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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-5 and 7-30 are currently pending, of which claims 12-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-5, and 10 are amended, claims 6 has been cancelled, and claims 19-30 are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23 recites that the first layer is “perforated a level of the thickness” which is not grammatically correct, it is believed “at” is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Claim 27 recites that the fastener is formed of an elastic material. However, after reviewing the specification support for the limitation was not found. While the specification teaches in paragraph 0064 a highly elastic fastener material, this does not provide support for the fastener being formed of elastic material. The fastener may be elastic but formed for non-elastic material. Indeed, the specification teaches the fasteners are made of the same material as the patches (0053) which does not disclose elastic material (metal, metal-alloy or oxides, ceramics, wood, glass or rock).
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 1-5, 7, 8-11, 17-24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley et al. (US 2017/0132999) and further in view of Cushman (US 5,706,249).
Regarding claim 1, Coakley disclose a sound attenuating apparatus comprising a first layer (102) made from a first material (0162) and a second layer (116) comprising a damping system comprising a plurality of patches (Fig. 1) made from a second material different form the first material (0184).
Coakley does not disclose the plurality of patches connect to each other by fasteners to form a network where the fasteners extend between and interconnect adjacent patches to one another.
Cushman, in the analogous field of acoustic panels (column 1, lines 5-10), teaches an interlayer comprising a plurality of nub spacers (30). The nub spacers connected to each other by filament or sheet webbing (40, 50) which extend between and interconnect adjacent spacers of the plurality to one another (Fig. 1 and 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the damping system of Coakley to include filament/sheet webbing, as taught by Cushman, because the webbing serves to absorb vibration and prevent transmission into adjacent layers (column 4, lines 5-10 and 40-45).
Regarding claim 2, Coakley teaches the substrate layer being a single sheet (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Coakley teaches the substrate comprising a plurality of holes in which the patches are inserted (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Coakley teaches the recess being a through-hole (0191).
Regarding claim 5, Coakley teaches a plurality of patches the first layer comprising an equal number of holes to the number of patches so that each patch is inserted in the hole.
Regarding claim 7, Coakley teaches the plurality of patches are heterogeneous in dimension. Coakley further teaches that the recess has a depth and width which varies from about around 95% or less than a thickness and width of the substrate layer (0162). Given a thickness of the substrate layer of around 1 to 100 cm, the width would range from 9.5 mm to 950 mm, overlapping the diameter varying from 10 to 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, Coakley teaches that the arrangement and configurations for the recesses and thus ‘patches’ are selected for a desired sound attenuating performance and for desired aesthetics (0193). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as diameter through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Coakley teaches the recesses separated by wall portions (108) having a thickness of around 10 to 20 mm (0162), overlapping the claimed length of 0 to 40 mm (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Coakley teaches the patches occupy around 38.4% the total volume of the composite material (0195), overlapping the claimed at least 30% of a surface of the interlayer (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, Coakley teaches the second material including metal or minerals (0183).
Regarding claim 11, Coakley teaches the first material including foam, mineral wool, or glass wool (glass-fiber-based textile) (0162).
Regarding claim 17, Coakley teaches the mineral materials including e.g., perlite (volcanic rock; 0183).
Regarding claim 19, Cushman teaches the webbing elongated in a direction between adjacent pairs of patches (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Coakley teaches the heterogeneous material layer may have the same or different heights and patterns in response to the desired sound attenuating performance/desired aesthetics of the apparatus (0193). As the webbing provides further sound damping property, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” adjusting the thickness of the webbing to be the same of as the patches or different in thickness than the patches, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Coakley teaches the first layer perforated at the level of the thickness of the patches, and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the structure of Coakley in view of Cushman, the first layer would be perforated at the thickness of the fasteners as well.
Regarding claim 24, Coakley teaches a first and second plurality of patches (e.g., each row) which are staggered.
Regarding claims 28-30, Cushman does not disclose a suitable material for the webbing. However, as the webbing provides for further sound damping property, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use the same material as the patches of Coakley as they provide the same property.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley in view of Cushman as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Albin, JR (US 2005/0006173).
Regarding claim 18, Coakley in view of Cushman disclose the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Coakley does not teach the first material including natural or synthetic fibers of hemp of flax.
Albin, in the analogous field of sound insulation (0002), a fibrous nonwoven layer having recesses (0017) and comprising natural fibers such as hemp (0015-0016).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the substrate of Coakley to be formed of nonwoven natural fibers of hemp, as taught by Albin, to provide a padding material (0015).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley in view of Cushman as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Gray (US 2014/0262607).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Coakley in view of Cushman disclose the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above. Modified Coakley does not teach the webbing having a notch for receiving an overlapping fastener and engaging with it.
Gray, in the analogous field of acoustic panels (0003), teaches panel bodies (12) comprising edges with a notch (0047). Gray teaches notch edge type provides ability for multiple adjacent sections of the panel bodies to be combined (0047).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the webbing of modified Coakley to include a notch, in order to combine the offset patches to achieve a desired panel (0047).
Regarding claim 27, the filament webbing of Cushman being flexible and thus formed of an elastic material as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the new combination of prior art.
Conclusion
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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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 at 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights