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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 19 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure does not provide support for the recited loss factor, as now set forth in Claims 16 and 25, which is determinable based on a relationship between a real portion of the sound wave and a complex portion of the sound wave in the receiving area. [0013] of the instant specification sets forth a different mechanism for determining loss factor, namely that loss factor is “understood to mean, with different types of physical vibrations, the relationship between the imaginary part, which is subject to loss, and the loss-free real part of a complex variable”.
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 16 and 19 – 26 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 because:
Claims 16 and 25 now sets forth the loss factor of the viscoelastic polyurethane foam is greater than 0.5, wherein the loss factor is determinable based on a relationship of a real portion of an acoustic vibration wave to a complex portion of the acoustic vibration wave in the receiving area. However, the phrase “relationship of a real portion of the sound wave to a complex portion of the sound wave” renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear, as this phrase does not appear to guide persons of ordinary skill in the art as to how to calculate the claimed loss factor in a consistent, reproducible manner.
Claim 23 sets forth viscoelastic polyurethane foam having the particles has a second loss factor that is higher than the loss factor. However, the second loss factor of viscoelastic polyurethane foam with particles would be reasonably expected to correspond to the loss factor initially recited in Claim 16. Consequently, for the purposes of further examination, Claim 23 will be interpreted as setting forth the particles form mass points in the viscoelastic polyurethane foam which result in an increase in the loss factor of the viscoelastic foam relative to a viscoelastic polyurethane foam lacking such particles (see [0025] of the instant specification). However, applicant is advised that the term loss factor raises issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as detailed above.
As all remaining pending claims ultimately depend on independent Claims 16 or 25, they inherit the subject matter thereof and are also therefore rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16, 19 – 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102012201244 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter Fritz) in view of JP-WO2008023852 to Yukigawa et al. (hereinafter Yukigawa). For the purpose of examination, citations for Yukigawa are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office in February 2026. Citations for Fritz are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from Clarivate Analytics in February 2026.
Regarding Claims 16 and 19. Fritz teaches a composite component comprising an insulation layer for the appliance wall of a dishwasher [0005], i.e. an insulation device for a receiving area of a water-guiding household appliance.
The composite component/insulation device comprises an insulation layer which is acoustically insulating and which in particular corresponds to a polyurethane foam layer [0014] – [0015]. The composite component/insulation device of Fritz also further comprises a sound deadening element which is stiffer than the insulation layer [0013]. The insulation layer/element is fixed to the sound deadening/stiffening element ([0030] and Fig. 2).
Fritz does not expressly teach the polyurethane foam of the insulation layer corresponds to a viscoelastic polyurethane foam and is silent with respect to its loss factor at frequencies in the range of 100 to 800 Hz. However, Yukigawa also teaches a polyurethane foam having a loss factor as high as 0.7 at frequencies in the range of 10 Hz to 1 MHz (see paragraph beginning with “Since the vibration damping material…” on Page 6 of the machine translation). A loss factor as high as 0.7 would be recognized as corresponding to a polyurethane foam which is viscoelastic. The foam of Yukigawa may have a density of 0.01 to 0.3 g/cm3 (10 to 300 kg/m3) (see last paragraph of Page 5 of the machine translation). Fritz and Yukigawa are analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, namely improving acoustic insulation of devices and appliances. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the polyurethane foam of Yukigawa in the insulation device of Fritz. The motivation would have been that Yukigawa teaches its polyurethane foam has excellent damping properties and also achieves a larger loss factor and high mechanical strength while being lighter weight (see two paragraphs before “Mode-For-Invention” on Page 6 of the reference).
Regarding Claim 20. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the insulation layer/element has a thickness of between 10 and 30 mm [0019].
Regarding Claim 21. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the sound deadening/stiffening element has a thickness of between 0.05 and 1 mm [0019].
Regarding Claim 22. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the sound deadening/stiffening element is part of the appliance wall/receiving layer [0005] and is made of a metal foil [0013].
Regarding Claim 24. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the insulation layer/element expands and hardens on top of the base film of the sound deadening/stiffening element [0016], i.e. the polyurethane foam layer is directly foamed onto the stiffening element.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102012201244 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter Fritz) in view of JP-WO2008023852 to Yukigawa et al. (hereinafter Yukigawa) – as applied to Claim 1 above – and further in view of US 2020/0298531 to Bertucelli et al. (hereinafter Bertucelli).
Regarding Claim 23. Fritz teaches the household appliance of Claim 16 but does not expressly the particles are embedded in the polyurethane foam layer. However, Bertucelli teaches the concept of providing expandable graphite having a particle size of from 200 to 300 micron in polyurethane insulation [0025]. Expandable graphite corresponds to an intumescent material which has a known true density of roughly 2200 kg/m3. Fritz and Bertucelli are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely insulation devices based upon polyurethanes. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide expandable graphite as a particulate filler in the polyurethane foam layer of Fritz. As the foam taught by the proposed combination of references would consequently have all the instantly claimed ingredients, it would be reasonably expected that the particles form mass points in the viscoelastic polyurethane foam which result in an increase in the loss factor of the viscoelastic foam relative to an identical foam without said particles. The motivation would have been that expandable graphite functions as a flame retardant in polyurethane compositions and thus would impart flame retardancy of the insulation layer of Fritz.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102012201244 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter Fritz) in view of JP-WO2008023852 to Yukigawa et al. (hereinafter Yukigawa). For the purpose of examination, citations for Yukigawa are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office in February 2026. Citations for Fritz are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from Clarivate Analytics in February 2026.
Regarding Claims 25 and 26. Fritz teaches a dishwasher comprising an appliance wall and composite component attached thereto [0005], i.e. a water-guiding household appliance comprising a receiving area and a composite component corresponding to an insulation device.
The composite component/insulation device comprises an insulation layer which is acoustically insulating and which in particular corresponds to a polyurethane foam layer [0014] – [0015]. The composite component/insulation device of Fritz also further comprises a sound deadening element which is stiffer than the insulation layer [0013]. The insulation layer/element is fixed to the sound deadening/stiffening element ([0030] and Fig. 2).
Fritz does not expressly teach the polyurethane foam of the insulation layer corresponds to a viscoelastic polyurethane foam and is silent with respect to its loss factor at frequencies in the range of 100 to 800 Hz. However, Yukigawa also teaches a polyurethane foam having a loss factor as high as 0.7 at frequencies in the range of 10 Hz to 1 MHz (see paragraph beginning with “Since the vibration damping material…” on Page 6 of the machine translation). A loss factor as high as 0.7 would be recognized as corresponding to a polyurethane foam which is viscoelastic. The foam of Yukigawa may have a density of 0.01 to 0.3 g/cm3 (10 to 300 kg/m3) (see last paragraph of Page 5 of the machine translation). Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the polyurethane foam of Yukigawa in the insulation device of Fritz. The motivation would have been that Yukigawa teaches its polyurethane foam has excellent damping properties and also achieves a larger loss factor and high mechanical strength while being lighter weight (see two paragraphs before “Mode-For-Invention” on Page 6 of the reference).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on December 29, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration dates of any patents granted on U.S. Application Nos. 17/912,875 and 17/912,875 have been reviewed and are accepted. The terminal disclaimers have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered. The Office responds as follows:
Claim Objections
The Office agrees that the amendment to Claim 23 overcomes the objection thereto. Accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant argues that the amended claims do correspond with the original specification, as they recite “a relationship between a real portion of the sound wave and a complex portion of the sounds wave in the receiving area”. However, it remains unclear if the “real portion of the sound wave” is necessarily the same as “the loss-free real part of a complex variable” in [0013] of the specification. It is additionally unclear if the “complex portion of the sound wave” set forth in the proposed amendments to the claims is necessarily the same as “the imaginary part” in [0013] of the specification. While applicant does argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that real portion of the sound waver correspond to the loss-free real part of a complex variable and the complex portion of the sounds waver corresponds with an imaginary part, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP 2145)
Double Patenting
In light of the filing of terminal disclaimers on December 29, 2025 the outstanding obviousness-type double patenting rejections over U.S. Application Nos. 17/912,875 and 17/912,876 have been withdrawn.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764