide further insulation and enhanced acoustic properties It would have further been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a material that comprised of acoustic insulation being of medium density and the insulating layer comprises a plenum or duct board, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using a material with desired acoustic properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633