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 § 103
Insert form paragraph here
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 2-4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiaki (JP2009227227A) in view of Lee (WO 2019/079695 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Toshiaki teaches a sound absorbing laminate (sound absorbing material [23; FIG 3], 0023 line 1) comprising a first flow resistive layer (second skin layer [35; FIG 3] having no air permeability, 0023 line 3) having a first air-flow resistance (through holes [45; FIG 3], 0025 lines 1-8), a second flow resistive layer (non-breathable first skin layer [31; FIG 3], 0023 line 1) having a second airflow resistance (through holes [41; FIG 3], 0024 lines 1-3), and a first spacing layer located intermediate the first and second flow resistive layers (continuous foam layer [33; FIG 3], 0023 line 2), and a second spacing layer (the air layer [21; FIG 3], 0023 line 2) located adjacent the second flow resistive layer, parallel to the first spacing layer,(the first skin layer and the second skin layer are disposed substantially parallel to each other, 0023 lines 5-6) wherein: the first flow resistive layer has a first air-flow resistance ([45; FIG 3], 0025 lines 1-8), the second flow resistive layer has a second air-flow resistance ([41; FIG 3], 0024 lines 1-3), the second air-flow resistance being greater than the first airflow resistance (the perforations decrease in size along the path of airflow increasing resistance to air flow; 0024 & 0025); the first spacing layer located intermediate the first flow resistive layer and the second flow resistive layer ([33; FIG 3], 0023 line 2);
Toshiaki does not teach a first flow resistive layer, having a first air-flow resistance of 80 MKS Rayls to 4000 MKS Rayls; a second flow resistive layer, having second air-flow resistance of 80 MKS Rayls to 4000 MKS Rayls.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, does teach a first flow resistive layer (Lee, an acoustic article [500; FIG 6] based on porous layers comprised of perforated film. The acoustic article [500] has heterogeneous filler [520] confined between first and second perforated films [502, 504], pg 24 lines 25-30), having a first air-flow resistance of 80 MKS Rayls to 4000 MKS Rayls (Lee, for embodiments that include a perforated film, the flow resistance through the perforated film alone (absent the heterogeneous filler) can be from…100 MKS Rayls to 4000 MKS Rayls, pg 16 lines 5-10); a second flow resistive layer (Lee, pg 24 lines 25-30), having second air-flow resistance of 80 MKS Rayls to 4000 MKS Rayls (Lee, for embodiments that include a perforated film, the flow resistance through the perforated film alone (absent the heterogeneous filler) can be from…100 MKS Rayls to 4000 MKS Rayls, pg 16 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the perforated films of Toshiaki such that they had the air-flow resistance of Lee, to tune towards a desired range of acoustic frequencies for absorption and attenuation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Toshiaki does not teach that the second spacing layer has a thickness that is 1.5 to 2 times a thickness of the first spacing layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the thickness of the first and second layers such that they had ratio of 1:1.5 or 1:2, as to tune for specific target frequencies and air flow. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 2 (cancelled)
In regards to claim 3, Toshiaki teaches the sound absorbing laminate of claim 1 wherein: the first flow resistive layer ([35; FIG 3], 0023 line 3), has a density (this is inherent); the second flow resistive layer ([31; FIG 3], 0023 line 1) has a density (this is inherent).
Toshiaki does not explicitly teach a first flow resistive layer, having a density of 80 g/m2 to 500g/m2; a second flow resistive layer, having a density of 80 g/m2 to 500g/m2;
Toshiaki does teach that the resin films of the first and skin layers can be polypropylene, or polyester (0024 line 1 and 0025 line 1).
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches polypropylene materials with an area density of 300 g/m2 and 178 g/m2 (Lee, BMF-1 & 2, pg 38 table 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Toshiaki such that the polypropylene material was either BMF-1 or BM-2, as they are readily available, known in the art, and made of the material specifically called for in Toshiaki.
In regards to claim 4, Toshiaki teaches the sound absorbing laminate of claim 1 wherein: the first flow resistive layer ([35; FIG 3], 0023 line 3) has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 5mm (the thickness of the second skin layer is 0.5 mm, 0025 lines 1-2; 0027 lines 1-4); the second flow resistive layer ([31; FIG 3], 0023 line 1) has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 5 mm (the thickness of the first skin layer is 0.5 mm, 0024 lines 1-2; 0027 lines 1-4); and the first spacing layer has a thickness (the thickness of the continuous foam layer is 5.0 mm, 0030 lines 1-2) and located intermediate the first flow resistive layer and the second flow resistive layer ([33; FIG 3], 0023 line 2).
Modified Toshiaki does not teach a first spacing layer having a thickness of 6 mm to 50 mm.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, does teach a porous layer, such as a foam layer (Lee, pg 7 lines 10-15), having a thickness between 6 mm and 50 mm (Lee, an individual porous layer can have an overall thickness of from… less than, equal to, or greater than 1 millimeter, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, … 50, 70, or 100 millimeters, pg 23 lines 2-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the porous foam of Toshiaki such that it was between 7 and 50 mm as in Lee, to tune towards a desired range of acoustic frequencies for absorption and attenuation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 (cancelled)
In regards to claim 6, Toshiaki teaches the sound absorbing laminate of claim 1, wherein the first flow resistive layer is chosen from woven fabric, woven glass fibre fabric, non-woven fabric, micro-perforated (the diameters of the through hole of the first skin layer and the through hole of the second skin layer are preferably 0.3 mm or more and 2.0 mm or less, 0028 lines 1-5) film (the second skin layer is formed of… a resin film, 0025 line 1), ceramic fabric, perforated or microperforated fabric and a micro-perforated metal foil (italicized limitations are in the alternative and as such have not been considered).
In regards to claim 7, Toshiaki teaches the sound absorbing laminate of claim 1, wherein the second flow resistive layer is chosen from woven fabric, woven glass fibre fabric, non-woven fabric, micro-perforated (the diameters of the through hole of the first skin layer and the through hole of the second skin layer are preferably 0.3 mm or more and 2.0 mm or less, 0028 lines 1-5) film (the first skin layer is formed of a resin film, 0024 line 1), ceramic fabric, perforated or microperforated fabric and a micro-perforated metal foil (italicized limitations are in the alternative and as such have not been considered).
In regards to claim 9, Toshiaki teaches a system (the rear wheel house [7; FIG 3] (on the trunk room [2] side) constituting the side wall of the trunk room [2], 0022 lines 1-3) for absorbing sound ([23; FIG 3], 0023 line 1), the system comprising multiple flow resistive layers forming a stack having a depth ([31, 35; FIG 3], 0023 lines 1-3), with adjacent layers separated by a spacing layer (continuous foam layer [33; FIG 3], 0023 line 2), wherein each layer has a predetermined air-flow resistance value ( [45; FIG 3], 0025 lines 1- 8; [41; FIG 3], 0024 lines 1-3; the foam layer is not air impermeable, and as such has an inherent air-flow resistance value based on the chosen material such as polypropylene foam in 0030 line 1), the value increasing across the depth of the stack (the perforations decrease in size along the path of airflow increasing resistance to air flow; 0024 & 0025), wherein the system comprises the sound absorbing laminate of claim 1 ([23; FIG 3], 0023 line 1).
Toshiaki does not teach wherein the absorption coefficient of the laminate is between 0.8 and 1.0 for sound waves of frequency from 400 to 1500Hz.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, does teach tuning the acoustic article to have an absorption coefficient between .8 and 1 from 400 to 1500 Hz (Lee, table 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the sound absorbing material of Toshiaki to have an absorption coefficient between 0.8 and 1, as the parameters to tune towards a desired range of acoustic frequencies for absorption and attenuation are discussed in both Lee and Toshiaki. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 (cancelled)
In regards to claim 11, Toshiaki teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein the air flow resistance value increases from the flow resistive layer of the sound absorbing laminate on which a sound wave initially impinges, to the rearmost layer of the sound absorbing laminate (the perforations decrease in size along the path of airflow increasing resistance to air flow).
In regards to claim 13, Toshiaki teaches a method of reducing reflection of sound
waves, the method comprising the step of positioning a laminate according to claim 1 on a wall, ceiling, floor or hard surface (0022 lines 1-3).
In regards to claim 14, Toshiaki teaches a sound absorbing structure comprising a laminate according to claim 1 (0022 lines 1-3).
Claim 12 (cancelled)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiaki (JP2009227227A) in view of Squier et al (US 4,835,030) and applicant admitted prior art (IA).
In regards to claim 8, Toshiaki teaches the sound absorbing laminate of claim 1, wherein adjacent layers are bonded (attaching the first skin layer and the second skin layer to the continuous foam layer, 0025 lines 9-12).
Toshiaki does not explicitly teach by a hot melt adhesive.
However, by applicants own admission using hot melt adhesive to bind two materials together is known in the art (IA, 0035 lines 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use a hot melt adhesive to attach and hold the skin layers to the porous layer of Toshiaka, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is
obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ 2d 1385, 1395-
97 (2007)
Modified Toshiaka does not teach a hot melt adhesive chosen from polyamide or polyester.
However, Squier et al, in the same field of endeavor, does teach polyamide or polyester (hot melt adhesive preferably consisting of one or more polyamides or polyester resins, col 8 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use a polyamide or polyester hot melt adhesive as in Squier as they are common and readily available materials, and the application and use of them provide predictable results.
Further modified Toshiaka does not teach and applied to the layers at a rate of 10 to 400 g/m2 (see 112b rejection above).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to apply a layer of hot melt adhesive having a density of 10 to 200 g/m2, to ensure the two layers held together while not reducing the effectiveness of the sound absorbing material be blocking air flow through the layers. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 6, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,1.5 to 2 times thickness) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that it would not have been obvious, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further, it is clear that changing the parameters would not destroy the prior art, and would rather result in predictable differences in sound attenuation and air flow. As such it is clear that someone of ordinary skill in the art, motivated to attenuate such features, would find it obvious to modify it such that it had a ratio 1.5 to 2. As stated above changing the size for the sake of optimization towards a particular value, in this case sound attenuation, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the 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 Joseph J Illicete whose telephone number is (703)756-4564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0730 - 1630 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JOSEPH JAMES PETER ILLICETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837