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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Lee does not disclose filler that is substantially non-porous. Applicant concedes that there is taught a filler whereby the particles would have only a single pore. Examiner considers that the manner in which the claim is drafted the requirement is that the heterogenous filler is substantially non-porous. It is considered that a filler whereby each particle has only one pore meets such limitation.
For clarity it is not currently claimed that the filler is substantially formed of particles which are completely non-porous, which would allow for a mix of porous and nonporous fillers requiring only 51% of the filler being nonporous.
As such, the claims as written are taught.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2,7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee WO20190079695.
With respect to claim 1 Lee teaches an acoustic article (Acoustic articles according to three exemplary embodiments are illustrated in FIGS. 1-3 and hereinafter referred to by respective numerals 100, 200, and 300, pg 21 lines 15-20) comprising:
a porous layer (The article 100 is comprised of three primary layers. The layers include, in the following order, a first porous layer 102, a second porous layer 104, and a third porous layer 106, pg 21 lines 23-25);
and heterogeneous filler received in the porous layer (As indicated in FIG. 1, the second porous layer 104 contains heterogeneous filler, while the porous layers 102, 106 are substantially devoid of heterogeneous filler, pg 21 line 32 - pg 22 line 2),
the heterogeneous filler being substantially non- porous (Suitable heterogeneous fillers include porous particles, which may be characterized by open pores, closed pores, or combinations thereof. Filler particles with closed pores include closed cell foam particles and hollow particles. Hollow particles, which may just have a single pore ( or cavity),
include expanded polymeric microspheres, ceramic microspheres, and hollow glass bubbles, pg 17 lines 15-25) and present in an amount of from 0.25% to 7% by volume relative to the total volume of the porous layer (The heterogeneous filler can be present in an amount of from less than, equal to, or greater than 1 %, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, pg 22 lines 5-10), and having a specific surface area of from 0.01 m2/g to 1 m2/g (The average surface area of the heterogeneous filler can be less than, equal to, or greater than 0.1 m2/g, 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, 1, pg 19 lines 25-31), wherein the porous layer is a non-woven fibrous layer comprising a plurality of fibers (In the article 100, the porous layers 102, 104, 106 are depicted as fibrous non-woven layers, pg 21 lines 29-30),
wherein the heterogenous filler is enmeshed in the plurality of fibers (Heterogeneous filler having desirable acoustic properties, such as porous carbon or hollow glass bubbles, is enmeshed in the plurality of fibers in the second porous layer 104, pg 22 lines 3-5),
wherein the enmeshed filler particles are decoupled from each other and the porous layer (In this embodiment, the heterogeneous filler is substantially decoupled from each other and any porous layers, pg 23 lines 20-21), and
wherein the acoustic article has a flow resistance of from 500 MKS Rayls to 12,000 MKS Rayls (The flow resistance through the overall acoustic article can be from 100 MKS Ray Is to 5000 MKS Rayls, 120 MKS Rayls to 3000 MKS Rayls, or 150 MKS Rayls to 1000 MKS Rayls. In some embodiments, the flow resistance through the overall acoustic article is less than, equal to, or greater than 10 MKS Rayls, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 100, 120, 150, 180, 200, 250,300,400,500,600,700,1000, 1100, 1200, 1500, 1700,2000,2500,3000,3500,4000, 4500, 5000, 5500, 6000, 6500, 7000, 7500, or 8000 MKS Rayls, pg 16 lines 20-26).
Lee does not expressly disclose the interparticle spacing from 20 micrometers to 4000 micrometers.
There will necessarily be interparticle spacing, and thus an average interparticle spacing.
Lee discloses the use of the nonporous filler and as such the passage of the sound waves through the interstitial spaces is a variable of concern. Page 19 lines 5-10 discloses the consideration of average particle size as it related to mechanical properties of the panel.
This would still be relevant in the case of substantially nonporous particles such as the taught hollow glass beads or bubbles.
The size of the particles and their dispersion within the fibrous layer as described would determine the particle spacing.
This variable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to tune for based upon the fact that sound waves will interact with the dense particles in a specific way determining their mechanical properties and thus those of the panel.
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the variable of the particle spacing. The general conditions are met due to the size of the particle being considered and the amount of the particles within a given volume. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 2 In regards to claim 2, Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 1, wherein the heterogeneous filler has a median particle size of from 100 micrometers to 1000 micrometers (excluding agglomerates, the heterogeneous filler can have an average particle size of from 0.1 micrometers to 2000 micrometers, from 5 micrometers to 1000 micrometers, from 10 micrometers to 500 micrometers, or in some embodiments, less than, equal to, or greater than 0.1 micrometers, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 7,10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1500, 1700, or 2000 micrometers, pg 19 lines 15-21).
With respect to claim 7 Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 1, wherein the heterogeneous filler comprises an inorganic mineral (porous alumina zeolites, pg 17 lines 20-25).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 1, wherein the heterogeneous filler, along with any aggregates thereof, in the porous layer are discontinuously dispersed in the porous layer ([420, 402, 404; FIG 4], [504, 520; FIG 6]; "Enmeshed" means that particles are dispersed and physically and/or adhesively held in the fibers of the web, pg 5 lines 1-5).
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 1, wherein the heterogeneous filler is substantially non-aggregated (In certain instances, particulates in the form of agglomerates of individual particulates may be formed as described in U.S. Patent No. 5,332,426 (Tang et al), pg 5 lines 25- 30; pg 19 lines 15-21).
With respect to claim 13, Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 1, wherein the porous layer comprises a non-woven fibrous layer having a plurality of fibers (the plurality of fibers in the second porous layer 104, pg 22 lines 4-6).
With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches an acoustic assembly (automotive and aerospace technology have been driven by consumer demands for faster, safer, quieter, and more spacious vehicles.
These attributes must be counterbalanced against the desire for fuel economy, since enhancements to these consumer-driven attributes generally also increase the weight of the vehicle, pg 1 lines 10-15) comprising: the acoustic article of claim 1 ([100; FIG 1]), wherein the acoustic article has opposing first ({102; FIG 1]) and second major surfaces ([106; FIG 1]), and an air gap is disposed along the second major surface (Optionally, the provided acoustic articles and assemblies include one or more nonporous barrier layers and/or air gaps adjacent to the one or more porous layers, pg 7 lines 5-10).
Lee, does not explicitly teach that a substrate is disposed along the first major surface.
Lee does teach that the structures can be shaped to fit a substrate (Articles and assemblies based on such structures can be shaped to fit substrates having customized three-dimensional shapes, pg 11 lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to rearrange, shape, and fit the structure of Lee to a substrate on the opposing surface of the second major surface, as Lee explicitly calls for both an air gap and a substrate and it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suita bility for the intended final application. See /n re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). With respect to claim 15, Lee teaches a method of making an acoustic article (pg 21 lines 15-20) comprising: directly forming a non-woven fibrous web (One technique involves subjecting the collected web of fibers and fibers toa controlled heating and quenching operation that includes forcefully passing through the web a gaseous stream heated to a temperature sufficient to soften the fibers sufficiently to cause the fibers to bond together at points of fiber intersection, where the heated stream is applied for a time period too short to wholly melt the fibers, and then immediately forcefully passing through the web a gaseous stream at a temperature at least 50°C less than the heated stream to quench the fibers, pg 9; pg 21 lines 29-30; pg 7 line 10 - pg 16 line 26); delivering a heterogeneous filler into the non-woven fibrous web (Optionally, at least some of the plurality of fibers in the non-woven fibrous layer are physically bonded to each other or to the heterogeneous filler. Conventional bonding techniques using heat and pressure applied in a point-bonding process or by smooth calendar rolls can be used, though such processes may cause undesired deformation of fibers or compaction of the web. Optionally, attachment between fibers or between fiber and the heterogeneous filler may be achieved by including melty fibers or binder fibers within the non-woven fibrous layer, pg 9 lines 1-8; pg 17 lines 25-30) as the non-woven fibrous web is being directly formed (pg 9 lines 1-8; pg 17 lines 25-30), the heterogeneous filler being present in an amount of from 0.25% to 7% by volume relative to the total volume of the porous layer (pg 22 lines 5-10) and having a specific surface area of from 0.1 m2/g to 1 m2/g (pg 19 lines 25-31), wherein the porous layer is a non-woven fibrous layer comprising a plurality of fibers (pg 21 lines 29-30), wherein the heterogenous filler is enmeshed in the plurality of fibers (pg 22 lines 3-5), wherein the enmeshed filler particles are decoupled from each other and the porous layer (pg 23 lines 20-21), and wherein the acoustic article has a flow resistance of from 500 MKS Rayls to 12,000 MKS Rayls (pg 16 lines 20-26).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee WO2019079695 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Berrigan (US9689096). With respect to claim 3 Lee discloses the invention as claimed except wherein the porous layer has a solidity of from 1% to 10%, excluding the heterogenous filler. Berrigan, in the same field of endeavor, does teach wherein the porous layer has a solidity of from 1 percent to 10 percent, excluding the heterogeneous filler (Berrigan, the composite nonwoven fibrous web may have a thickness and exhibits a Solidity of less than 10%, col 8 lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the porous layer of Lee such that it had a solidity as in Berrigan, as controlling solidity allows for greater control over the porosity and permeability of the resulting composite nonwoven fibrous web (Berrigan, col 8 lines 55-65).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee WO2019079695 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Gross (US7918313). With respect to claim 4 Lee discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the heterogenous filler comprises a thermoset polymer, and optionally a semicrystalline thermoset polymer.
Gross, in the same field of endeavor does teach wherein the heterogeneous filler comprises a thermoset polymer (may be thermoplastic, thermosetting or a mixture thereof, col 9 lines 58- 63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to incorporate a thermosetting polymer binder into the heterogeneous filler, such as ureaformaldehyde (Gross, urea-formaldehyde, col 9 line 26) or polyester (Gross, polyesters, col 9 lines 15-21), as in Gross, as Lee calls for open pored and closed pore particles such as polyurethane foam particles and polymeric microspheres (Lee, pg 17 lines 20-25).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 5, modified Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 4, wherein the thermoset polymer comprises a ureaformaldehyde polymer (Gross, urea-formaldehyde, col 9 line 26).
With respect to claim 6, modified Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 4, wherein the thermoset polymer comprises a polyester (Gross, polyesters, col 9 lines 15-21).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee WO2019079695 as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Coakley (US20170132999).
With respect to claim 8 Lee discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the inorganic mineral comprises an oxide or hydroxide. Coakley, in the same field of endeavor, does teach the inorganic mineral comprises an oxide or hydroxide (Coakley, activated alumina, 208 lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use activated alumina as the heterogeneous filler as in Coakley, as it's an alumina filler and Lee explicitly calls for alumina fillers (Lee, As a further alternative, the filler can be comprised of two or more different filler compositions, such as combinations of activated carbon, vermiform carbon, zeolite, Metal Organic Framework (MOF), perlite, alumina, glass bubbles, and glass beads, pg 21 lines 10-15; pg 17 lines 20-25). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 9, modified Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 8, wherein the inorganic mineral comprises aluminum oxide (Coakley, activated alumina, 208 lines 1-6) or aluminum oxyhydroxide (this is in the alternative and as such has not been considered).
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches the acoustic article of claim 7, wherein the inorganic mineral comprises a glass (glass bubbles, and glass beads, pg 21 lines 10-15; hollow glass bubbles, pg lines 20-25). Lee does not expressly disclose silicate glass. Coakley discloses the use of silicate as the inorganic mineral.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate silicate glass into the filler material of Lee as silicate glass is the most common glass, and would have been a simple substitution of one known material for another.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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 FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00-5:00.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837