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 § 102
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 9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015-013538 Kimura et al.
Regarding claim 18, Kimura teaches a soundproof cushioning material (paragraph 00010) to be attached to an inner face of a wheel well of a vehicle body (paragraph 0014), the soundproof cushioning material comprising:
a soundproof cushioning area 20 (paragraph 0022), in which a non-woven fabric 20 (the combination of both layers 31 and 32, where layer 32 includes the non-woven fabric such that multilayer 20 meets the non-woven fabric limitation) comprising entangled fibers is disposed (paragraph 0023); and
a continuous resin area 11 (paragraph 0016), and
a boundary part 21 between the soundproof cushioning area and the continuous resin area (figure 3b),
wherein the soundproof cushioning area and the continuous resin area define a continuous face (bottom surface) of the soundproof cushioning material (figure 3b),
wherein the soundproof cushioning area is side by side with and adjacent to the continuous resin area on a first surface of the soundproof cushioning material (top surface, figure 3b), the first surface configured to face a tire in the wheel well (paragraphs 0051-0052),
wherein, on a second surface (bottom surface) of the soundproof cushioning material opposite to the first surface configured to face the tire (figure 3b), the non-woven fabric of the soundproof cushioning area and the continuous resin area are exposed (figure 3b),
wherein at least a portion of the non-woven fabric 20 exposed on the second surface is also exposed on the first surface (figure 3b), and
wherein at least a portion of the soundproof cushioning area on the first surface configured to face the tire in the wheel well does not overlap with the continuous resin area (figure 3b), and
wherein the soundproof cushioning material further comprises a bonding area wherein the non-woven fabric extends across the boundary part and into the continuous resin area (at bead 41, figure 3b).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches that the boundary part comprises a compressed non-woven fabric area (recess 21) that is more compressed than the non-woven fabric of the soundproof cushioning area (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura teaches that the boundary part further comprises an extension part (within bead 41) disposed between the compressed non-woven fabric area and the continuous resin area (figure 3b), and wherein the extension part is comprised of a non-woven fabric area that is less compressed than the compressed non-woven fabric area (figure 3b).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-013538 Kimura et al.
Regarding claim 10, Kimura teaches that the compressed non-woven fabric area has a density of two times or more of a density of the soundproof cushioning area (paragraph 0026 teaching that the uncompressed region has a thickness of 1 mm, and paragraph 0028 teaching that the compressed region has a thickness of 0.5 mm or less). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 2x or more reads on the claimed range of 3x or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not teach that the top surface faces the tire. However, paragraphs 0022-0023 teach one arrangement, while the portions cited in the facing the tire portion of the rejection, paragraphs 0051-0052, explicitly state that the opposite arrangement is also possible.
Applicant argues that the non-woven fabric is not exposed on both sides. However, please note that a new interpretation has been taken, where multilayer 20 is the non-woven fabric, and is exposed on both sides.
Applicant argues that “a bonding region is established where the nonwoven fabric of the sound- absorbing buffer region extends toward the resin region side of the boundary portion” is not taught. However, this is taught in the bead 41 (figure 3b). It is unclear why Applicant believes this is not taught.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights