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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “The at least one hooks” in line 6 is understood to include a typographical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- The at least one hook --
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“vertical projection” in claims 3 and 5.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the at least one hooks” is understood to include a typographical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the at least one hook --
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “a refrigerator comprising;” is understood to include a typographical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- a refrigerator comprising: --
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the second hook and the at least on snap are configured to engage a corresponding orifice” is understood to include a typographical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- the second hook and the at least one snap are configured to engage a corresponding orifice --
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 are also objected to due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, 11-15, 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the orifice is at least one of a slot and an aperture, wherein the slot is configured to receive the at least one hook and the aperture is configured to receive the at least one snap”. As recited, claim 2 is confusing as it seems to indicate that both the hook and the snap are accommodated by the orifice. However, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites “wherein the at least one hook slidingly engage an orifice defined by the liner to secure the air duct to the liner”. In other wors, claim 1 seems to indicate that only the hook engages the orifice. Therefore, it is unclear how the snap also engages the orifice in view of claim 1. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 17, the claims recite a “third hook” which renders the claims indefinite. Referring to the specification and drawings, it is unclear which structure the disclosed “third hook” is referring to. More clarity is requested.
Claims 11 and 17 recite the limitation “the additional hook” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, the term “slightly” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claims 13 and 18 indefinite because it is unclear what “wherein the flange is slightly offset from the end of the air duct” is. Thus, as used to qualify the position of the flange relative to the air duct, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claims 14 and 19 recite the limitation “the exterior of the liner” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the exterior of the liner” will be interpreted as -- an exterior of the liner --
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the end of the air duct” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the end of the air duct” will be interpreted as -- an end of the air duct --
Claim 18 recites the limitation “snap” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the hook and snap” will be interpreted as -- the hook and the snap --
Claim 20 recites the limitation “snap” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the hook and snap” will be interpreted as -- the hook and the snap --
Claims 9 and 15 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, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20230243572 A1, herein after referred to as Park) and Hou et al. (CN220771565U, herein after referred to as Hou).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator 1 Fig. 2) comprising: a cabinet (cabinet 2 Fig. 2); a liner (inner case 40 Fig. 3) positioned within the cabinet (Figs. 2-3 and paragraph [0126]), the liner defining an internal cavity (refrigerator compartment 51 and freezer compartment 52 Fig. 3); at least one air duct (connection duct 200 Fig. 5) disposed between the cabinet and the liner (Figs. 2 and 4), the air duct secured to the liner along an exterior of the liner (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0238]), and wherein the air duct includes a flange (the upper portion of connection duct 200 which accommodates hook securing portion 211 and connection duct securing member 213 Fig. 22A) protruding radially outward therefrom (Fig. 22A) and proximate to an end of the air duct (Fig. 22A).
Park teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “at least one hook and at least one snap extend axially from the flange in an arrangement around a periphery of the end of the air duct, wherein the at least one hook slidingly engage an orifice defined by the liner to secure the air duct to the liner”.
However, Hou teaches at least one hook (limit buckles 203 Fig. 3) and at least one snap (card groove 2011 Fig. 3) extend axially from a flange (Figs. 1 and 3 where fixing plate 2012 corresponds to the flange of Park) in an arrangement (corresponds to the arrangement illustrated in Figs. 1 and 3) around a periphery of an end of an air duct (Figs. 1 and 3 where air duct assembly 20 corresponds to the air duct of Park), wherein the at least one hook slidingly engage an orifice (air inlet 102 Fig. 1 and paragraph [55]) defined by a liner (Fig. 1 where inner tank 10 corresponds to the liner of Park) to secure the air duct to the liner (paragraph [55]) to provide a simple and firm installation that can prevent overflow (paragraph [35]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Park to include “at least one hook and at least one snap extend axially from the flange in an arrangement around a periphery of the end of the air duct, wherein the at least one hook slidingly engage an orifice defined by the liner to secure the air duct to the liner” in view of the teachings of Hou to provide a simple and firm installation that can prevent overflow.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach further comprising an air duct outlet (air duct opening 204 Fig. 3 of Hou) the air duct outlet having a vertical projection (annular groove 2014 Fig. 3 of Hou) extending around the air duct outlet (Figs. 1 and 3 of Hou) and vertically above the flange (Fig. 3 of Hou).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one hook includes an upward sloped surface (top surface of bottom limit buckle 203 Fig. 3 of Hou) extending toward the at least one snap (Fig. 3 of Hou where the top surface of bottom limit buckle 203 extends towards top clamping groove 2011).
Claims 2, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Hou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (WO2024140785A2, herein after referred to as Jiang).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the orifice is at least one of a slot and an aperture, wherein the slot is configured to receive the at least one hook and the aperture is configured to receive the at least one snap”.
However, Jiang teaches wherein an orifice (positioning structure 144 and rib 115 Figs. 9-10 correspond to the orifice of Hou) is at least one of a slot (the disclosed “recess” of rib 115 in paragraph [104]) and an aperture (positioning structure 144 Fig. 10, paragraphs [99] and [102]), wherein the slot is configured to receive at least one hook (paragraph [104] where limiting protrusion 145 Fig. 10 corresponds to the at least one hook of Park) and the aperture is configured to receive at least one snap (paragraphs [99] and [102] where clamping structure 114 Fig. 9 corresponds to the at least one snap of Hou) to further limit the movement of the duct with respect to the liner (paragraph [104]).
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 orifice is at least one of a slot and an aperture, wherein the slot is configured to receive the at least one hook and the aperture is configured to receive the at least one snap” in view of the teachings of Jiang to further limit the movement of the duct with respect to the liner.
Additionally, although the aperture of Jiang is located on the duct and the snap of Jiang is located on the liner, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that a reversal of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Jiang and provide the aperture on the liner and the snap on the duct in order to obtain the predictable results of securing the duct to the liner.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the flange includes a hook side (lateral side of duct connector 201 Fig. 3 of Hou) and a snap side (upper side of duct connector 201 Fig. 3 of Hou).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein at least one of the hook side and the snap side is curved”.
However, Jiang teaches wherein at least one of a hook side (the side of second flange 143 Fig. 10 which accommodates limiting protrusion 145 corresponds to the hook side of Hou) and a snap side (the side of second flange 143 Fig. 10 which accommodates positioning structure 144 corresponds to the snap side of Hou) is curved (Fig. 10) to accommodate the flange to the external contour of the liner (Fig. 3).
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 at least one of the hook side and the snap side is curved” in view of the teachings of Jiang to accommodate the flange to the external contour of the liner.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein an engagement surface of the at least one hook (corresponds to the engagement surface of limiting protrusion 145 Fig. 10 of Jiang) and an engagement surface of the at least one snap (corresponds to the engagement surface of positioning structure 144 Fig. 10 of Jiang) are spaced a first distance apart (see below annotated Fig. 10 of Jiang), and the slot and the aperture are spaced a second distance apart (see below annotated Fig. 9 of Jiang), wherein the first distance and the second distance equal an engagement distance (see below annotated Figs. 9-10 of Jiang) configured to connect the air duct to the liner with a friction fit (disclosed “snap-fit” in paragraph [91] of Jiang).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Hou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hongbo (CN201093836Y).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the vertical projection extends through the liner and into the cabinet”.
However, Hongbo teaches wherein a vertical projection (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Hongbo) extends through a liner (Fig. 6 where box duct 6 corresponds to the liner of Park) and into a cabinet (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Hongbo) to provide an installation which is convenient (paragraph [28]).
PNG
media_image3.png
674
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 vertical projection extends through the liner and into the cabinet” in view of the teachings of Hongbo to provide an installation which is convenient.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a lip extending at least partially radially from a side of a top edge of the vertical projection”.
However, Hongbo teaches further comprising a lip (wide fold 1a Figs 5-6) extending at least partially radially from a side (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Hongbo) of a top edge of a vertical projection (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Hongbo) to provide an installation which is convenient (paragraph [28]).
PNG
media_image4.png
436
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 lip extending at least partially radially from a side of a top edge of the vertical projection” in view of the teachings of Hongbo to provide an installation which is convenient.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a gasket, the gasket configured to be positioned between the flange and the liner”.
However, Hongbo teaches further comprising a gasket (sealing member 5 Fig. 5), the gasket configured to be positioned between a flange (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Hongbo) and a liner (Fig. 6 where box duct 6 corresponds to the liner of Park) to provide an installation which is convenient and guarantees a sealing effect (paragraph [28]).
PNG
media_image5.png
674
838
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 gasket, the gasket configured to be positioned between the flange and the liner” in view of the teachings of Hongbo to provide an installation which is convenient and guarantees a sealing effect.
Claims 10, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou and Jiang.
Regarding claim 10, Hou teaches a refrigerator (disclosed “refrigerator” in paragraph [49]) comprising: a liner (refrigerator inner tank 10 Fig. 2) defining a fresh food cavity (refrigeration space 101 Fig. 2); an air duct (air duct pipeline 202 Fig. 3) secured to an exterior surface of the liner (Fig. 1); a flange (fixing plate 2012 Fig. 3) protruding radially outward therefrom proximate to an end of the air duct (Fig. 3); a first hook (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hou), and a second hook (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hou), extending axially from a first end of the flange (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hou), wherein the first hook is positioned adjacent the second hook at a predetermined distance apart (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hou); at least one snap (card groove 2011 Fig. 3) extending axially from a second end of the flange (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hou), the second end of the flange positioned opposite the first end of the flange (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Hou).
PNG
media_image6.png
960
794
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hou teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first hook, the second hook and the at least one snap are configured to engage a corresponding orifice to secure the air duct to the liner”.
However, Jiang teaches wherein a first hook (paragraph [104] and Fig. 10 where one of the disclosed “at least one limiting protrusion 145” corresponds to the first hook of Hou), a second hook (paragraph [104] and Fig. 10 where one of the disclosed “at least one limiting protrusion 145” corresponds to the second hook of Hou) and at least one snap (clamping structure 114 Fig. 9 corresponds to the at least one snap of Hou) are configured to engage a corresponding orifice (positioning structure 144 and rib 115 Figs. 9-10 and paragraphs [99], [102], and [104]) to secure an air duct (air duct 140 Fig. 10 corresponds to the air duct of Hou) to a liner (Fig. 3 where refrigerating liner 112 corresponds to the liner of Hou) to further limit the movement of the duct with respect to the liner (paragraph [104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hou to include “wherein the first hook, the second hook and the at least one snap are configured to engage a corresponding orifice to secure the air duct to the liner” in view of the teachings of Jiang to further limit the movement of the duct with respect to the liner.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the corresponding orifice defined by the liner”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the corresponding orifice defined by the liner” does anything more than produce the predictable result of securing the duct to the liner. Since it has been held that reversal of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. A, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Jiang and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of securing the duct to the liner.
Regarding claim 16, Hou teaches a refrigerator (disclosed “refrigerator” in paragraph [49]) comprising: a liner (refrigerator inner tank 10 Fig. 2); an air duct (air duct pipeline 202 Fig. 3), the air duct having a radially extending flange (fixing plate 2012 Fig. 3); a hook (limit buckles 203 Fig. 3) protruding axially from the flange (Fig. 3); a snap (card groove 2011 Fig. 3) protruding axially from the flange (Fig. 3) and spaced at a predetermined distance from the hook (corresponds to the distance between upper limit buckle 203 and upper card groove 2011 Fig. 3); a liner air duct opening (air inlet 102 Fig. 1), the air duct opening positioned on the liner (Fig. 1).
Hou teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “a first orifice and a second orifice positioned adjacent the liner air duct opening, wherein the hook slidingly engages at least one of the first orifice and the second orifice and the snap engages the other of the at least one first orifice and the second orifice to secure the air duct to the liner”.
However, Jiang teaches a first orifice (rib 115 Fig. 9) and a second orifice (positioning structure 144 Fig. 10) positioned adjacent a liner air duct opening (Figs. 3 and 9 where positioning structure 144 and rib 115 are both adjacent to connecting opening 113 when duct 140 is mounted), wherein a hook (limiting protrusion 145 Fig. 10 corresponds to the hook of Hou) slidingly engages the first orifice (paragraph [104]) and a snap (clamping structure 114 Fig. 9 corresponds to the snap of Hou) engages the second orifice (paragraphs [99] and [102]) to secure an air duct (duct 140 Fig. 10 corresponds to the air duct of Hou) to a liner (Fig. 3 where refrigerating liner 112 corresponds to the liner of Hou) to further limit the movement of the duct with respect to the liner (paragraph [104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hou to include “a first orifice and a second orifice positioned adjacent the liner air duct opening, wherein the hook slidingly engages at least one of the first orifice and the second orifice and the snap engages the other of the at least one first orifice and the second orifice to secure the air duct to the liner” in view of the teachings of Jiang to further limit the movement of the duct with respect to the liner.
Additionally, although the aperture of Jiang is located on the duct and the snap of Jiang is located on the liner, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that a reversal of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Jiang and provide the aperture on the liner and the snap on the duct in order to obtain the predictable results of securing the duct to the liner.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the flange is offset from the end of the air duct such that the end of the air duct protrudes axially from the flange (Fig. 3 of Hou where annular groove 2014 is protruding beyond fixing plate 2012) in a same direction (Fig. 3 of Hou) as the hooks and snaps (Fig. 3 of Hou).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the combined teachings teach wherein an outer region of the flange (portion of second flange 143 that accommodates limiting protrusion 145 Fig. 10 of Jiang) is arced (Fig. 10 of Jiang) to (i) conform to a rounded edge (edges of refrigerating liner 112 Fig. 3 of Jiang) along an exterior of the liner (Fig. 3 of Jiang) and (ii) guide the air duct into position for installation onto the liner (Fig. 3 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the flange is offset from the end of the air duct such that the end of the air duct protrudes axially from the flange (Fig. 3 of Hou where annular groove 2014 is protruding beyond fixing plate 2012) in a same direction (Fig. 3 of Hou) as the hook and the snap (Fig. 3 of Hou).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are sized to create a friction fit (disclosed “snap-fit” in paragraph [91] of Jiang) with the hook and the snap when the air duct is engaged with the liner (Fig. 3 of Jiang).
Claims 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou and Jiang as applied to claims 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Hanbyul et al. (KR20220049883A, herein after referred to as Hanbyul).
Regarding claim 11, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach further comprising a third hook (bottom limit buckle 203 Fig. 3 of Hou).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the third hook extending radially from the end of the air duct, wherein the additional hook is offset from the flange”.
However, and due to indefiniteness, Hanbyul teaches a third hook (reinforcing wall 622 Fig. 15 corresponds to the third hook of Hou) extending radially from an end (Fig. 15 where the upper end of lower insertion part 63 corresponds to the end of Hou) of an air duct (Fig. 15 where lower insertion part 63 corresponds to the air duct of Hou), wherein the additional hook is offset from a flange (Fig. 15 where main body 61 corresponds to the flange of Hou) to reinforce the strength of the duct connector (paragraph [0160]).
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 third hook extending radially from the end of the air duct, wherein the additional hook is offset from the flange” in view of the teachings of Hanbyul to reinforce the strength of the duct connector.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein at least one of the first hook, the second hook and the third hook include an upward sloped surface (inclined upper portion of limit buckle 203 Fig. 3 of Hou) the upward sloped surface configured to engage at least a portion of the liner (Fig. 1 of Hou).
Regarding claim 17, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach further comprising a third hook (bottom limit buckle 203 Fig. 3 of Hou).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the third hook extending radially from an end of the air duct, wherein the additional hook is offset from the flange”.
However, and due to indefiniteness, Hanbyul teaches a third hook (reinforcing wall 622 Fig. 15 corresponds to the third hook of Hou) extending radially from an end (the upper end of lower insertion part Fig. 15) of an air duct (Fig. 15 where lower insertion part 63 corresponds to the air duct of Hou), wherein the additional hook is offset from a flange (Fig. 15 where main body 61 corresponds to the flange of Hou) to reinforce the strength of the duct connector (paragraph [0160]).
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 third hook extending radially from an end of the air duct, wherein the additional hook is offset from the flange” in view of the teachings of Hanbyul to reinforce the strength of the duct connector.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou and Jiang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hongbo.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a gasket, the gasket configured to be positioned between the flange and the liner”.
However, Hongbo teaches further comprising a gasket (sealing member 5 Fig. 5), the gasket configured to be positioned between a flange (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Hongbo) and a liner (Fig. 6 where box duct 6 corresponds to the liner of Park) to provide an installation which is convenient and guarantees a sealing effect (paragraph [28]).
PNG
media_image5.png
674
838
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 gasket, the gasket configured to be positioned between the flange and the liner” in view of the teachings of Hongbo to accommodate the flange to provide an installation which is convenient and guarantees a sealing effect.
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