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 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 1-15 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 recites the limitation "the first sound-insulation member" in 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (EP 1300635 A2).
With respect to claim 1, Song teaches an outdoor unit for an air conditioning device (defined by device of Figures 2 and 5), the outdoor unit being inherently configured to be connected via piping to one or more indoor units ([0001]-[0002]), comprising: a compressor (64b); and a housing (70) opening upward and including a first sound-insulation member (Figure 3, layer #70 or layers #70/76) comprising a sound-insulation material accommodating the compressor (64b) in an inner space thereof, wherein the first sound-insulation member (70 or 70/76) includes a first surface facing an outside of the housing and a second surface facing the inner space, and wherein a first anti-vibration groove (defined by one of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) is formed in the first surface of the first sound- insulation member of the housing exposed to the outside (clearly seen).
With respect to claim 2, Song teaches wherein a plurality of first anti-vibration grooves (defined by plurality of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) are formed at equal intervals from each other in the first sound-insulation member (70).
With respect to claim 3, Song teaches wherein the first anti-vibration grooves (defined by plurality of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) are formed in a straight line.
With respect to claim 7, Song teaches wherein a first sound-absorption member (76) comprising a sound absorbing material is attached to the second surface of the first sound-insulation member (70) facing the inner space of the housing.
With respect to claim 16, Song teaches housing (Figures 2-6, #70) for shielding noise from a compressor (64b) provided in an outdoor unit of an air conditioning device ([0001]-[0002]), comprising: a sound-insulation member comprising a sound-insulating material having an inner space (defined by layers #70/76 in Figure 3), opening upward, and including a first surface exposed to facing an outside of the housing and a second surface facing the inner space (clearly seen); and at least one anti-vibration groove (defined by at least one of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) formed on the first surface of the sound- insulation member exposed to the outside (clearly seen in Figures 2-6).
With respect to claim 17, Song teaches wherein the anti-vibration groove (defined by at least one of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) comprises: at least one first anti-vibration groove (defined by one of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6); and at least one second anti-vibration groove (defined by other of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) meeting the at least one first anti-vibration groove. Note that the grooves “meet” at the protrusion #72 situated therebetween.
With respect to claim 18, Song teaches wherein each of the at least one anti-vibration groove (defined by one of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) extends in a straight line.
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.
Claims 6, 9-11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (EP 1300635 A2).
With respect to claim 6, Song teaches the outdoor unit for an air conditioning device of claim 1. Song further teaches wherein a depth of the first anti-vibration groove (defined by one of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) is of an obvious, but unspecified thickness of the first sound-insulation member
Song fails to explicitly teaches wherein a depth of the first anti-vibration groove is approximately one half of a thickness of the first sound-insulation member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a depth of the first anti-vibration groove is approximately one half of a thickness of the first sound-insulation member, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, it is well known that thickness of a material will directly affect the amount and frequency range of sound that a material can absorb, and selecting a particular thickness relative to the depth of the groove would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the device.
With respect to claim 9, Song teaches the outdoor unit for an air conditioning device of claim 1. Song further teaches wherein based on a sound-insulation cover (defined by unlabeled cover coupled to and closing the open top of housing #70) being coupled to an upper end of the housing (70), the inner space is closed;
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the sound-insulation cover comprises: a second sound-insulation member comprising a sound-insulating material, and a second sound-absorption member comprising a sound-absorbing material attached to one surface of the second sound-insulation member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the cover member of the same material of the housing #70, such that the the sound-insulation cover comprises: a second sound-insulation member comprising a sound-insulating material (layer #70 in Figure 3, when applied to the housing cover), and a second sound-absorption member comprising a sound-absorbing material (76) attached to one surface of the second sound-insulation member, so as to further attenuate noise generated by the compressor #64.
Further, 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.
With respect to claim 10, Song teaches the outdoor unit for an air conditioning device of claim 9.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one second anti-vibration groove is formed on one surface of the second sound- insulation member exposed to an outside.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein at least one second anti-vibration groove is formed on one surface of the second sound- insulation member exposed to an outside, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, because the priotrusions #72, which form the grooves, are explicitly for attenuating noise generated by the compressor, applying the protrusions to other parts of the housing (including the housing top cover) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to further reduce noise.
With respect to claim 11, Song teaches wherein it is obvious that the at least one second anti-vibration groove (defined groove formed between adjacent protrusions #72 when protrusions are formed on the top cover of housing #70 as defined in the rejection of claim 10 above) extends in a straight line.
With respect to claim 14, Song teaches the outdoor unit for an air conditioning device of claim 10. Song further teaches wherein a depth of the second anti-vibration groove (defined groove formed between adjacent protrusions #72 when protrusions are formed on the top cover of housing #70 as defined in the rejection of claim 10 above) is of an obvious, but unspecified thickness of the second sound-insulation member
Song fails to explicitly teaches wherein a depth of the second anti-vibration groove is approximately one half of a thickness of the second sound-insulation member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a depth of the second anti-vibration groove is approximately one half of a thickness of the second sound-insulation member, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, it is well known that thickness of a material will directly affect the amount and frequency range of sound that a material can absorb, and selecting a particular thickness relative to the depth of the groove would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the device.
With respect to claim 19, Song teaches the outdoor unit for an air conditioning device of claim 16. Song further teaches wherein a depth of the anti-vibration groove (defined by one of grooves in between the plurality of protrusions #72/74 in Figures 4 and 6) is of an obvious, but unspecified thickness of the sound-insulation member
Song fails to explicitly teaches wherein a depth of the anti-vibration groove is approximately one half of a thickness of the sound-insulation member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a depth of the anti-vibration groove is approximately one half of a thickness of the sound-insulation member, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, it is well known that thickness of a material will directly affect the amount and frequency range of sound that a material can absorb, and selecting a particular thickness relative to the depth of the groove would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the device.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (EP 1300635 A2) in view of Tilton (2005/0139415).
With respect to claim 8, Song teaches the air conditioning device of claim 1.
Song fails to teach wherein a plurality of incisions are provided in the first sound-insulation member to reach the inner space from the first surface in a specified vicinity of a vertical edge bent to accommodate the compressor in the housing.
Tilton teaches wherein it is known to provide incisions in the form of scoring (Figure 3a, #40/41) to a sheet of material that is to be folded or curved, such that “the radius of curvature of the folded edge may be reduced, thereby yielding a sharper edge detail in the final acoustical product ([0035]), ” such that when combined, teaches wherein a plurality of incisions (Tilton, Figure 3a, #40/41) are provided in the first sound-insulation member (Song, #70 or #70/76) to reach the inner space from the first surface in a specified vicinity of a vertical edge bent to accommodate the compressor (Song, #64b) in the housing (Song, #70, when combined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Song, with the apparatus of Tilton, so as to provide wherein the radius of curvature of the folded edge may be reduced, thereby yielding a sharper edge detail in the final acoustical product.
With respect to claim 20, Song teaches the air conditioning device of claim 1.
Song fails to teach wherein a plurality of incisions having a specified length are formed along an edge bent in the housing.
Tilton teaches wherein it is known to provide incisions in the form of scoring (Figure 3a, #40/41) to a sheet of material that is to be folded or curved, such that “the radius of curvature of the folded edge may be reduced, thereby yielding a sharper edge detail in the final acoustical product ([0035]), ” such that when combined, teaches wherein a plurality of incisions (Tilton, Figure 3a, #40/41) having a specified length are formed along an edge bent (see shape of Song, #70) in the housing (70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Song, with the apparatus of Tilton, so as to provide wherein the radius of curvature of the folded edge may be reduced, thereby yielding a sharper edge detail in the final acoustical product.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (EP 1300635 A2) in view of Miseong (KR 20200089876 A).
With respect to claim 15, Song teaches the air conditioning device of claim 1. Song further teaches wherein the housing comprises: a first housing (defined by main housing #70 having an open top), and a second housing (defined by unlabeled top cover seen in Figures 2 and 5 for closing an open top of housing #70) coupled to the first housing (70), wherein the first housing and the second housing are attachable (see Figure 5) to and detachable (see Figure 2) from each other by an obvious, but unspecified connection.
Song fails to teach wherein the first housing and the second housing are attachable to and detachable from each other by Velcro.
Miseong does teach that it is well known to attach noise blocking cover components with a Velcro material ([0005]), which is inherently attachable and detachable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Song, with the Velcro material of Miseong, so as to secure the two components together in the same way as taught in [0005] of Miseong. Further, the use of Velcro to attach two components together is well known and would have been any obvious mode of attachment to one of ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-20 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. The Examiner considers Song and the obvious combination with Tilton and Miseong to teach all of the limitations of these claims.
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 JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights