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 § 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 requires “wherein a hardness of the perforated panel is less than a hardness of each of the sound absorption material and the sound insulation material,” which is indefinite. Applicant’s disclosure only provides support for the perforated panel having a larger hardness than the sound absorption material and the sound insulation material (See Specification, Page 6, Lines 1-3; Page 16, Lines 22-25). Because of Applicant’s clear disclosure, the Examiner will interpret the claim as requiring “wherein a hardness of the perforated panel is larger than a hardness of each of the sound absorption material and the sound insulation material.” Appropriate correction is necessary.
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 1-3, 7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Draxler (EP 3677420 – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 1, Draxler teaches a sound absorption and insulation module (Figure 1, #1) for a vehicle ([0020]), comprising: a perforated panel (3) that defines a plurality of holes (7); a sound absorption material (4) that is porous and disposed on the perforated panel (3); and a sound insulation material (could be layer #2 or the sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085]) disposed on the sound absorption material (4).
With respect to claim 2, Draxler teaches wherein the sound absorption material (4) has: a first surface that is bonded to a first surface of the perforated panel (3); and a second surface that is bonded to a first surface of the sound insulation material (2).
With respect to claim 3, Draxler teaches wherein one or more diameters of the plurality of holes (7) are determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component ([0056]).
With respect to claim 7, Draxler teaches wherein the perforated panel (3) is inherently configured to absorb a sound having a noise frequency corresponding to a size of the plurality of holes, a distance between the plurality of holes, and a cross-sectional thickness of the perforated panel, the sound being absorbed while passing through the plurality of holes in the perforated panel ([0054]-[0056]). It is considered to be inherent that the panel is “configured” as claimed, as it is well known in the art the hole diameter, spacing and layer thickness will have an effect on the frequency response of a material.
With respect to claim 13, Draxler teaches wherein the sound absorption and insulation module (1) is configured to be applied to at least one of an insulator, a partition wall ([0089] – installing the panel within an engine compartment or below the passenger compartment of a vehicle will inherently involve mounting the panel to a partition wall), encapsulation, a carpet, an isolation pad, or a wheel guard of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 14, Draxler teaches wherein the perforated panel (3) is made of a material other than metal ([0029], [0032] – when the perforated layer #3 is a non-metal carrier layer, note the metal layer applied to the carrier is considered to be a different/additional layer than the non-metal carrier layer), the material having a greater hardness than the sound absorption material (4) and the sound insulation material (2).
With respect to claim 15, Draxler teaches wherein a hardness of the perforated panel (3 – [0026]-[0027]) is larger (see 112b rejection above) than a hardness of each of the sound absorption material (4) and the sound insulation material (2).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draxler (EP 3677420 – see translation provided by Examiner).
With respect to claim 9, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches wherein the perforated panel (3) comprises a metal panel perforated by press-molding ([0067]), wherein the sound absorption material (4) comprises a glass fiber ([0034]-[0035]) that is molded ([0062]), wherein the sound insulation material (could be sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085]) comprises polypropylene that is formed of an obvious, but unspecified process, and wherein the perforated panel (3), the sound absorption material (4), and the sound insulation material (could be sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085]) are sequentially coupled.
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein the sound insulation layer (i.e., sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085]) is injection-molded.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has been given little patentable weight.
Further, forming a polypropylene containing plastic layer like the dense/sealing layer of Draxal ([0085]) by injection molding would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as injection molding plastics is a well-known plastic molding method.
Further, 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.
Claims 4-6, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draxler (EP 3677420 – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Albin, JR. (2007/0137926).
With respect to claim 4, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches wherein with holes (7) with different diameters are arranged above in the metal layer 3 or metallized layer such that the broadband nature of the sound absorption can be improved ([0056]).
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein a number of the plurality of holes is determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component.
Albin, JR. teaches a similar vehicle sound absorption and insulation module (Figures 1-4, #10/20), including a similar perforated panel (12/16) that defines a plurality of holes (12a/16a), wherein a number of the plurality of holes (12a/16a) is determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component ([0037], [0040]). The Examiner notes that optimizing perforation size and pattern to target a particular frequency range inherently includes determining a number of perforations, as perforation size and pattern within a finite space will also determine the number of perforations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Draxler, with the apparatus of Albin, JR., so as to provide a sheet material with perforations optimized to facilitate noise absorption over a given range of frequencies.
With respect to claim 5, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches wherein with holes (7) with different diameters are arranged above in the metal layer 3 or metallized layer such that the broadband nature of the sound absorption can be improved ([0056]).
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein one or more distances between the plurality of holes are determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component of the vehicle.
Albin, JR. teaches a similar vehicle sound absorption and insulation module (Figures 1-4, #10/20), including a similar perforated panel (12/16) that defines a plurality of holes (12a/16a), wherein one or more distances between the plurality of holes (12a/16a) are determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component of the vehicle ([0037], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Draxler, with the apparatus of Albin, JR., so as to provide a sheet material with perforations optimized to facilitate noise absorption over a given range of frequencies.
With respect to claim 6, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches wherein one or more diameters of the plurality of holes (7) are determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component ([0056]).
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein in addtion to (i) one or more diameters of the plurality of holes, each of (ii) a number of the plurality of holes, and (iii) one or more distances between the plurality of holes is determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component.
Albin, JR. teaches a similar vehicle sound absorption and insulation module (Figures 1-4, #10/20), including a similar perforated panel (12/16) that defines a plurality of holes (12a/16a), wherein each of (i) one or more diameters of the plurality of holes, (ii) a number of the plurality of holes, and (iii) one or more distances between the plurality of holes is determined based on a target component of the vehicle to thereby remove noise generated from the target component ([0037], [0040]). The Examiner notes that optimizing perforation size and pattern to target a particular frequency range inherently includes determining a number of perforations, as perforation size and pattern within a finite space will also determine the number of perforations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Draxler, with the apparatus of Albin, JR., so as to provide a sheet material with perforations optimized to facilitate noise absorption over a given range of frequencies.
With respect to claim 8, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches wherein with holes (7) with different diameters are arranged above in the metal layer 3 or metallized layer such that the broadband nature of the sound absorption can be improved ([0056]).
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of holes of the perforated panel are arranged in a layout that is determined by: a first operation of checking a frequency component and a sound pressure intensity of a noise source for one or more portions of a target component of the vehicle for removing noise, a second operation of classifying the frequency component based on a result value obtained through the first operation, a third operation of selecting the layout for the frequency component classified in the second operation, and a fourth operation of performing perforation corresponding to the one or more portions of the target component based on the layout selected in the third operation.
Albin, JR. teaches a similar vehicle sound absorption and insulation module (Figures 1-4, #10/20), including a similar perforated panel (12/16) that defines a plurality of holes (12a/16a), wherein the plurality of holes (12a/16a) of the perforated panel (12/16) are arranged in a layout that is determined by: a first operation of checking a frequency component and a sound pressure intensity of a noise source for one or more portions of a target component of the vehicle for removing noise ([0038]), a second operation of classifying the frequency component based on a result value obtained through the first operation ([0038] – note the discussion of “the target frequency range being determined,” which inherently includes classifying the frequency components), a third operation of selecting the layout for the frequency component classified in the second operation ([0039]-[0040]), and a fourth operation of performing perforation corresponding to the one or more portions of the target component based on the layout selected in the third operation ([0039]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Draxler, with the apparatus of Albin, JR., so as to provide a sheet material with perforations optimized to facilitate noise absorption over a given range of frequencies.
With respect to claim 10, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches a porous perforated panel (3), wherein a cross-sectional thickness of the perforated panel (3) is 0.5 to 3 mm, ([0033] – note the thickness range includes 500 µm, which is the same as 0.5 mm) wherein the plurality of holes (7) have a distance (8) therebetween, wherein a diameter of the plurality of holes is 0.5 to 1 mm ([0055]), and wherein the perforated panel (3), the sound absorption material (4), and the sound insulation material (could be layer #2 or the sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085]) are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in an obvious, but unspecified range ([0056]).
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein a porosity of the perforated panel is 0.5 to 3%, wherein a distance between the plurality of holes is 3 to 8 mm, and wherein the perforated panel, the sound absorption material, and the sound insulation material are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in a range of 1 to 3 kHz.
Albin, JR. teaches a similar vehicle sound absorption and insulation module (Figures 1-4, #10/20), including a similar perforated panel (12/16) that defines a plurality of holes (12a/16a), wherein a porosity range of the perforated panel is unspecified, but is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), wherein a cross-sectional thickness of the perforated panel is 0.5 to 3 mm ([0019]), wherein a distance between the plurality of holes can be 3 to 8 mm ([0022]) and is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), wherein a diameter of the plurality of holes can be 0.5 to 1 mm ([0022]) and is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), and wherein the perforated panel (Draxler, #3, when combined), the sound absorption material (Draxler, #4, when combined), and the sound insulation material (Draxler, #2 or the sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085], when combined) are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in a range of 1 to 3 kHz ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Draxler, with the apparatus of Albin, JR., so as to provide a sheet material with perforations optimized to facilitate noise absorption over a given range of frequencies.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a porosity of the perforated panel is 0.5 to 3%, 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, Albin, JR. teaches wherein the holes spacing and diameter are completely variable based on a desired frequency range to be absorbed, and the porosity of the panel is determined by the diameter and spacing of the holes within the finite area of the perforated panel, and is therefore also completely variable depending on the frequencies in which the panel is optimized to absorb, and setting a porosity/hole diameter/hole spacing to a specific range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the panel to said desired frequency range.
With respect to claim 11, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches a porous perforated panel (3), wherein a cross-sectional thickness of the perforated panel (3) is 0.5 to 3 mm, ([0033] – note the thickness range includes 500 µm, which is the same as 0.5 mm) wherein the plurality of holes (7) have a distance (8) therebetween, wherein a diameter of the plurality of holes is 0.5 to 2 mm ([0055]), and wherein the perforated panel (3), the sound absorption material (4), and the sound insulation material (could be layer #2 or the sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085]) are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in an obvious, but unspecified range ([0056]).
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein a porosity of the perforated panel is 2 to 11%, wherein a distance between the plurality of holes is 1.5 to 4 mm, and wherein the perforated panel, the sound absorption material, and the sound insulation material are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in a range of 3 to 7 kHz.
Albin, JR. teaches a similar vehicle sound absorption and insulation module (Figures 1-4, #10/20), including a similar perforated panel (12/16) that defines a plurality of holes (12a/16a), wherein a porosity range of the perforated panel is unspecified, but is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), wherein a cross-sectional thickness of the perforated panel is 0.5 to 3 mm ([0019]), wherein a distance between the plurality of holes is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), wherein a diameter of the plurality of holes can be 0.5 to 2 mm ([0022]) and is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), and wherein the perforated panel (Draxler, #3, when combined), the sound absorption material (Draxler, #4, when combined), and the sound insulation material (Draxler, #2 or the sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085], when combined) are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in a range of 3 to 7 kHz ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Draxler, with the apparatus of Albin, JR., so as to provide a sheet material with perforations optimized to facilitate noise absorption over a given range of frequencies.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a porosity of the perforated panel is 2 to 11% and herein a distance between the plurality of holes is 1.5 to 4 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, Albin, JR. teaches wherein the holes spacing and diameter are completely variable based on a desired frequency range to be absorbed, and the porosity of the panel is determined by the diameter and spacing of the holes within the finite area of the perforated panel, and is therefore also completely variable depending on the frequencies in which the panel is optimized to absorb, and setting a porosity/hole diameter/hole spacing to a specific range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the panel to said desired frequency range.
With respect to claim 12, Draxler is relied upon for the reasons and disclosures set forth above. Draxler further teaches a porous perforated panel (3), wherein a porosity of the perforated panel is 10% or more ([0057]), wherein a cross-sectional thickness of the perforated panel (3) is 0.5 to 3 mm, ([0033] – note the thickness range includes 500 µm, which is the same as 0.5 mm) wherein the plurality of holes (7) have a distance (8) therebetween, wherein a diameter of the plurality of holes is 0.2 to 2 mm ([0055]), and wherein the perforated panel (3), the sound absorption material (4), and the sound insulation material (could be layer #2 or the sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085]) are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in an obvious, but unspecified range ([0056]).
Draxler fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between the plurality of holes is 1.5 to 4 mm, and wherein the perforated panel, the sound absorption material, and the sound insulation material are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in a range of 7 to 10 kHz.
Albin, JR. teaches a similar vehicle sound absorption and insulation module (Figures 1-4, #10/20), including a similar perforated panel (12/16) that defines a plurality of holes (12a/16a), wherein a cross-sectional thickness of the perforated panel is 0.5 to 3 mm ([0019]), wherein a distance between the plurality of holes is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), wherein a diameter of the plurality of holes can be 0.2 to 2 mm ([0022]) and is variable/optimized depending on a desired frequcy range to be absorbed ([0029], [0036]-[0040]), and wherein the perforated panel (Draxler, #3, when combined), the sound absorption material (Draxler, #4, when combined), and the sound insulation material (Draxler, #2 or the sealing/dense polypropylene containing layer formed between layers #4 and #2 – [0085], when combined) are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency an obvious frequency range ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Draxler, with the apparatus of Albin, JR., so as to provide a sheet material with perforations optimized to facilitate noise absorption over a given range of frequencies.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a distance between the plurality of holes is 0.5 to 4 mm and wherein the perforated panel, the sound absorption material, and the sound insulation material are coupled to one another and configured to eliminate a noise having a frequency in a range of 7 to 10 kHz, 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, Albin, JR. teaches wherein the holes spacing and diameter are completely variable based on a desired frequency range to be absorbed, and the porosity of the panel is determined by the diameter and spacing of the holes within the finite area of the perforated panel, and is therefore also completely variable depending on the frequencies in which the panel is optimized to absorb, and setting a porosity/hole diameter/hole spacing to absorb and particular frequency range, including 7 to 10 kHz, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to tune the panel to said desired frequency range. Additionally, it is noted that the claims do not require any particular level of noise reduction within the claimed ranges, so even and infinitesimal amount of noise reduction of sound within the claimed ranges will satisfy the claim requirements. Further, an absorption panel will likely provide at least a very small amount of sound absorption of frequencies outside its target range, especially in higher frequency ranges above the target range, even if said higher frequency range reduction is of an infinitesimal amount of reduction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
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