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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 following must be shown (without entering new matter) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a first installation position”
“an indoor heat exchanger”
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 § 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.
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 28 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the partition” without proper antecedent basis. It should be noted that claim 16 provides proper antecedence for “the partition”, but claim 28 does not depend therefrom. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a partition—.
Claim 29 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the enclosure body” without proper antecedent basis. It should be noted that claim 19 provides proper antecedence for “the enclosure body”, but claim 29 does not depend therefrom. For examination purposes¸ the recitation will instead be construed as –an enclosure body—.
The claim recites “the partition” without proper antecedent basis. It should be noted that claim 16 provides proper antecedence for “the partition”, but claim 29 does not depend therefrom. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a partition—.
Claim 30 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the partition” without proper antecedent basis. It should be noted that claim 16 provides proper antecedence for “the partition”, but claim 30 does not depend therefrom. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a partition—.
Claim 31 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the partition” without proper antecedent basis. It should be noted that claim 16 provides proper antecedence for “the partition”, but claim 31 does not depend therefrom. For examination purposes, the first recitation will be construed as –a partition—.
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 13-19, 27-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Xing et al. (CN 106091454 A), herein Xing.
As per claim 13, Xing discloses an air conditioner indoor unit (100) comprising:
a chassis (1, etc.) provided with a first installation position (e.g., right portion in fig. 3) and a second installation position (e.g., left portion in fig. 3);
an indoor heat exchanger provided at the first installation position(inside the right portion shown in fig. 3);
a compressor (3) in communication with the indoor heat exchanger (evident from at least figs. 1-3) and provided at the second installation position (see fig. 3); and
a first-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5 and related components) and a second-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (4 and related components); wherein:
an installation foot (dark-line horizontal structure adjacent 5) is provided at a bottom of the compressor (3) and is connected to the chassis (see at least fig. 2);
the first-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5, etc.) is provided between the installation foot (dark horizontal line) and the second-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (4, etc.); and
the second-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (4, etc.) is provided between the first-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5, etc.) and the chassis (at 1).
As per claim 14, Xing discloses wherein the first- stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5, etc.) includes a rubber pad (at the base layer with 2; see at least ¶¶ 56 and 65).
As per claim 15, Xing discloses a sound insulation enclosure (2) sleeved outside the compressor (3; see at least ¶¶ 65, 67).
As per claim 16, Xing discloses wherein: the second-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (4, etc.) includes:
a partition (see thick dark line of 2) connected to the sound insulation enclosure (2); and
an elastic member (4, per se) provided between the partition (dark line of 2) and the chassis (1); and
the first-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5, etc.) is provided between the installation foot (horizontal line adjacent 5) and the partition (thick dark line of 2).
As per claim 17, Xing discloses wherein the partition (of 2) includes a metal plate (¶ 55).
As per claim 18, Xing discloses wherein the elastic member (4, per se) includes a rubber block or a spring (¶ 41).
As per claim 19, Xing discloses wherein the sound insulation enclosure (2) includes an enclosure body (see fig. 2), and a sound absorption layer (e.g., darker shade, outer layer) and a sound insulation layer (lighter shade, inner layer) provided at an inner surface (see fig. 2) of the enclosure body (2).
As per claim 27, Xing discloses wherein: the sound insulation enclosure (2) is provided with an avoidance hole (at 22) for a pipeline (31) of the compressor (3) to pass through (see fig. 2); and a seal (7) is provided between the pipeline (31) and the avoidance hole (at 22).
As per claim 28, Xing discloses wherein a seal (7) is provided between the sound insulation enclosure (2) and a partition (e.g., 22, 31, or the dark line of 2).
As per claim 32, Xing discloses a split-type air conditioner (100) comprising: an air conditioner indoor unit (see at least fig. 1) including:
a chassis (1) provided with a first installation position (right portion in fig. 3) and a second installation position (left portion in fig. 3);
an indoor heat exchanger provided at the first installation position (e.g., inside right portion of fig. 3);
a compressor (2) in communication with the indoor heat exchanger (via 31) and provided at the second installation position (e.g., left portion in fig. 3); and
a first-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5 and related components) and a second-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (4 and related components); wherein:
an installation foot (dark horizontal line adjacent 5) is provided at a bottom of the compressor (2) and is connected to the chassis (via 5);
the first-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5, etc.) is provided between the installation foot (dark horizontal line) and the second-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (4); and
the second-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (4, etc.) is provided between the first-stage elastic vibration reduction structure (5, etc.) and the chassis (1); and
an air conditioner outdoor unit (on the left portion in fig. 3) including an outdoor heat exchanger (see rectangular structure on the left in fig. 3) in communication with the compressor (2) and the indoor heat exchanger (inside the right portion in fig. 3) to form a refrigerant circuit (see at least ¶ 70).
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.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN 106091454 A) in view of Kazuta et al. (JP H08334245 A), herein Kazuta.
As per claim 29, Xing may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: an installation flange is provided at an outer side of the enclosure body; and the installation flange and the partition are fixed by bolts.
On the other hand, Kazuta, directed to a heat pump, discloses an installation flange (45) is provided at an outer side of the enclosure body (2); and the installation flange (45) and the partition (3) are fixed by bolts (see at least ¶¶ 31-32).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.1
As per (1), Kazuta discloses securing the heat pump unit by using bolts (¶¶ 31-32). They suggest an installation which provides enough rigidity to mitigate any resulting noise or vibration from the system (¶ 37). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Kazuta has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the flange and bolts, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Xing. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Xing and Kazuta are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Xing may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Kazuta, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Xing by virtue of suggesting a rigid installation structure to help mitigate vibration and noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Xing and to have modified them with the teachings of Kazuta, by having an installation flange provided at an outer side of the enclosure body; and the installation flange and the partition fixed by bolts, in order to provide a rigid installation to mitigate vibration and noise, as similarly suggested by Kazuta, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 30, Xing may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the installation foot is connected to the chassis by bolts passing through the partition.
On the other hand, Kazuta discloses wherein the installation foot (49) is connected to the chassis (41) by bolts passing through the partition (see at least ¶ 32).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.2
As per (1), Kazuta discloses securing the heat pump unit by using bolts (¶¶ 31-32). They suggest an installation which provides enough rigidity to mitigate any resulting noise or vibration from the system (¶ 37). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Kazuta has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the flange and bolts, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Xing. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Xing and Kazuta are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Xing may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Kazuta, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Xing by virtue of suggesting a rigid installation structure to help mitigate vibration and noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Xing and to have modified them with the teachings of Kazuta, by having the installation foot be connected to the chassis by bolts passing through the partition, in order to provide a rigid installation to mitigate vibration and noise, as similarly suggested by Kazuta, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 31, Xing may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the installation foot and the partition are connected by bolts, and the partition is connected to the chassis by bolts.
On the other hand, Kazuta discloses wherein the installation foot (49) and the partition (3) are connected by bolts (see fig. 1), and the partition (3) is connected to the chassis by bolts (see at least ¶ 32).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.3
As per (1), Kazuta discloses securing the heat pump unit by using bolts (¶¶ 31-32). They suggest an installation which provides enough rigidity to mitigate any resulting noise or vibration from the system (¶ 37). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Kazuta has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the flange and bolts, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Xing. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Xing and Kazuta are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Xing may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Kazuta, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Xing by virtue of suggesting a rigid installation structure to help mitigate vibration and noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Xing and to have modified them with the teachings of Kazuta, by having the installation foot and the partition be connected by bolts, and the partition be connected to the chassis by bolts, in order to provide a rigid installation to mitigate vibration and noise, as similarly suggested by Kazuta, without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all4 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in at least claim 20.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP § 2143.
2 See MPEP § 2143.
3 See MPEP § 2143.
4 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights