DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to the amendment filed for application 18/359,236 on April 13, 2025.
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
Claims 16, 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 24, 2025.
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) 12 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 5298694). 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 a surface of a speaker compartment of an automobile 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) position inside the speaker compartment to block sound waves emitted from the rear side of the automobile speaker from escaping the speaker compartment and entering a main cabin of the automobile, thereby mitigating echo and back wave frequency cancellation in the main cabin. Thompson lacks the specific teaching wherein the sound-absorbing material has a thermal R-value greater than 3.4. Thompson teaches the absorbative surface 15 being a non-woven polyester (Col. 7, line 63) and the backing 14 being a polyethylene (Col. 7, line 22). As taught in the cited Polyethylene characteristics data sheet, the thermal resistance R-value can be greater than 3.4 (based on the density of polyethylene used) and since an R-value is calculated by dividing a thickness divided by thermal conductivity:
PNG
media_image1.png
82
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An R-value of greater than 3.4 can be achieved based on a thickness of the non-woven polyester (see thermal conductivity values of cited Theoretical and Experimental Studies on Thermal Properties of Polyester Nonwoven Fibrous Materials).
Therefor, 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 a sound absorbing material with a thermal resistance value greater than 3.4 in order to improve insulation efficiency. 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 (thickness, R-value, thermal conductivity, etc.) 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 25, Thompson teaches the interior, wherein the second material 15 is polyethylene (Col. 7, line 22).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Khambete (US 20030116379). 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 a 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-6, 10 and 21-22 are allowed.
Claims 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the passive noise cancellation system for an automobile as claimed, and particularly including wherein the damping material is directly coupled to a surface of a speaker compartment of an automobile; a sound-absorbing material comprising an absorptive surface and a polyethylene backing, wherein the polyethylene backing is coupled to the damping material; wherein the sound-absorbing material comprises an absorptive surface and a backing, wherein the absorptive surface faces towards the rear side of the automobile speaker and including the remaining structure of claim 1. The present invention also particularly includes the automobile interior, wherein the sound-absorbing material is coupled to a damping material, and wherein the damping material is directly coupled to the surface of the speaker compartment of the automobile, and including the remaining structure of claim 12. The present invention also particularly includes the interior wherein the sound-absorbing material is coupled to a damping material, and wherein the damping material is directly coupled to the surface of the speaker compartment of the automobile, and including the remaining structure of claim 23. Claim 24 depends on claim 23.
Please Note: Although the damping material 12 of Khambete is directly connected to the automobile interior/speaker compartment, a combination of Thompson and Khambete would only produce a damping material that is “coupled” to the interior (fixed relative thereto at it is fixed directly to the sound absorbing material of Thompson), but would not be connected directly to the interior (see claims 1 and 23).
In the cited Portez (FR2665996) reference, Portez teaches a sound-absorbing material 27 comprising an absorbative surface 27 facing the rear of a speaker 9 and a backing 25. It can be shown however, that the backing 25 is the damping material directly coupled to the surface of the automobile. Therefore, Portez would not teach the limitation of claim 23 or claim 1. Also, the polyurethane layer 29 of Portez is not the backing of the absorptive surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Suggestions for Applicant
It is suggested applicant amend claim 12 to include the limitations of claim 23 and change the dependency of claim 24 to be upon claim 12.
Also, should applicant amend claim 16 to include all the structural limitations of claims 1 or 23, this claim could be rejoined. Applicant should also amend claims 18-20 in case there would be any repetitive structural claim limitations from the newly amended claim 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights