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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble stating “Method according to the preceding claim…” is inconsistent with the other claims dependencies, and should be changed to “Method according to claim 6…” Appropriate correction is required. It is noted that the current langue does not appear to be technically incorrect, but the claim dependency format should be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 7, the preamble, which states ““Method according to the preceding claim…” is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 6, as claim 6 is the immediately preceding claim to claim 7.
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.
Claims 4-5 are 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “characterized in that the bonding agent of the shell (2) is optionally formed: of bi-component fibers whose sheath has been melted, or of polypropylene fibers,” which is indefinite. It is unclear if limitations following the “optionally formed” language is required or optional.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the shell (2) additionally comprises fine fibers with a titre of less than 3.5 dtex intended to improve sound absorption,” which is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “fine fibers with a titre of less than 3.5 dtex intended to improve sound absorption.” Applicant has not established any prior art or baseline of fiber or fiber titre from which the claimed fiber titre is intended to improve sound absorption. What is the baseline from which sound absorption is being improved? Applicants Specification includes the claimed language in a single instance (see Page 5, lines 1-2) without providing any discussion of a baseline or prior art fiber titre from which sound absorption is improved by providing the claimed “titre of less than 3.5 dtex”.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahukudumbi (2016/0333510).
With respect to claim 1, Bahukudumbi teaches a sound protection screen (Figure 1-2, #20) intended to be mounted under a motor vehicle ([0013]), said screen comprising a thermo-compressed shell (200), said shell (200) being based on structural fibres bonded together by a heat-activated bonding agent ([0028]-[0031]), said shell (200) being provided with an outer face intended to face the road (clearly seen in Figure 2 regardless of which side is mounted to a vehicle underbody), said screen (20) being characterized in that: it also includes a protective fibrous layer (100) covering said outer face, the fibers constituting said layer (100) are of two types distributed according to the following percentages by weight: 75% of bi-component fibers (#110/130, ([0018]-[0027], see examples 1-4 on Page 5) comprising a core with a high melting point and a sheath with a lower melting point, said sheath ensuring the bond between the fibers following its melting, between 25% of polypropylene fibers (#120, [0018]-[0027], see examples 1-4 on Page 5), so as to present an apolar component conducive to low ice adhesion on said layer (100, [0018]-[0023]), said layer has been melted at a temperature higher than the melting temperature of said sheath and polypropylene and lower than that of said core, so as to provide a surface state smoothened by said melting and to minimize the mechanical adhesion of ice on said layer ([0018]-[0023]).
Bahukudumbi fails to explicitly teach wherein the fibers constituting said layer are of two types distributed according to the following percentages by weight: between 50% and 70% of bi-component fibers, and between 30% and 50% of polypropylene fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the fibers constituting said layer are of two types distributed according to the following percentages by weight: between 50% and 70% of bi-component fibers, and between 30% and 50% of polypropylene fibers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Bahukudumbi recognizes that the second/polypropylene fibers #120 function to provide a lower surface energy, which provides good ice detachment for the screen layer #20. One of ordinary skill would recognize that adjusting the polypropylene fibers to be 30% of the weight instead of 25%, and likewise dropping the bi-component fibers to 70% from 75%, would serve to further adjust or lower the surface energy which would increase the ice detachment ability of layer 20. Further, Bahukudumbi recognizes the weight percentages of the fibers as being a results effective variable, as the values of Bahukudumbi “allows for a maximal coverage of low critical surface energy fibers on the surface providing the right combination of rigidity and flexibility without elasticity at the interface to attain low ice adhesion [0024].”
With respect to claim 2, Bahukudumbi is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Bahukudumbi further teaches wherein the compression/ consolidation of the material #20 can be between 20 and 40%, which “provides a high air-flow resistive face to the composite material, thereby enhancing sound absorption at low frequencies ([0040])”, wherein the value of a resistance to the passage of air is of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the resistance to the passage of air is comprised between 250 and 8000 N.s.m-3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Bahukudumbi recognizes the material as having a high air-flow resistance, which is variable based on the compression of the material into a final product being between 20 and 40%. One of ordinary skill would recognize that altering an airflow resistance of the material serves to tune the device, which is tuning would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, Bahukudumbi teaches wherein the protective layer (100) is co-needled with the shell (200) ([0015], [0036]-[0039]).
With respect to claim 4, Bahukudumbi teaches wherein the bonding agent of the shell (200) is optionally formed: of bi-component fibers whose sheath has been melted, or of polypropylene fibers (See examples 1 and 2, [0044]-[0061]).
With respect to claim 5, Bahukudumbi is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Bahukudumbi further teaches wherein the shell (200) additionally comprises additional fibers with a titre of an obvious, but unspecified dtex, intended to improve sound absorption ([0031]-[0033] – note that many of the additional heat and flame resistant fibers listed in [0032] include well known sound absorbing materials such as aramid, polyamide, carbon fibers, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the additional fibers include fine fibers with a titre of less than 3.5 dtex intended to improve sound absorption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, defining a particular fiber size can serve to acoustically or physically tune the device, which tuning would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Bahukudumbi teaches a method for producing a screen (20) according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises the following steps:- provide a first fibrous web (200) comprising structural fibers and a heat- activatable bonding agent ([0028]-[0031]), provide a second fibrous web (100) whose fibers are of two types distributed according to the following obvious percentages by weight: between 50% and 70% of bi-component fibers (110/130, see rejection of claim 1 above for obviousness of fiber weight percentage) comprising a core with a high melting point and a sheath with a lower melting point, said sheath ensuring the bond between the fibers following its melting ([0018]-[0027]), between 30% and 50% of polypropylene fibers (120, see rejection of claim 1 above for obviousness of fiber weight percentage), superimpose said layers (1200/100) one on top of the other and compress the assembly between two platens heated to a temperature firstly higher than the melting temperature of said sheath and polypropylene and than the activation temperature of said bonding agent, and secondly lower than that of said core, shape said assembly once heated in a cooled mold to give it the geometry of the screen to be obtained, remove said screen ([0036]-[0041]).
With respect to claim 7, Bahukudumbi teaches a method according to the preceding claim, characterized in that it comprises an additional step of co-needling the fibrous webs together before they are compressed between the platens ([0036]-[0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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) 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837