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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-10105791 (DE’791) in view of CN-110627985 (CN’985).
Re: claim 1. DE’791 shows in figure 1 and discloses a vibration isolating and damping member as shown in figure 1 formed of polyurethane as described in claim 4, wherein: a polyol component of the polyurethane includes a polyester-based polyol excluding a short-chain polyol as described in the paragraph starting “Preferred as (b) are polyester polyalcohols”; an isocyanate component of the polyurethane contains 1,5- naphthalenediisocyanate as a main component as described in the paragraph starting “Generally known (cyclo) aliphatic”; and the vibration isolating and damping member comprises a foam of a thermoplastic urethane composition having an NCO index of 0.9 to 1.04 in the paragraph beginning “The elastic moldings are usually based” and the paragraph beginning “the production of the molded parts is advantageously carried out”, but is silent with regard to the limitation wherein the polyurethane has a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 500,000.
CN’985 teaches in the section directly under the summary of the invention heading the use of a polyurethane average molecular weight being within the range of 30000-100000 which is at least partially encompassed in the recited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the polyurethane of the damping member of DE’791 to have had an average molecular weight of 50000 to 500000, in view of the teachings of CN’985, in order to provide an optimum amount to achieve good damping performance as taught. Also see In re Aller. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-10105791 (DE’791) in view of CN-110627985 (CN’985) as applied above, and further in view of JP-2013079407 (JP’407).
DE’791, as modified, is silent with regard to the limitation wherein a proportion of the isocyanate component in the thermoplastic urethane composition is 10 to 30% by mass.
JP’407 teaches in the paragraph beginning “The isocyanate group-terminated prepolymer” teaches the use of a damping material with a proportion of the isocyanate component in the urethane composition being 0.5% to 10% or 0.5% or higher which is at least partially encompassed in the 10 to 30% range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the proportion of the isocyanate component in the urethane of DE’791, as modified, being in the recited range, in view of the teachings of JP’407, in order to enable the polymer chains to still be able to move for damping capabilities but to be constrained enough to convert motion to heat efficiently.
Also see In re Aller. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’791 in view of CN’985 as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 2014/0017429 to Kasazaki et al.
DE’791, as modified, is silent with regard to the polyester-based polyol being selected from the recited group.
Kasazaki et al. teach in paragraph [0053] the use of a polyester-based polyol being in the form of polyethylene adipate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the polyester-based polyol of DE’791, as modified, being in the form of polyethylene adipate, in view of the teachings of Kasazaki, in order to provide a material with flexible chains, surface durability, and improved noise and vibration reduction capabilities.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’791 in view of CN’985 as applied above, and further in view of KR-20210102082 (KR’082).
Re: claim 5. DE’791, as modified, is silent with regard to the foam having the recited density range.
KR’082 teaches in the section of the claim language beginning “the noise damping strips 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 are optionally strips” the use of a polymeric foam having a density in the range of 0.1 to 1 g/cm3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the foam of DE’791, as modified, to have had a density in the recited range, in view of the teachings of KR’082, in order to provide a foam with the characteristics of being lightweight, effectively cushioning, while still being structurally sound enough to bear loads without collapsing. Also see In re Aller. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’791 in view of CN’985 as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 2020/0123341 to Morio et al.
Re: claim 6. DE’791, as modified, is silent with regard to the number average diameter of foam cells in the foam being the recited range.
Morio et al. teach in claim 1 the use of an average cell diameter of cells of a foam being 10 to 400 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the foam of DE’791, as modified, to have had the number average diameter of foam cells as recited, in view of the teachings of Morio et al., in order to provide a foam with a balance of improved compressive strength and also sufficient flexibility. Also see In re Aller. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’791 in view of CN’985 as applied above, and further in view of JP-2002160234 (JP’234).
DE’791, as modified, is silent with regards to the method of manufacturing the damping member comprising molding a polyurethane foam from the urethane composition and separating the polyurethane foam from a molding die.
JP’234 teaches in the English abstract and in the background of invention section the use of a method of molding a polyurethane foam and in the sentence before paragraph [0025] the use of separating the polyurethane foam from a molding die by describing how the molded article is obtained and used as a vehicle seat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the foam of DE’791, as modified, to have been molded into a foam and then separated from a molding die, in view of the teachings of JP’234, in order to provide a damper member with a porous structure which is lighter than solid urethane.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’791 in view of CN’985 and JP-2002160234 (JP’234) as applied above, and further in view of JP-2009149768 (JP’768).
DE’791, as modified, teaches in JP’234 casting urethane into a foamed state into a molding die to mold the polyurethane foam as taught in the rejection of claim 7, but is silent with regard to the method of manufacturing specifically including pelletizing the urethane and melting the pellets.
JP’768 teaches under Example 4 the use of the urethane being formed as pellets (pelletized) and being heated/melted with injection molding as mentioned above the mode-for-invention label to ultimately mold in a die.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of manufacturing the damping member of DE’791, as modified, to have included pelletizing and melting the pellets, in view of the teachings of JP’768, in order to provide a means of obtaining consistent material properties and to reduce defects in the final molded article.
Response to Amendment
Upon further review Examiner notes the rejections set forth above based on new references with the recited ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
mmb
March 24, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616