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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikita et al. (JP 6418203 B2) (hereinafter “Chikita”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Chikita teaches a fender liner that is to be placed in a curved shape along a periphery of a tire of a vehicle [Chikita Figs. 1, 2, and 4, Reference Characters 25 and 26; Chikita “Technical Field” Paragraph 1: “The present invention relates to a side body structure of a vehicle, and more particularly to a technical field of a structure having a mud guard disposed in a wheel house in a front fender.”], and the fender liner comprising: a first foam layer that is formed by a first foam body [Chikita Paragraph 15: “The front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26 can be composed of…a foam material , and a material having many microspaces for sound absorption is preferable.”], but does not does not explicitly teach a sound absorption coefficient value or range of values for the first foam layer. It should be noted that sound absorption coefficient values in the range 0.4 to 1.0, as claimed, are common in the art [KR 20180076955 A, JP 2005060414 A, CN 205651741 U, US 9790314 B2, JP 2004163510 A]. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, it should be further noted that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Chikita further teaches a second foam layer that is formed by a second foam body, the second foam body having a composition different from a composition of the first foam body [Chikita “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 15: “the rear side sound absorbing material 26 can be composed of…a foam material , and a material having many microspaces for sound absorption is preferable.”; Chikita “Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 16: “By changing the plate thickness and density of the rear side sound insulating material 27, it is possible to change the frequency band in which the sound insulating effect can be obtained. The material of the front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26 may be changed. It is possible to change the frequency band in which the sound absorbing effect can be obtained by the material, thickness, etc. of the front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26.”], but does not explicitly teach a sound absorption coefficient value or range of values for the second foam layer. It should be noted that sound absorption coefficient values in the range 0.4 to 1.0, as claimed, are common in the art [KR 20180076955 A, JP 2005060414 A, CN 205651741 U, US 9790314 B2, JP 2004163510 A]. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, it should be further noted that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Chikita further teaches that the first foam layer and the second foam layer are arranged in a circumferential direction of the tire [Chikita Figs. 1 and 4, Reference Characters 25 and 26], but does not explicitly teach that a difference between a frequency of a peak of sound absorption of the second foam layer and a frequency of a peak of sound absorption of the first foam layer. While Chikita does not explicitly teach a difference that is 1/3 octave or higher, Chikita does teach a difference between peak sound absorption frequencies [Chikita “Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 16: “By changing the plate thickness and density of the rear side sound insulating material 27, it is possible to change the frequency band in which the sound insulating effect can be obtained. The material of the front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26 may be changed. It is possible to change the frequency band in which the sound absorbing effect can be obtained by the material, thickness, etc. of the front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26.”]. It should be noted that differences of 1/3 octave are known in the art [CA 2674986 A1, Table 1]. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, it should be noted that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 2, Chikita teaches a the fender liner according to claim 1, further comprising a third foam layer formed by a third foam body having a mixed composition of the first foam body and the second foam body, the third foam layer being situated between the first foam layer and the second foam layer in the circumferential direction of the tire [Chikita “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 14: “the front mud guard 22 has a front side sound absorbing material 25, a rear side sound absorbing material 26, and a rear side sound insulating material 27. The front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26 are formed by molding a single plate sound absorbing material and are integrally molded. For this reason, the front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26 are provided continuously in the front-rear direction.”]. It should be noted that while Chikita does not explicitly identify a “third foam layer”, a third foam layer would be present at the interface of the front side absorbing material and the rear side absorbing material given the interaction of the front material and rear material that forms the joint.
Regarding Claim 3, Chikita teaches the fender liner according to claim 1, the first foam body is a polyurethane foam body, a polyacrylic foam body, a melamine foam body, a rubber foam body, a polyolefin foam body, or a polyimide foam body [Chikita “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 16: “As a material constituting the rear side sound insulation material 27, for example, a plate material made of resin such as polypropylene or the like can be mentioned, but it is not limited thereto, and various plate materials can be used.”].
Regarding Claim 5, Chikita teaches vehicle, comprising: a tire; and the fender liner of claim 1 [Chikita Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 6, Chikita teaches the vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the first foam layer has a lower peak frequency of a sound absorption coefficient than that of the second foam layer, and is situated closer to a front of the vehicle than the second foam layer is [Chikita “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 16: “The material of the front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26 may be changed. It is possible to change the frequency band in which the sound absorbing effect can be obtained by the material, thickness, etc. of the front side sound absorbing material 25 and the rear side sound absorbing material 26.”].
Regarding Claim 7, Chikita teaches the vehicle according to claim 5, further comprising a water repellent layer on a facing surface of the fender liner, the facing surface facing the tire [Chikita Paragraph 0016: “layers can be sealed along an outer edge of each layer such that a "water-proof" acoustic splash shield is provided and water, moisture, dirt, etc., does not come into contact with the second porous or fibrous layer.”].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikita et al. (JP 6418203 B2) (hereinafter “Chikita”) in view of Kong et al. (US 20160279846 A1) (hereinafter “Kong”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Chikita teaches a fender liner made by injection in a shaping mold but does not explicitly teach a manufacturing method. Kong teaches a fender liner manufacturing method of manufacturing the fender liner of claim 1, the fender liner manufacturing method comprising: injecting both a first resin composition that forms the first foam body and a second resin composition that forms the second foam body into an inner space of a shaping mold; foaming both the first resin composition and the second resin composition inside the inner space of the shaping mold; and solidifying both the first resin composition and the second resin composition that were foamed in the inner space of the shaping mold, thereby forming the first foam layer and the second foam layer [Kong Fig. 3; Kong Paragraph 0027: “a method of producing a plate shape resin product using two-shot forming may include injecting a first resin and a second resin including a foaming agent from injection machines into a cavity defined by a first mold and a second mold through gates of the second mold such that foamed cells in a product expand in forming, and partially and intensively cooling, in cooling water”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fender liner to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, injecting resin, foaming, and solidifying in view of Kong. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chikita and Kong as such method would be used “for producing a resin product that can minimize contracting and bending due to differences in cooling rate of parts of a product after injection molding and can prevent a defect of an external appearance due to contracting and bending” [Kong Paragraph 0022], as recognized by Kong.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikita et al. (JP 6418203 B2) (hereinafter “Chikita”) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015017339 A) (hereinafter “Sato”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, Chikita teaches a water repellent but does not teach breathability. Sato teaches the vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the water repellent layer is breathable [Sato “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 1: “The breathable resin surface layer 2 prevents water absorption of the fiber base layer 3 by repelling water or ice when it adheres.”]; Sato “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 6: “The above short fibers (staples) are mixed fibers obtained by mixing only one kind of short fibers (staples) or two or more kinds having different fiber diameters in order to ensure the air permeability of the air permeable resin surface layer 2.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fender liner of Chikita to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a breathable water repellent layer in view of Sato. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to Chikita and would have been motivated to combine Chikita and Sato because this would have achieved the desirable result of prevention of reflection of sound waves. As such, “The breathable resin surface layer 2 prevents water absorption of the fiber base layer 3 by repelling water or ice when it adheres.” [Sato “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 1], as recognized by Sato.
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 MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 am - 6:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613