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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Specie A in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the arrangement of the lofted layers and nonwoven layers are mutually exclusive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 22, the term “high-temperature binder” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted to any thermoplastic binder.
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 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 17-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush (WO 2019/014096 A1) [referenced via US 2022/0219425 A1 and hereinafter Bush ‘425] in view of Bush (US 2018/0005620 A1) [hereinafter Bush ‘620].
Regarding Claim 1, Bush ‘425 teaches an article for thermoacoustic insulation applications to thermally insulate a compartment by thermally insulating, maintaining temperature, and acting as acoustic absorber, by absorbing noise and preventing noise fluctuation out and into the article (Abstract; Paragraph 0013) comprising a lofted fibrous material layer comprising a lofted fibrous material (Paragraph 0014-0015) and multiple facing layers. (Paragraph 0015, 0033, 0035). Bush ‘425 teaches the facing layers can include nonwoven layer having a fibrous matrix (Paragraph 0034, 0035) and a metallic foil layer (Paragraph 0035).
Bush ‘425 does not specifically teach the metallic layer is aluminum laminated glass cloth, aluminum foil, stainless steel or a combination thereof.
Bush ‘620 teaches an article for thermoacoustic insulation comprising a lofted material layer and facers of aluminum foil or laminated reinforced aluminum foil. (Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0031). Bush ‘620 teaches aluminum provides the advantage of Infrared heat reflection, which improves the thermal insulation of the thermoacoustic insulation material. (Paragraph 0007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use aluminum foil as the metal foil layer in Bush ‘425 to increase infrared heat reflection as taught by Bush ‘620.
Regarding Claim 2, Bush ‘620 teaches the metallic layer is on the exterior surface of the article to provide the infrared heat reflection. (Paragraph 0013). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use aluminum foil as exterior surface in Bush ‘425 to increase infrared heat reflection as taught by Bush ‘620.
Regarding Claim 5, Bush ‘425 teaches the article can insulate a vehicle’s engine bay. (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claim 7, Bush ‘425 teaches the article is can operate as thermoacoustic insulation, temperature resistant and temperature absorbent, at a temperature range of 190 degrees C or greater. (Abstract) This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, Bush ‘425 teaches the fibrous matrix can include PET, PAN, oxidized polyacrylonitrile, olefin, and aramid (Paragraph 0018, 0034).
Regarding Claim 9, Bush ‘425 teaches the lofted fibrous material can include PET, PAN, oxidized polyacrylonitrile, olefin, and aramid (Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 10, Bush ‘425 teaches the nonwoven layer and lofted material can be thermoformed to form the article. (Paragraph 0007, 0032).
Regarding Claim 12, Bush ‘425 teaches the lofted fibrous material layer and the nonwoven are secured to each other via bonding. (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 13, Bush ‘425 teaches the article includes one more localized flexible portions. (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claim 14, Bush ‘425 teaches the lofted fibrous material and/or the fiber matrix can be generally vertically or near vertically oriented (Paragraph 0007, 0034).
Regarding Claim 17, Bush ‘425 teaches the lofted fibrous material and the fibrous matrix can be made from different fibers. (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 18, Bush ‘425 teaches turning the nonwoven layer into a rigid layer by hardening the nonwoven layer or reducing the flexibility of the nonwoven layer. (Paragraph 0032-0033).
Regarding Claim 19, Bush ‘425 teaches the article can include two abutting lofted fibrous material sandwiched between at least two nonwoven layers, and the article is thermoformed (Paragraph 0032-0037)
Regarding Claim 20, Bush ‘425 teaches the article can have a thickness of 300 mm or less or 100 mm or less. (Paragraph 0037; Claim 1 of Bush ‘425). Therefore, this means the lofted fibrous material layer and the nonwoven layer must also have a thickness of 300 mm or less or 100 mm or less. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 22, Bush ‘425 teaches the lofted fibrous and/or the nonwoven layer can comprise a binder to promote molding (Paragraph 0007, 0023, 0034)
Regarding Claim 23, Bush ‘425 teaches the lofted fibrous layer and/or the nonwoven layer include bicomponent fibers, where the outer sheath can be 160 degrees C or greater. (Paragraph 0007, 0023-0024), In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 24, Bush ‘425 teaches the article can have a thickness of 300 mm or less or 100 mm or less. (Paragraph 0037; Claim 1 of Bush ‘425). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush ‘425 and Bush ‘620, in further view of JBC (NPL).
Regarding Claim 4, Bush ‘425 teaches the foil can be perforated (Paragraph 0035) but does not specifically teach micro-perforations.
JBC teaches micro-perforation of metallic foils in heat shielding improves acoustical performance by absorbing sound through a specific frequency range. (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to micro-perforated the aluminum foil of Bush ‘425 as taught by JBC to improve acoustic absorption properties.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush ‘425 and Bush ‘620, in view of Bridges (US 2006/0228971 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Bush ‘425 does not teach one or more air pockets located between the lofted fibrous material layer and the nonwoven layer.
Bridges teaches a multilayered insulated layer comprising fibrous layers (Abstract; Fig. 3). Bridges teaches forming air pockets between the two fiber layers (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0008). Bridges teaches air pockets enhance the insulative properties of the multilayer laminate. (Paragraph 0008). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add air pockets between the nonwoven and lofted layers of Bush ‘425 to further improve insulation properties.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush ‘425 and Bush ‘620, in further view of Bush (WO 2019/018508 A1) [referenced via US 2020/0232133 A1 and hereinafter Bush ‘133]
Regarding Claim 21, Bush ‘425 does not teach the basis weight of the lofted fibrous material.
Bush ‘133 teaches a thermoacoustic article comprising a lofted layer and various facing layers (Abstract; Paragraph 0021-0022). Bush ‘133 teaches the lofted fibrous material can have a basis weight of 25 gsm or greater. (Paragraph 0059) This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Bush ‘133 teaches this basis weight is suitable for yielding a layer that can offer thermal insulation and sound absorption. (Paragraph 0058-0059). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed basis weight taught by Bush ‘133 to the lofted fibrous material in Bush ‘425, as Bush ‘133 teaches this basis weight can yield a thermoacoustic insulation article.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-14, and 17-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,794,445. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the temperature ranges, thickness and basis weights overlap.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781