DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to the election/amendment filed for application 18/359,236 on November 24, 2205.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson ‘694. With regard to claim 1, Thompson teaches an acoustically enhanced automobile interior, comprising :a sound-absorbing material (Figs. 2/3/6) coupled to an interior automobile surface 68/10 adjacent to an automobile speaker (Col. 11, line 19); wherein the sound-absorbing material comprises an absorptive surface 15 and a backing 14, wherein the absorptive surface faces towards the automobile speaker to absorb sound waves emitted from a rear side of the automobile speaker, and wherein the backing blocks the sound waves from entering into a main cabin of the automobile, thereby mitigating echo and back wave frequency cancellation in the automobile interior. With regard to claim 5, Thompson teaches the interior, wherein the absorptive surface comprises a needle punch non-woven fabric (Col. 4, lines 37-63; Col. 5, line 22). With regard to claim 6, Thompson teaches the interior, wherein the absorptive surface comprises a non-woven polyester (Col. 4, lines 37-63). With regard to claim 7, Thompson teaches the interior, wherein the backing comprises polyethylene (Col. 7, line 22). With regard to claim 9, Thompson teaches the interior, wherein the interior automobile surface is a surface 80 of a speaker compartment.
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) 2-3, 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khambete ‘379. With regard to claim 2, Thompson teaches the interior, but lacks the specific teaching of an acoustical material. Khambete teaches a similar automobile interior comprising a sound-absorbing material comprising an absorptive surface 16, a backing 14 and wherein the sound-absorbing material is coupled to an acoustical material 12, and the acoustical material is coupled to the interior automobile surface 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to employ an acoustical material, and the acoustical material is coupled to the interior automobile surface in view of Khambete with reasonable expectation for success in order to further attenuate unwanted sounds in the vehicle. With regard to claim 3, Khambete teaches the interior, wherein the acoustical material 12 is a damping material. With regard to claim 10, Khambete teaches the interior, wherein the damping material comprises butyl rubber or asphalt (paragraph 35). With regard to claim 12, Thompson teaches an automobile interior with enhanced acoustics and thermal resistance, comprising: a sound-absorbing material (Figs. 2/3/6) coupled to an interior automobile surface 68/10; wherein the sound-absorbing material comprises an absorptive surface 15 comprising a first material and a backing 14 comprising a second material, and wherein the absorptive surface faces towards a rear side of an automobile speaker (Col. 11, line 19) to mitigate echo and back wave frequency cancellation in the automobile interior. Thompson lacks the specific teaching wherein the sound-absorbing material has an R-value greater than 3.4. Khambete teaches a similar automobile interior with enhanced acoustics and thermal resistance, comprising: a sound-absorbing material coupled to an interior automobile surface 30; wherein the sound-absorbing material comprises an absorptive surface 16 comprising a first material and a backing 14 comprising a second material, and wherein the absorptive surface mitigates echo and back wave frequency cancellation in the automobile interior, and wherein the sound-absorbing material 16 has an R-value greater than 3.4 (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Thompson to employ a sound-absorbing material with a R-value greater than 3.4 in view of Khambete with reasonable expectation for success in order to further reduce unwanted noise. Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ a material with preferred properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. With regard to claim 13, Thompson teaches the interior, but lacks the teaching of a damping material. Khambete teaches an automobile interior, further comprising: a damping material 12 coupled to a majority of interior automobile surfaces 30; wherein the sound-absorbing material 16 is further coupled to the damping material 12 on the majority of interior automobile surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Thompson to employ a damping material coupled to a majority of interior automobile surfaces; wherein the sound-absorbing material is further coupled to the damping material on the majority of interior automobile surfaces in view of Khambete with reasonable expectation for success in order to further attenuate the sounds not only in the door panels (paragraph 59) but also in other necessary areas of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 59). With regard to claim 14, Thompson and Khambete teach the interior, wherein the absorptive surface comprises a needle punch non-woven polyester (Col. 4, lines 37-63; Col. 5, line 22/ paragraphs 41/45) , the backing comprises polyethylene (Col. 7, line 22/paragraph 36), and the damping material comprises butyl rubber or asphalt (paragraph 35).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao (“Advances in Mechanical Engineering” from IDS). With regard to claim 2, Thompson teaches the interior, but lacks the specific teaching of an acoustical material. Liao teaches a similar automobile interior comprising a sound-absorbing material comprising an absorptive surface PET-PP16, wherein the sound-absorbing material is coupled to an acoustical material IIR, and the acoustical material is coupled to the interior automobile surface (Body). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to employ an acoustical material, and the acoustical material is coupled to the interior automobile surface in view of Liao with reasonable expectation for success in order to further attenuate unwanted sounds in the vehicle. With regard to claim 3, Liao teaches the interior, wherein the acoustical material IIR is a damping material. With regard to claim 4, Thompson and Liao teach the interior, wherein the sound-absorbing material 15/PET-PP absorbs sound frequencies within a frequency range (high frequency > 400Hz), and the acoustical material IIR absorbs sounds frequencies outside the frequency range (low frequencies < 400Hz). With regard to claim 10, Liao teaches the interior, wherein the damping material comprises butyl rubber (Abstract) or asphalt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Portez ‘996 has been cited to show a similar interior comprising: a rear of a speaker 9, a sound-absorbing material comprising an absorptive surface 27 and a damping layer 25.
Honji ‘385 has been cited to show a similar interior comprising: a rear of a speaker 5, a sound-absorbing material comprising an absorptive surface 19 which is a non-woven fabric (paragraph 28).
Muller ‘192 has been cited to show a similar interior comprising: a sound-absorbing material in a door panel (fig. 2) comprising an absorptive surface 1 comprising polyester, a backing 3 comprising polyethylene and a damping layer 4 comprising butyl rubber.
Niwa ‘474 has been cited to show a similar interior comprising: a sound-absorbing material comprising an absorptive surface 2 comprising polyester (paragraph 36), and a backing 3 comprising polyethylene (paragraph 56), and also if a damping material is used, the material is asphalt (paragraph 38).
Hakuta ‘942 has been cited to show a similar interior comprising: a sound-absorbing material (Fig. 10a) comprising an absorptive surface comprising polyester, a backing comprising polyethylene and a damping layer comprising butyl rubber (paragraph 200).
Rudek ‘337 has been cited to show a similar interior comprising: a sound-absorbing material (Fig. 3) comprising an absorptive surface 12 comprising non-woven polyester (paragraphs 26/28/53), a backing 4 comprising polyethylene (paragraphs 31/50), and a damping layer 3 comprising butyl rubber (paragraph 15).
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
December 8, 2025