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 .
The amendment filed 3/20/2026 has been entered. Claim 2, 5, and 21-22 have been canceled. New claims 23-24 have been added. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-20, and 23-24 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-20, and 23-24 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. Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite, “wherein the acoustic damping material has a loss factor of at least 0.1 determined at 200 Hz at a temperature of 20 °C using the method as defined in ISO 6721 standard” (emphasis added), on lines 16-18, however, as discussed in the office action dated 2/12/2025, given that ISO 6721 includes various test methods by which a loss factor (i.e., tan δ) can be measured/determined, “the method” lacks clear antecedent basis. For example, EN ISO 6721, Part 1 (ISO 6721-1), Section 2, lists different methods for determination of dynamic mechanical properties provided in the different parts of the standard from EN ISO 6721-2 through EN ISO 6721-12, with Table 4 listing different test arrangements for various parts of ISO 6721. See also Wittwer (US2022/0186069A1, Paragraph 0270) which measures loss factor according to procedure A of DIN EN ISO 6721-3; or Lucas (US2021/0147678A1, Abstract, Paragraph 0009) which utilizes ISO 6721-5 to determine tan δ values; or Hupka (US2014/0142243A1, Tables 2 and 4) which utilizes ISO 6721-2 for determining loss factor tan δ values; or Karayianni (US2010/0230203A1, Paragraph 0094) which utilizes ISO 6721-4 to measure tan δ. Hence, given the lack of clear antecedent basis for “the method” and that ISO 6721 standard provides various methods for measuring loss factor/tan δ in the art, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
The dependent claims do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claims 23-24 are (further) 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. Claims 23 and 24 recite, “wherein the at least one solid particulate cellulose-containing filler FW has a true particle density” in the range of 0.25-1.5 g/cm3, and in the range of 0.50-7.5 g/cm3, respectively, and although the specification defines “true particle density” as the “real density of the particles that make up the particulate material” which is different from the “bulk density” and different from the ”true solid state density” of the solid cellulose-containing filler FW (see p. 13, line 20-p. 14, line the claims and the specification fail to specifically recite or define how said “true particle density” of the at least one solid particular cellulose-containing filler FW is determined, e.g., measured and/or calculated and how, and given that the values thereof may vary depending upon the method utilized to determine said “true density”, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (WO2016/181641A1, please again refer to the machine translation for the below cited sections), in view of Goetchius (Body structure noise and vibration refinement in Vehicle Noise and Vibration Refinement), and as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki (US2022/0243048A1, earlier effective filing date, different co-inventors) or Nakagawa (JP2005239800A, see attached machine translation for the below cited sections) or Rust (EP1323523A2, see attached machine translation for the below cited sections) or Desai, (US2008/0039564A1), wherein it is again noted that Kawabe clearly teaches that the resin composition or synthetic wood material may be used as a shock absorbing member such as for shock absorbing members for automobiles, and as insulation boards and soundproofing boards (pp. 70-72) as discussed in the prior office action, as well as automotive exterior components such as bumpers, bumper guards, and body panels (p. 71, lines 1-7) and dampers in general (p. 73, first line), with the flexural modulus of the resin specifically within a range such that “it is possible to obtain a resin composition that is not only excellent in flexibility but also excellent in impact absorption, light weight, vibration isolation, vibration damping and sound damping properties (p. 27, lines 3-12); and given that it is well known in the art that the loss factor of a material is a measure of the noise and vibration dampening properties of the material wherein as the loss factor increases, the noise/vibration damping properties are improved as taught by Goetchius (Section 15.7.4), with Goetchius specifically teaching that “[g]eneral practice has shown that loss factors above 0.1 provide sufficient damping for most body panel applications” (Section 15.7.4, last two paragraphs of p. 380), particularly at a frequency of 200 Hz (pp. 372-373, Table 15.2); and also known that for suitable or good noise and vibration dampening in the automotive industry (e.g., as in Kawabe and Goetchius), the loss factor at 200 Hz and ~ 20°C is preferably at or greater than 0.1 when determined by a method in accordance with ISO 6721 (as evidenced by Kornacki: Paragraphs 0001-0008, 0165, and Examples; or Nakagawa: Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0008, 0035, and 0039-0040; or Rust: Paragraphs 0001, 0024, Examples, and Fig. 4; or Desai: Background, Paragraphs 0027-0029, Table 2), the Examiner takes the position that the amended claims specifying a loss factor of at least 0.1 determined at 200 Hz at a temperature of 20°C using “the method as defined in ISO 6721 standard” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based upon the combined references as further discussed in detail below.
As discussed in the prior office action, Kawabe teaches a resin composition and synthetic wood formed therefrom comprising at least one resin (A) selected from thermoplastic resins and thermosetting resin, a compatibilizing agent/compatibilizer (B), and natural fibers (C), wherein the resin (A) is contained in a proportion of 1-90 parts by mass, the natural fibers (C) are contained in a proportion of 10-99 parts by mass, and the compatibilizing agent (B) is contained in a proportion of 0.1-50 parts by mass when the total of the resin (A) and the natural fibers (C) is taken to be 100 parts by weight (Abstract). Kawabe teaches that the synthetic wood material can be used as a shock absorbing member such as for shock absorbing members for automobiles, and as insulation boards and soundproofing boards (pp. 70-72), or as automotive exterior components such as bumpers, bumper guards, and body panels (p. 71, lines 1-7) as well as dampers in general (p. 73, first line).
Kawabe teaches that “the resin (A) is preferably at least one resin selected from the group consisting of olefin polymers, acid-grafted olefin polymers, styrene resins, chlorine resins, ethylene-acrylic acid resins, ethylene-methacrylic acid resins and ionomer resins thereof, thermoplastic elastomers, and various copolymer rubbers, more preferably at least one resin selected from the group consisting of olefin polymers, polystyrene, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer resins (ABS resins), and polyvinyl chloride,” with even more preferred resins being polyethylene and polypropylene including ethylene (co)polymers or propylene (co)polymers (Section 1-3, pp. 24-25), with a glass transition temperature (Tg) in the range of preferably -140°C to 50°C, even more preferably -50°C to -10°C (Section 1-4, pp. 26, lines 1-5; as in instant claim 1 with respect to the polymer component P that is at least one thermoplastic polymer TP with a Tg below 25°C). Kawabe specifically teaches that the flexural modulus of the resin (A) can be within a desired range such that “it is possible to obtain a resin composition that is not only excellent in flexibility but also excellent in impact absorption, light weight, vibration isolation, vibration damping and sound damping properties (p. 27, lines 3-12); and given that a loss factor is a measure of sound/noise and vibration dampening properties as taught by Goetchius (Section 15.7.4), with Goetchius specifically teaching that “[g]eneral practice has shown that loss factors above 0.1 provide sufficient damping for most body panel applications” (Section 15.7.4, last two paragraphs of p. 380), particularly at a frequency of 200 Hz (pp. 372-373, Table 15.2), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tailor the material composition to provide the desired noise and vibration dampening properties for a particular end use, such as a loss factor of greater than 0.1 determined at 200 Hz at a temperature of 20C using a method defined in ISO 6721 standard as is typical in the automotive art as evidenced by Kornacki (Paragraphs 0001-0008, 0165, and Examples) or Nakagawa (Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0008, 0035, and 0039-0040) or Rust (Paragraphs 0001, 0024, Examples, and Fig. 4) or Desai (Background, Paragraphs 0027-0029, Table 2).
Kawabe teaches that the compatibilizer (B) is a resin different from the resin (A) and is preferably selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin wax (B1) and a petroleum resin (B2), having a softening point of preferably in the range of 70°C to 170°C (Sections 2 and 2-1, pp. 28-30, with the latter reading upon the claimed hydrocarbon resin HR having a softening point of at least 70°C as in instant claim 1, and the former reading upon the claimed at least one wax W as in instant claim 10); wherein two or more compatibilizers may be used and selected from polyolefin wax (B1), petroleum resin (B2), and other compatibilizers (B) such as terpene resin (Section 2-4, p. 57), with a difference between the softening point of the compatibilizer (BH) having the highest softening point and the softening point of the compatibilizer (BL) having the lowest softening point is preferably 5°C or more (pp. 32-33), provided in a mass ratio of (BH)/(BL) of 1/200 to 1/1 (p. 34); with a combination of the polyolefin wax (B1) and the petroleum resin (B2) being preferable (p. 36).
Kawabe teaches that the “[n]atural fibers (C) are preferably wood flour, wood fibers, bamboo, bamboo fibers, cotton, cellulose, nanocellulose, wool, or agricultural fibers (straw, hemp, flax, kenaf, kapok, jute, ramie, sisal, hennecken, corn fibers or coir, or nut shells or rice husks, etc.), wood pulp such as NBKP (softwood bleached kraft pulp) and LBKP (hardwood bleached kraft pulp), as well as natural pulp such as non-wood pulp such as Manila hemp, paper mulberry, mitsumata, and gampi, rayon, cotton, etc.,” with “wood flour, wood fiber, bamboo, bamboo fiber, or nanocellulose being more preferred; “and in consideration of the production cost and balance of performance, wood flour and wood fiber are particularly preferred, and wood flour is most preferred” (Section 3, p. 59, first paragraph). Kawabe teaches that the “wood flour, wood fibers, etc. are not particularly limited by the type of raw wood or tree species, and wood flour and wood fibers obtained from wood materials generated as industrial waste in the wood industry or unused wood materials can be used,” wherein the “wood flour may be wood flour obtained from one type of tree species, or may be a mixed powder made from two or more types of tree species” (Section 3, p. 59, last paragraph); and given that Kawabe teaches the use of softwood or hardwood bleached kraft pulp, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a softwood or hardwood tree species for the wood flour and/or wood fibers as the natural fibers (C), wherein the claimed birch, beech, aspen, and particularly maple are obvious hardwood species in the art and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, particularly given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In terms of the particle size of the wood flour, although Kawabe does not specifically limit the particle size to any particular range, Kawabe does teach examples utilizing wood flour controlled to an average size of 300 µm (Examples, particularly last sentence on p. 77).
More specifically, Kawabe teaches a working example (Example 24) comprising 50 parts by mass of polypropylene homopolymer (i.e., a thermoplastic polymer TP having a Tg of below 25°C as a2) polymer component P as in instant claim 1), 50 parts by mass of wood flour having an average particle size of 300 µm (i.e., a filler component present in an amount of at least 45% by weight of the total weight of the material and comprising at least one solid particulate cellulose-containing filler FW having a D50 in the range of 100-1000 µm composed of wood particles composed of wood fibers present in an amount of at least 15wt% of the solid particulate cellulose-containing filler), 1 part by mass of polyolefin wax (as in instant claim 10), and 2 part by mass of petroleum resin having a softening point of 125°C (i.e., at least one hydrocarbon resin HR that has a softening point of at least 70°C), such that the only difference between Example 24 and instant claims 1 and 10, is that Kawabe does not specifically teach that the wood flour having an average particle size of 300 µm is composed of hardwood particles selected from the group consisting of wood particles of maple, birch, beech, and aspen as instantly claimed (Examples, particularly Example 24), and that the resulting resin composition or injection molded product formed therefrom has a loss factor as instantly claimed. However, it is first noted that as discussed in detail above, Kawabe clearly teaches that the “wood flour, wood fibers, etc. are not particularly limited by the type of raw wood or tree species, and wood flour and wood fibers obtained from wood materials generated as industrial waste in the wood industry or unused wood materials can be used” as the natural fibers (C) of the composition, and given again that Kawabe also teaches the use of a hardwood bleached kraft pulp for the natural fibers (C), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a hardwood tree species for the wood flour and/or wood fibers as the natural fibers (C) in the invention taught by Kawabe, wherein the claimed birch, beech, aspen, and particularly maple are obvious hardwood tree species in the art and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, particularly given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, given that Kawabe clearly teaches that the resin composition or synthetic wood material may have excellent vibration isolation, vibration damping and sound damping properties, and that it is well known in the art that damping is often characterized by loss factor, wherein a higher loss factor corresponds to higher dampening properties as taught by Goetchius, and that values within the claimed range are typical in the art as evidenced by Goetchius as well as Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai with respect to automotive applications (e.g., as in Kawabe), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed hardwood species and claimed loss factor, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1 and 10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe in view of Goetchius, as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai, wherein one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to determine the optimum resin composition to provide the desired properties, particularly sound and vibration damping properties for a particular end use.
With respect to instant claim 3, as noted above, Kawabe teaches that the resin composition contains the resin (A) in a proportion of 1-90 parts by mass, the natural fibers (C) in a proportion of 10-99 parts by mass, and the compatibilizing agent (B) in a proportion of 0.1-50 parts by mass when the total of the resin (A) and the natural fibers (C) is taken to be 100 parts by weight (Abstract); and also teaches that the composition may further contain a filler such as the inorganic fillers recited in Section 6 in an amount that is not particularly limited but is usually 70 parts by mass or less, more preferably 30 parts by mass or less, in total, per 100 parts by mass of the total mass of the resin (A) and the compatibilizer (B) (Section 6, p. 61). Hence, when taking the natural fibers (C), particularly the wood flour/fibers as discussed in detail above, in combination with the filler(s) of Section 6 taught by Kawabe as reading upon the claimed “filler component” of the instant invention, Kawabe clearly teaches that the material contains a “filler component” as in the instantly claimed invention, in an amount reading upon and/or overlapping the claimed at least 45% by weight of the total weight of the “acoustic damping material” as in instant claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, with the wood flour/fibers as the natural fibers (C) of Kawabe reading upon the claimed “at least one solid particulate cellulose-containing filler FW” and present in a content overlapping the claimed 1-35 wt% such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe in view of Goetchius, as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai given that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
With respect to instant claims 4 and 6-7, Kawabe teaches that in consideration of the production cost and balance of performance, wood flour and wood fibers are particularly preferred as the natural fibers (C) as discussed in detail above, and given that Kawabe teaches that a wood “powder” may be utilized for the wood flour, and that one having ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that a wood “flour” or more particularly, a wood “powder” would refer to a wood filler/particle having a lower aspect ratio, e.g. less than 10 and typically about 1 to 5 in the art, while a wood fiber would refer to a wood filler/particle having a higher aspect ratio (as evidenced by Clemons, pp. 11-14) such that the claimed aspect ratio as recited in instant claim 4 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe with respect to the wood flour or powder utilized as the natural fibers (C). Further, although Kawabe clearly teaches that the natural fibers (C) may be provided by various wood-containing materials as discussed in Section 3 on p. 59, including hardwood bleached kraft pulp, wood flour, and wood fibers, and that the wood flour may be a mixed powder made from two or more types of tree species, Kawabe does not teach that the natural fibers (C) contain at least one first particulate cellulose-containing filler FW1 and at least one second particulate cellulose-containing filler FW2 wherein the median particle width D50 of the at least one first particulate cellulose-containing filler FW1 is at least 5% smaller than the median particle width D50 of the at least one second particulate cellulose-containing filler FW2 as in instant claim 6, and more particularly in a weight ratio as in instant claim 7. However, given that wood flour generated as industrial waste in the wood industry can vary in size with commercial grades including coarse wood flours having a larger particle size, e.g. about 1000 microns, to medium powders such as utilized by Kawabe in the examples, to finer wood flour of about 100 microns, and that Kawabe does not specifically limit the particle size to any particle size range or size distribution, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 4 as well as instant claims 6-7 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe, in view of Goetchius, as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai, particularly given that as discussed on the record, a bimodal or multimodal particle size distribution can allow for increased packing density and/or better distribution of the particles.
With respect to instant claims 8-9, as discussed in detail above, Kawabe teaches that the resin composition contains the resin (A) in a proportion of 1-90 parts by mass, the natural fibers (C) in a proportion of 10-99 parts by mass, and the compatibilizing agent (B) in a proportion of 0.1-50 parts by mass when the total of the resin (A) and the natural fibers (C) is taken to be 100 parts by weight (Abstract); and may further contain a filler such as the inorganic fillers recited in Section 6 in an amount that is not particularly limited but is usually 70 parts by mass or less, more preferably 30 parts by mass or less, in total, per 100 parts by mass of the total mass of the resin (A) and the compatibilizer (B) (Section 6, p. 61), with examples thereof including solid particulate mineral fillers as in instant claim 8, as well as hollow fillers (e.g. pumice ballons, glass beads which are known in the art to be available in solid or hollow form). Hence, Kawabe provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion of incorporating a solid particulate mineral filler as the instantly claimed FM as a filler in the composition taught by Kawabe in an amount overlapping the claimed 10-75wt% range as recited in instant claim 8, and given that Kawabe does not require hollow ceramic spheres to be incorporated into the resin composition and/or provides a suggestion that hollow particles may be utilized and hence may also be excluded, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 8-9 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe in view of Goetchius, as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai.
With respect to instant claims 11-16, in addition to the resin (A) which is preferably a thermoplastic ethylene (co)polymer or propylene (co)polymer reading upon the claimed thermoplastic polymer TP, particularly as in instant claim 14; compatibilizing agent (B) which is preferably a polyolefin wax and/or a petroleum resin reading upon the claimed wax W and hydrocarbon resin HR, respectively; natural fibers (C), preferably wood flour and wood fibers, reading upon the claimed at least one solid particulate cellulose-containing filler FW; and inorganic filler(s) as discussed above, Kawabe also teaches that the composition may contain thermoplastic elastomers and various rubbers such as polybutadiene rubber and butyl rubber as part of the resin (A) (pp. 11 and 24, reading upon the claimed “at least one modifying polymer MP as recited in instant claim 12 and/or at least one elastomer E as in instant claim 16), and may also contain: (i) about 0.1 to 30 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of resin (A) of other polymers than resin (A) as optional components (Section 4, p. 60); (ii) an optional foaming agent in an amount of 1 to 20 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the total amount of the thermoplastic resin (A) and the compatibilizer (B) (Section 5, pp. 60-61); (iii) a filler for purposes such as improving the rigidity of the resulting synthetic wood, with examples thereof recited in Section 6 on p. 61, including various solid mineral fillers in an amount that is not particularly limited but is usually 70 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the total mass of the resin (A) and the compatibilizer (B) as discussed in detail above (Section 6, p. 61); and (iv) other optional additives as recited in Section 7 such as lubricants, plasticizers (reading upon the claimed at least one plasticizer PL as in instant claims 13 and 15), adhesives, processing aids, softeners such as coal tar and coal tar pitch (reading upon the instantly claimed bitumen component B of instant claim 11), etc., in a content of preferably about 0.05 to 70 parts by mass for each additive relative to 100 parts by mass of the total mass of the resin (A) and the compatibilizer (B), with an upper limit of more preferably 30 parts by mass (Section 7, pp. 61-62). Hence, Kawabe clearly teaches all of the components recited in instant claims 11-16 and in contents reading upon and/or overlapping the claimed ranges, and given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize any of the components taught by Kawabe in any amount within the ranges taught by Kawabe, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 11-16 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe in view of Goetchius, as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claims 17-20, Kawabe teaches that by setting the flexural modulus of the resin (A) within the range recited on p. 27, it is possible to obtain a resin composition that is not only excellent in flexibility but also excellent in impact absorption, light weight, vibration isolation, vibration damping and sound damping properties (p. 27); and as discussed above, teaches that the material can be used as a shock absorbing member including for shock absorbing pads; for transport equipment such as shock absorbing sheets; for industrial materials like vibration-damping pallets, shock absorbing dampers, shock absorbing foams, shock absorbing films; as shock absorbing members for automobiles (reading upon instant claim 17) including bumper shock absorbing members and cushioning members, as well as for insulation boards and soundproofing boards (pp. 70-72). Kawabe also teaches that the material can be used for various automotive interior components, for various automotive exterior components, for various interior and exterior components for various vehicles other than automobiles, and for dampers and acoustic materials in general (pp. 71-73), and given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize an adhesive layer as is typical in the art, as in instant claims 18-20, to bond a sound damping and/or vibration damping material as in Kawabe to a substrate to be dampened, such as part of a structure of an automotive vehicle as in Kawabe, via heat and/or pressure as in instant claim 19 as is conventional in the art (as previously established on the record), the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 17-20 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe in view of Goetchius, as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to new claims 23-24, although Kawabe does not specifically limit the density of the natural fiber, e.g., preferably wood flour or wood fiber, as instantly claimed, it is noted that in discussing the density of the polyolefin wax (B1) and the petroleum resin (B2), Kawabe does broadly recite that the density of the natural fiber (C) is generally 1000 kg/m3 (i.e., 1 g/cm3) or higher (p. 31), thereby overlapping and hence rendering obvious the “true particle density” range as recited in instant claim 23; and given that Kawabe also generally teaches that preferably the wood flour is dried to reduce the moisture content thereof to 20% by mass or less, preferably 1% by mass or less (p. 59) which would reduce the “true particle density” of the wood particles such that a density below the above “generally” 1 g/cm3 would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, particularly when determined by some arbitrary method. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 23-24 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kawabe in view of Goetchius, as evidenced by or in further view of Kornacki or Nakagawa or Rust or Desai.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 3/20/2026.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bao (US2016/0379615A1) teaches an acoustic damping composition for use in the automotive field wherein exemplified acoustic damping materials have a loss factor above 0.1 at room temperature and 200 Hz. Mantovani (US2010/0013255A1) teaches a vibration damper for application to a vehicle bottom plate wherein a loss factor of the damping layer is preferably adjusted to be greater than 0.1 in a temperature range of Delta T – 40°C measured according to the Oberst method (DIN EN ISO 6721). Licht (WO2019/137853A1) teaches a composition comprising inorganic and/or organic filler that is useful for vibration damping materials and automotive underbody coatings, wherein the “quality of the vibration damping composition can be measured by measurement of the flexural vibrations by the resonance curve method in according with ISO 6721-1 and ISO 6721-3”, noting that one measure of the vibration-damping effect is the loss factor tan delta, particularly at 200 Hz which can be determined by an interpolation method, and that the “larger the loss factor value is, the higher the effect of decreasing vibration damping energy is”, with working examples having a loss factor tan delta of 0.1 or greater.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights