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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 12/23/2025 with the After Final. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been entered and are made of record.
Status of the claims are as follows: Claim 1-10, 13 are pending; Claims 11, 12, 16, 20 , 22, 24 and 25 have been cancelled and claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention and claims. Claims 1-10 and 13 are under prosecution, all of which stand rejected.
Regarding the 112-b rejection made over claims 1-6 and 10; Applicant remarks submitted with the After final response defines what Applicant’s means when referring to “sheet-like” in these claims. This rejection is now withdrawn.
Regarding the 112-b rejection made over claims 4 and 8; Applicant is amended the claims with mks rayls/m. This rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection made under 112-D; this rejection is withdrawn and Applicant has cancelled claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1-10 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references previously applied in the prior office action or rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. All previously made prior art rejections are now withdrawn and new ones are set forth below based on Applicant’s modified claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sound absorber assembly of Claim 12". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Firstly, claim 12 has been cancelled, and the word assembly has not been previously used.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016210250A issued to Kita et al. in view of or evidenced by JP 2010000950A issued to Tanno et al.
Regarding modified Claim 1, where Applicant now seeks a sound absorber comprising:
one or more sound absorber elements, wherein each sound absorber element comprises:
a flexible sheet-like base material;
a sheet-like screen material; and a sound absorbing material disposed in a closed space formed by the sheet-like base material and the sheet-like screen material, the sound absorbing material extending along a longitudinal direction of the sound absorber,
wherein the sheet-like base material is chosen from a film or a fabric,
wherein the sheet-like screen material is chosen from a film or a fabric, and wherein adjacent sound absorber elements are connected by a connection portion, wherein at least a portion of the connection portion includes the sheet-like base material but not the sheet-like screen material, and wherein the sound absorbing materials of adjacent sound absorber elements are separated by a gap; Applicant is directed to JP 2016-210250A issued to Kita et al., who produce sound absorption composites. Kita et al use their sound absorbers within the cavity of the tire lumen. Kita et al., use rubbers, foams and nonwovens to create their sound absorbers. [see specifically ¶¶ 0015, 0016, 0020-0023, 0027, 0032, 0036 and 0041 and Figures 1-3]. Kita et al., teaches a sound absorbing body (sound absorbing member 3), comprising: a flexible sheet-like base material (a part of sheet 2); a sheet-like screen material (another part of sheet 2); and a sound absorbing material (sound absorbing material 1; Fig. 1) arranged in a closed space formed by the sheet-like base material and the sheet-like screen material, wherein the sound absorbing material extends along the longitudinal direction of the sound absorbing body [¶ 0015].
Kita et al shows in figure 3 the gap separation and the connecting portion. Kita et al. at ¶ 0058, further teaches that when you divide a large noise damper into a plurality of small noise dampers, heat release is promoted and heat accumulation is lessened. Further, if the noise damper 9 gets wet, the time to get dry becomes shorter, which may decrease the need for the outer coating 11.
Another variation with a greater and clearly distinct gap separation is that taught by Tanno et al., who teach a sound absorbing body assembly comprising a plurality of sound absorbing bodies, wherein the sound absorbing materials of the adjacent sound absorbing bodies are separated by a gap, and the plurality of sound absorbing bodies are connected by a connecting portion, is a well known practice within industry [see Fig. 2 of Tanno et al.,]. As such, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have easily arrived at Applicant’s sound absorber by general experimentation alone and without exercising ingenuity or a leap of inventiness.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the flexible sheet- like base material has a stretchability along the longitudinal direction no less than 105%; Applicant is directed to Kita et al., who designates that a mesh-like sheet is made of a synthetic resin such as polyester, nylon, Teflon, or polypropylene can be suitably used as the sheet 2. Although the prior art does not disclose a stretchability along the longitudinal direction no less than 105%, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the Kita et al., reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the flexible sheet-like base material comprises at least one of rubber film, polyurethane (PU) film, thermoplastic polyurethane(TPU) film, polypropylene (PP) film, cast polypropylene (CPP) film, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), cast polyethylene terephthalate (CPET) film, or TPU/PU coated fabric; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0026- 0027 of Kita et al.
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the sheet-like screen material has a flow resistivity no less than 0.01 mks rayls/m; Kita et al do not expressively suggest the property of flow resistivity. It is the position of the Office that the claimed properties would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Kita et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and same final end use of sound absorption. The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Kita et al., product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the sheet-like screen material comprises at least one of mesh fabric, nonwoven fabric, woven fabric, rubber film, polyurethane (PU) film, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) film, polypropylene (PP) film, cast polypropylene (CPP) film, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, cast polyethylene terephthalate (CPET) film, or TPU/PU coated fabric; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0026- 0027 of Kita et al.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein one or more vent holes are formed on the sheet-like screen material; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0036 of Kita et al. where they refer to the same as “openings.”
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the sound absorbing material comprises at least one of polyurethane (PU) foam, glass fiber material, mineral fiber material, polyester fiber material, polypropylene fiber material, nonwoven fiber material embedded with sound absorbing particles, or a combination thereof; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0020-0023.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the sound absorbing material has a flow resistivity in a range from 1000 mks rayls/m to 50000 mks rayls/m; Kita et al do not expressively suggest the property of flow resistivity. It is the position of the Office that the claimed properties would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Kita et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and same final end use of sound absorption. The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Kita et al., product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
9. (Previously presented) The sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the sound absorbing material has a thickness in a range from 0.5 mm to 200 mm; Kita et al., speak to the thickness and provide the latitude of why large thickness and small thickness can be used at ¶¶ 0032-0036 but do not specifically disclose a thickness in a range from 0.5 mm to 200 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed the sound absorber of claim 1, wherein the sound absorbing material has a thickness in a range from 0.5 mm to 200 mm, since it has been held 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 that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the sound absorber of claim 1, further comprising an adhesive layer disposed on the flexible sheet-like base material; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0041.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp