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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the requirement of “wherein a sound absorption layer is arranged on the inside of the first layer, which inside faces the component, and extends over the internal surface of the first layer in some regions, substantially or entirely, wherein the sound absorption layer has or consists of a first ply made of a porous material, wherein, on one side or on both sides of the first ply, the sound absorption layer in each case has a second ply that contains or consists of a microperforated material, wherein, on one side or on both sides of the first ply, the sound absorption layer in each case has a third ply that contains or consists of a woven fabric” of claim 1; “wherein on one side of the first ply, the sound absorption layer has a fourth metal ply” of claim 7’ and “wherein the fourth ply is positioned on the opposite side of the first ply to the second ply” of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, in its current form, claim requires “wherein a sound absorption layer is arranged on the inside of the first layer, which inside faces the component, and extends over the internal surface of the first layer in some regions, substantially or entirely, wherein the sound absorption layer has or consists of a first ply made of a porous material, wherein, on one side or on both sides of the first ply, the sound absorption layer in each case has a second ply that contains or consists of a microperforated material, wherein, on one side or on both sides of the first ply, the sound absorption layer in each case has a third ply that contains or consists of a woven fabric,” which is indefinite. There does not appear to be any disclosure for the requirement of “wherein the sound absorption layer has or consists of a first ply made of a porous material, wherein, on one side or on both sides of the first ply, the sound absorption layer in each case has a second ply that contains or consists of a microperforated material (emphasis added).” Applicant’s Specification does provide support for providing a third ply of woven fabric being provided on one or both sides of the first ply of material (see Specification, [0012]), but the disclosure does not contemplate the second ply of microperforated material being provided on both sides of the first ply, let alone in combination with the second ply also being provided on both sides of the first ply, as the claim language permits. Additionally, the disclosure does not describe how the materials would be arranged with a first ply having both a second and third ply on both sides of the first ply, nor does the disclosure described how these layers, especially including the “both sides” language are arranged in relation to the first layer. While the “both sides” language is presented in the alternative; it is still indefinite due to the lack of disclosure described above.
Regarding claim 7, the requirement of “on one side of the first ply, the sound absorption layer has a fourth metal ply” is further indefinite, as there is not disclosure for the combination of claim 1, including a first layer having a sound absorption layer arranged inside of the first layer, including the details of the first, second and third plys of claim 1, and further including a fourth ply as claimed. The Specification describes the fourth ply as being located on the opposite side of the first ply to the microperforated layer/second ply (see [0013]), as well as being located “on the side of the first ply #22 facing away from said plies (see [0030]).” Neither of these descriptions contemplate scenarios where a second and/or third ply is located on both sides of the first ply as claimed, and is contrary to those scenarios. While Figure 3 shows fourth ply #25, it is only shown mounted directly to the first ply #22, without any showing or description of the possibility of the second and/or third plys #23/24 being located between the fourth ply #25 and the first ply #22, which would be required if either of the second or third plys were located on both sides of the first ply #22, as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the requirement of “wherein the fourth ply is positioned on the opposite side of the first ply to the second ply” is further indefinite. While elimination of the “both sides” language regarding the second ply in claim 1 may make this rejection moot, it is unclear how the fourth ply can be located on the opposite side of the first ply to the second ply in a scenario wherein the second ply can be located on both sides of the first ply, as is currently an option in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Härle (DE 102010039463 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 1, Härle teaches a covering (Figure 1, #1) for a component (could be #2 or outer body of #2) of an electrical drive system, comprising a first layer (12) that can enclose or does enclose the component (2) at least in some portions, wherein a sound absorption layer (defined by layers 18a and/or 18b and each of layers #19 on either side of #18a) is arranged on the inside of the first layer (12), which inside faces the component (2), and extends over the internal surface of the first layer (12) in some regions, substantially or entirely, wherein the sound absorption layer has or consists of a first ply (18a or 18b) made of a porous material, wherein, on one side or on both sides of the first ply (18a or 18b), the sound absorption layer in each case has a second ply (one of #19 on either side of #18a) that contains or consists of an microperforated material ([0035]-[0038] – note in [0038], within the woven fabric #19, the size of the pores 22 is approximately 0.025 mm, which is considered a “microperforated”), wherein, on one side or on both sides of the first ply (18a or 18b), the sound absorption layer in each case has a third ply (other of #19 on either side of #18a) that contains or consists of an woven fabric ([0035]-[0038]). Because the layers #19 can be formed of a woven fabric having pores #22 sized at approximately 0.025 mm, in its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the Examiner considers the woven fabric #19 to be “a microperforated material” as claimed. It is further noted that the wires #20/21 forming the woven fabric #19 can have different diameters from those disclosed, which would inherently change and allow for variation in the size of perforation #22 (see [0041]).
With respect to claim 2, Härle teaches wherein the sound absorption layer (18a/19/18b/19) is formed in a manner connected in one piece or has a plurality of separate regions (18a/19/18b/19).
With respect to claim 3, Härle teaches wherein the sound absorption layer has a plurality of separate regions (18a/19/18b/19), and the plurality of separate regions directly adjoin one another directly without a gap therebetween (seen in Figure 1) or at least two of the plurality of separate regions are spaced apart from one another at least in some portions.
With respect to claim 4, Härle teaches wherein the sound absorption layer (18a/19/18b/19) is arranged directly on the first layer (12) or so as to be spaced apart from the first layer.
With respect to claim 7, Härle teaches wherein on one side of the first ply (18a or 18b), the sound absorption layer has a fourth metal ply ([0035] – defined by additional layer #19 when several layers of fabric #19 are provided).
With respect to claim 11, Härle teaches wherein the third ply (other of #19 on either side of #18a) contains or consists of a woven fabric made of stainless steel ([0039]).
With respect to claim 15, Härle teaches wherein the microperforated material (19 – [0038]) consists of or comprises corrosion-resistant steel ([0039] – i.e., stainless steel).
With respect to claim 16, Härle teaches wherein it is inherent that the fourth ply ([0035] – defined by additional layer #19 when several layers of fabric #19 are provided) is positioned on the opposite side of the first ply (18a or 18b) to the second ply (one of #19 on either side of #18a).
With respect to claim 17, Härle teaches wherein the third ply (other of #19 on either side of #18a) is arranged between the first ply (18a) and the second ply (one of #19 on either side of #18a).
With respect to claim 19, Härle teaches wherein the fourth metal ply ([0035] – defined by additional layer #19 when several layers of fabric #19 are provided) comprises one of a stainless-steel sheet ([0039]), an aluminum sheet ([0039]), or steel having a hole size of 1mm.
With respect to claim 20, Härle teaches an electric motor (2) or inverter of an electric motor comprising a covering (1) according to claim 1 that surrounds the electric motor (2) or the inverter at least in some regions.
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 5-6, 8-10, 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Härle (DE 102010039463 A – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 5-6, 8-10, 12-14 and 18, Härle is relied upon for the reason and disclosures set forth above. Härle further teaches wherein the sound absorption layer (19/18a/19) is arranged so as to be spaced apart from the first layer (12) at an obvious, but unspecified distance; wherein the sound absorption layer (defined by layers 18a and/or 18b and each of layers #19 on either side of #18a) has an obvious, but unspecified thickness; wherein the first ply (one of 18a or 18b) has an obvious, but unspecified thickness; wherein the first ply (one of 18a or 18b) has an obvious, but unspecified density; wherein the porous material (material of 18a/18b, [0033]) has an obvious, but unspecified weight per unit area; wherein the microperforated material (19 – [0038]) has an obvious, but unspecified thickness; wherein the microperforated material (19 – [0038], [0040]) has holes (22) of a 0.025mm diameter, which can be further adjusted to adapt to a frequency of sound to be dampened; wherein the microperforated material (19 – [0038]) has an obvious, but unspecified number of holes per cm2; and wherein the third ply (other of #19 on either side of #18a) has a mesh size of 0.025mm diameter, which can be further adjusted to adapt to a frequency of sound to be dampened ([0038], [0040])
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 sound absorption layer is arranged so as to be spaced apart from the first layer at a distance A of 2 mm ≤ A ≤ 15 mm; wherein the sound absorption layer has a thickness DS of 2 mm ≤ DS ≤ 30 mm; wherein the first ply has a thickness DP of 2 mm ≤ DP ≤ 30 mm; wherein the first ply has a density from 10 kg/m³ to 300 kg/m3; wherein the porous material has a weight per unit area WF of 20 g/m2≤ WF ≤ 10,000 g/m2; wherein the microperforated material has a thickness DM of 0.1 mm ≤ DM ≤ 3 mm; wherein the microperforated material has holes having a diameter Ø of 0.1 mm ≤Ø≤ 2 mm; wherein the microperforated material has 5 to 20 holes per cm2; and wherein the third ply has a mesh size of 0.1 to 2 mm, 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 ranges for spacing, thickness, density, weight per unit area, hole diameter, hole density and mesh size of the various components/materials serves to merely tune the device, which tuning of the various material parameters are all well-known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner still considers Härle to teach all of the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 11, 15-17 and 19-20. and Applicant’s argument that “Härle le fails to disclose a sound absorption layer that simultaneously includes all three of: (1) a first ply made of a porous material, (2) a second ply that contains or consists of a microperforated material, and (3) a third ply that contains or consists of a woven fabric, wherein the second and third plies are each arranged on one side or on both sides of the first ply. While Härle mentions various layers, including foam layers (18a, 18b) and a microperforated or woven fabric layer (19), Härle does not disclose or suggest the specific three-ply configuration now required by amended claim 1,” the Examiner disagrees. As noted in the above rejection, the woven fabric #19 is considered to be a microperforated material, due to the 25 micron/0.025mm holes within the material being sized as “microperforations” ([0038]). The above rejection and interpretation of the Härle reference is considered to be fully responsive to all arguments raised by Applicant with regard to claims 1-4, 7, 11, 15-17 and 19-20.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8-10, 12-14 and 18, Applicant argues that “Härle distinguishes this case from Aller and other routine optimization cases, where the prior art at least disclosed some specific values that could serve as a starting point for optimization. Here, there is no starting point- Härle is entirely silent regarding the quantitative aspects of these parameters,” the Examiner disagrees.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 18, Härle does in fact define a size of 0.025 mm for the hole/mesh size in layer #19, which holes diameters can be further adjusted to adapt to a frequency of sound to be dampened ([0040]), so this argument is unpersuasive as the hole diameter is explicitly established as being a results-effective variable.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8-10, these claims relate to the thickness, density or weight per unit of the porous material #18a and/or 18b of Härle (note in claim 5, the “spacing” is defined by the thickness of layer 18b). Generally speaking, in the art of acoustics and sound absorption, it is well known and would certainly be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the thickness, density and weight per unit of a porous sound absorbing material are all variables that can be adjusted to absorb sound in a particular frequency range and/or an amount of sound within those frequcy ranges that a material can absorb, as it is well known that different wavelengths and sound intensity/amplitude require different thickness, density and weight per unit of said material in order to absorb the wavelengths and sound intensity/amplitude of said sound wavelengths. In the case of layers #18a/b, as indicated in the rejection, it is obvious that layers 18a/18b will have a thickness, density and weight per unit as they are three-dimensional foam sound absorbing materials, and discovering an optimum or working range of these materials would be obvious to target a particular frequcy range and/or sound intensity to attenuate, as these are well known results-effective variable for adjustment in the field of acoustics. Further, Applicant has not established any criticality for the particular claimed ranges.
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.
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