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 .
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 one or more indoor units of 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 § 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 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miseong (KR 20200089876 A) in view of Luo (CN 111720903 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 1, Miseong teaches an air conditioning device (Figures 1-2, [0002]-[0003]), comprising: one or more indoor units (broadly defined by units or components of the air conditioning within the indoor space, as are well known in any residential or commercial central air conditioning system, [0002]); an outdoor unit (1) connected via piping (11) to the one or more indoor units and including a compressor (13/14/15); and a housing (#100, including lower portion #130) opening upward (defined by upper opening covered by top cover #110) and including a first sound-insulation member (defined by any/all of layers #101/102/103) comprising a sound-insulation material accommodating the compressor (13/14/15) in an inner space thereof.
Miseong fails to teach wherein a first anti-vibration groove is formed in a first surface of the first sound-insulation member of the housing exposed to an outside.
Luo teaches a similar air conditioning device having an outdoor compressor unit (Figures 1-3, [0004], [0050]), and a housing (10/10’) including a first sound-insulation member (1) comprising a sound-insulation material accommodating the compressor in an inner space thereof ([0050], [0055]), and wherein a first anti-vibration groove (11) is formed in a first surface of the first sound-insulation member of the housing exposed to an outside ([0056]).
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 Miseong, with the apparatus of Luo so as to provide a grooved sound insulation member, which will improve a noise absorption effect and lower production cost, as Luo teaches “a sound insulation board with grooves on the outer surface as a sound insulation layer, which creates a cavity structure between the sound absorption layer and the sound insulation board, and adds an extra air layer, which is equivalent to increasing the effective thickness of the sound absorption layer and improving the noise absorption effect. Under the premise of meeting the sound insulation effect, the amount of material used for the sound absorption layer and the sound insulation board can be reduced, thereby effectively reducing the production cost (Luo, [0055]).
With respect to claim 2, Luo teaches wherein a plurality of first anti-vibration grooves (11) are formed at equal intervals from each other in the first sound-insulation member. Note Figure 1 shows the grooves in a grid/crisscross pattern, the first anti-vibration grooves being a set of parallel grooves.
With respect to claim 3, Luo teaches wherein the first anti-vibration grooves (11) are formed in a straight line.
With respect to claim 4, Miseong and Luo teach the air conditioning device of claim 1. Luo further teaches wherein the first anti-vibration groove (11) comprises: at least one first anti-vibration diagonal groove (groove extending in a first diagonal direction); and at least one first anti-vibration second diagonal groove meeting the at least one first anti-vibration diagonal groove (11 – see grid pattern of grooves in Figure 1).
Miseong and Luo fail to explicitly teach wherein the grooves are rotated 90˚ such that the first anti-vibration groove comprises: at least one first anti-vibration horizontal groove; and at least one first anti-vibration vertical groove meeting the at least one first anti-vibration horizontal groove.
However, 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 the grooves are rotated 90˚ such that the first anti-vibration groove comprises: at least one first anti-vibration horizontal groove; and at least one first anti-vibration vertical groove meeting the at least one first anti-vibration horizontal groove, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, rotating the grooves #11, or material #1 90˚ would yield grooves #11 extending in vertical or horizontal directions, as opposed to the opposite diagonal directions depicted in Figure 1, such an arrangement would still satisfy the “grid pattern” described by the disclosure of Luo, and would involve routine skill.
With respect to claim 5, Miseong and Luo teach wherein the at least one first anti-vibration horizontal groove (when rotating grid pattern of grooves #11 90˚ as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above) and the at least one first anti-vibration vertical groove (when rotating grid pattern of grooves #11 90˚ as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above) intersect with each other, and at least one intersection point is formed.
With respect to claim 6, Miseong and Luo teach the air conditioning device of claim 1. Luo further teaches wherein a depth of the first anti-vibration groove is 0.01 mm to 2 mm ([0020]), which is an of an obvious, but unspecified amount relative to a thickness of the first sound-insulation member (1).
Miseong and Luo fail to explicitly teach 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 7, Luo teaches wherein a first sound-absorption member (Figure 3, #2) comprising a sound absorbing material is attached to a second surface of the first sound-insulation member (1) facing the inner space of the housing (10’).
With respect to claim 9, Miseong and Luo teaches wherein based on a sound-insulation cover (Miseong, Figure 2, #110) being coupled to an upper end of the housing (Miseong, #130), the inner space is closed; wherein the sound-insulation cover (Miseong, #110) comprises: a second sound-insulation member (Miseong, #103, when combined with Luo #1) comprising a sound-insulating material, and a second sound-absorption member (Miseong, #102, when combined with Luo #2) comprising a sound-absorbing material attached to one surface of the second sound-insulation member (Miseong, #103, when combined with Luo #1). Note that in Miseong, material #101/102/103 forms both portions #110 and #130 of housing #100 as seen in Figure 2.
With respect to claim 10, Luo teaches wherein at least one second anti-vibration groove (11) is formed on one surface of the second sound-insulation member (Miseong, #103, when combined with Luo #1) exposed to an outside ([0056]).
With respect to claim 11, Luo teaches wherein the at least one second anti-vibration groove (11) extends in a straight line.
With respect to claim 12, Miseong and Luo teach the air conditioning device of claim 1. Luo further teaches wherein the at least one second anti-vibration groove (11) comprises: at least one second anti-vibration diagonal groove (groove extending in a first diagonal direction); and at least one second anti-vibration second diagonal groove meeting the at least one second anti-vibration diagonal groove (11 – see grid pattern of grooves in Figure 1).
Miseong and Luo fail to explicitly teach wherein the grooves are rotated 90˚ such that the second anti-vibration groove comprises: at least one second anti-vibration horizontal groove; and at least one second anti-vibration vertical groove meeting the at least one second anti-vibration horizontal groove.
However, 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 the grooves are rotated 90˚ such that the second anti-vibration groove comprises: at least one second anti-vibration horizontal groove; and at least one second anti-vibration vertical groove meeting the at least one second anti-vibration horizontal groove, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, rotating the grooves #11, or material #1 90˚ would yield grooves #11 extending in vertical or horizontal directions, as opposed to the opposite diagonal directions depicted in Figure 1, such an arrangement would still satisfy the “grid pattern” described by the disclosure of Luo, and would involve routine skill.
With respect to claim 13, Miseong and Luo teach wherein the at least one second anti-vibration horizontal groove (when rotating grid pattern of grooves #11 90˚ as discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above) and the at least one second anti-vibration vertical groove (when rotating grid pattern of grooves #11 90˚ as discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above) intersect with each other, and at least one intersection point is formed.
With respect to claim 14, Miseong and Luo teach the air conditioning device of claim 1. Luo further teaches wherein a depth of the second anti-vibration groove is 0.01 mm to 2 mm ([0020]), which is an of an obvious, but unspecified amount relative to a thickness of the second sound-insulation member (1).
Miseong and Luo fail to explicitly teach 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 15, Miseong wherein the housing (100) comprises: a first housing (130), and a second housing (110) coupled to the first housing (130), wherein the first housing (130) and the second housing (110) are obviously attachable to and detachable from each other by Velcro, as Miseong does not specify how parts #110 and 130 are attached, but 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 housing parts #110/130 of Miseong, with the Velcro material of Miseong ([0005]) 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.
With respect to claim 16, Miseong teaches a housing (Figures 1-2, #130) for shielding noise from a compressor (13/14/15) provided in an outdoor unit (1) of an air conditioning device ([0002]-[0003]), comprising: a sound-insulation member (defined by layers #101/102/103) comprising a sound-insulating material having an inner space (interior space accommodating outdoor unit #1), opening upward (defined by upper opening covered by top cover #110), and including one surface exposed to an outside (outer facing surface of 103).
Miseong fails to teach at least one anti-vibration groove formed on the one surface of the sound-insulation member.
Luo teaches a similar housing (10/10’) for shielding noise from a compressor (13/14/15) provided in an outdoor unit (1) of an air conditioning device (Figures 1-3, [0004], [0050]), comprising: a sound-insulation member (1) comprising a sound-insulating material having an inner space ([0050], [0055])), including one surface exposed to an outside (outer facing surface of 1), and at least one anti-vibration groove (11) formed on the one surface of the sound-insulation member [0056]).
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 Miseong, with the apparatus of Luo so as to provide a grooved sound insulation member, which will improve a noise absorption effect and lower production cost, as Luo teaches “a sound insulation board with grooves on the outer surface as a sound insulation layer, which creates a cavity structure between the sound absorption layer and the sound insulation board, and adds an extra air layer, which is equivalent to increasing the effective thickness of the sound absorption layer and improving the noise absorption effect. Under the premise of meeting the sound insulation effect, the amount of material used for the sound absorption layer and the sound insulation board can be reduced, thereby effectively reducing the production cost (Luo, [0055]).
With respect to claim 17, Luo teaches wherein the anti-vibration groove (11) comprises: at least one first anti-vibration groove (defined one of grooves #11 of grid pattern extending in a first direction); and at least one second anti-vibration groove (defined another of grooves #11 of grid pattern extending in a second direction perpendicular to and crossing the first groove) meeting the at least one first anti-vibration groove.
With respect to claim 18, Luo teaches wherein each of the anti-vibration grooves (11) extends in a straight line.
With respect to claim 19, Miseong and Luo teach the air conditioning device of claim 1. Luo further teaches wherein a depth of the first anti-vibration groove is 0.01 mm to 2 mm, which is an of an obvious, but unspecified amount relative to a thickness of the first sound-insulation member (1).
Miseong and Luo fail to explicitly teach 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.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miseong (KR 20200089876 A) in view of Luo (CN 111720903 A – see translation provided by Examiner), as applied to claims 1 and 16 respectively, and further in view of Tilton (2005/0139415).
With respect to claim 8, Miseong and Luo teach the air conditioning device of claim 1.
Miseong and Luo fail 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 (Miseong, #101/102/103 and Luo, #1) to reach the inner space from the first surface in a specified vicinity of a vertical edge bent (see shape of Miseong, #130) to accommodate the compressor (13/14/15) in the housing (100/130).
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 Miseong as modified, 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, Miseong and Luo teach the air conditioning device of claim 16.
Miseong and Luo fail 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 Miseong, #130) in the housing (100/130)
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 Miseong as modified, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
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