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 without traverse of Group I. in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
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 1-9 and 12 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.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it cannot be definitively ascertained what degree of a limitation is intended through the use of the term “like” in association with the term “sheet” in defining the “sheet” as referred to throughout the claims, or it can not be determine how the use of the term “like” in association with the term “sheet” in defining the “sheet” as referred to throughout the claims is intended to extend the metes and bounds of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively determined from the standpoint of patentability how the dimensions of the pores of the claims are intended to be limited through the recitation that the pores are “needle-like” without setting forth definitive criteria for dimensions and/or aspect ratios, etc. that establish what structural arrangements constitute pores that are “needle-like” as opposed to non-needle-like.
Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of examination, claims have been treated as if the term “needle-like” adds no limitation to the pores of the claims.
The term “fixedly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fixedly” 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. Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what configuration arrangement is intended to be included or excluded by this recitation of the claims. Moreover, it can not be determined if the “fixedly” configuration is intended to set forth some degree of “fixation” capability or is merely reciting that the configuration provides the capability that the article can be placed or fixed in a location.
For purposes of examination, this recitation of the claims has been treated as merely reciting a capability to be placed/fixed in a location.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-112876277 in view of Yoshida et al.(2007/0232710).
CN-114495883 discloses sound-absorbing material for inclusion in speaker cavities comprising a freeze-dried and foamed article constituting a sheet to any degree that may be required by the claims and comprising sound-absorbing powder as claimed [note: claim 3], binder as defined by the claims [note: claim 4], thickening agent as claimed [note: claim 5], and foaming agent as claimed [note: claim 6]{see abstract, pages 3-6 and Examples of translation}. Regarding, the product-by-process operations of the claims, including the solvent make-ups of claim 7 & 8, in that a sound absorbing articles having make-ups as claimed are disclosed by CN-114495883, and “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113). In that the solvent evaporates in the freeze-drying operations of the instant concern and over time thereafter, it is held that the solvent combinations used in the making of the products of the claims do not serve to distinguish the claims in any patentable sense.
CN-114495883 differs from the claims in that overlap in thickness is not exact. However, overlap is evident {see page 7 line 7 of translation}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized any thickness provided for by CN-114495883 in forming its articles for the purpose of imparting the articles sound absorbing effects to degrees desired in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
CN-114495883 differs from the claims in that overlap in pore size is not exact. However, overlap is evident {see Claims of translation}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have prepared articles including pores having any pore sizes provided for by CN-114495883 in forming its articles for the purpose of achieving good sound absorbing articles in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, amounts of materials as claimed, with exception to thickening agent, are disclosed by CN-114495883{see Examples}. CN-114495883 differs from the claim in that overlap in thickening agent amount is not exact. However, overlap is evident {see page 5 line 12 of translation}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized any amount of thickening agent as provided for by CN-114495883 in forming its articles for the purpose of imparting its recognized thickening effect in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
CN-114495883 differs from applicants’ claims in that it does not particularly require a bonding layer to any degree as claimed. However, Yoshida et al. discloses employment of adhesive/bonding layers to be used in adhering sound absorbing layers to other materials in speaker applications {see para [0048]}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the bonding layer material of Yoshida et al. in forming the sound absorbing material of CN-114495883 for the purpose of imparting its recognized adhesive effects in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. Claim 1 only requires the inclusion of the bonding layer, and the configuration features merely recite a capability, and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. It is seen that arrangement of the composition and the materials constituting its make-up would have a configuration capability as claimed. Accordingly, no further difference in this regard is seen.
Regarding difference in claim 9 concerning layer thickness, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized any thickness of adhesive coating provided for by Yoshida et al. in coating the article of CN-114495883 for the purpose of imparting its adhesive effects to any degree desired in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, difference in the fixing is seen. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the bonding layer material of Yoshida et al. in forming the sound absorbing material of CN-114495883 and affixing it to any sheet/surface/location, including the back of the speaker, for the purpose of imparting its recognized laminating/adhering/securing effects in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights