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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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 1-3 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, the term “relatively thin film” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively thin film” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by this indefinite term. For purposes of examination, “relatively thin” means any thickness film.
The claim recites the term “uniform low tension” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniform low tension” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by this indefinite term. For purposes of examination, “uniform low tension” means any uniform tension.
The claim recites “a drywall panel” and then recites “the panel” twice and “the drywall” twice. This creates an issue of antecedent basis as to one with ordinary skill in the art may be uncertain if the references are difference. For purposes of examination, “the panel” and “the drywall” are interpreted to “the drywall panel”.
The claim recites “areas of the film exceeding respective areas of the panel covered thereby such that the film is loose from the drywall”. It is uncertain what “areas of the film exceeding respective areas of the panel covered” The Specification does not further define the limitation. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain what this limitation means other than the film is loose from the drywall.
Claims 2-3 are rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 1 recites “a drywall panel” and then Claim 3 recites “the panel”. This creates an issue of antecedent basis as to one with ordinary skill in the art may be uncertain if the references are difference. For purposes of examination, “the panel” and “the drywall” are interpreted to “the drywall panel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruemler (EP 2408976 B9).
Regarding Claim 1, Ruemler teaches a drywall panel perforated front to back across the full area of the panel (Fig 2-3, Item 11; Paragraph 0001-0003), a film across a backside of the panel (Fig. 2-3, Item 15) and adhesive strips, adhesive in discrete lines, between the backside of the drywall panel and isolating perforations from other perforations and maintaining the film off the drywall panel adjacent the perforations. (Fig. 2-3, Item 14). Reumeler teaches the film is loose from the drywall at the perforations (Fig. 2) and is capable of vibrating when subjected to sound vibrations in the perforations and the film preventing air flow through the perforations (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0026-0028).
Reumeler does not specifically teach the film has a uniform tension. However, Reumeler shows cover in uniform planar flat arrangement when no sound vibration is applied (Fig. 2) and uniform periodicity when sound is applied (Fig. 3). Thus, it would have been reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art the film of Ruemler is in uniform tension.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruemler in view of Bury et al. (US 9,738,796 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ruemler teaches the front side of the drywall panel is covered with a fiber element and plaster, which will optically obscure the perforations. (Paragraph 0012, 0031). Ruemler does not specifically teach the fiber element is an acoustically transparent scrim coated with an acoustically transparent coating.
Bury teaches perforated drywall panels/acoustic absorbers front covered with an acoustically transparent scrim coated with an acoustically transparent coating (Column 2, Lines 54-64, Column 3, Lines 1-20). Bury teaches this method of covering a perforated drywall panel will not diminish the acoustic absorption properties of the absorber will being much easier to apply (cheaper). (Column 1, Lines 19-26). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art apply the clamed scrim and coating as taught by Bury as the front cover of Ruemler for a cheaper covering that still allow for good acoustic absorption properties.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruemler in view of Lu (WO 2021/045683 A1), GIK Acoustics (NPL) and acousthetics (NPL).
Regarding Claim 3, Ruemler does not specifically teach an acoustical backer is spaced 1 to 2 inches from a backside of the panel.
Lu teaches mounting acoustical absorber with perforations and spaced from a back panel. (Fig. 5-6; Page 20) Lu teaches the distance is about 40 mm or 20 mm (Page 20, 24).
GIK Acoustics teaches spacing acoustic panels from the wall, an acoustical backer, with the distance varying on the thickness of the acoustical panel and the desired frequency to be blocked. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance, including the claimed, of the drywall panel of Ruemler from a wall to improve acoustic absorption at various frequencies as taught by GIK Acoustics.
In addition, acousthetics teaches a perforated drywall operating as an acoustic absorber and has various air gaps, where the air gaps aid in improving acoustic performance at various frequencies. Acousthetics teaches having an air gap of 2.5 inches where the air gap has 1-inch mineral wool batting has marked improved absorption at certain frequencies. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have an acoustical backer and then space the back side of the panel from the backer to the claimed range as taught by Lu, GIK and acousthestics to improve acoustic absorption at various frequencies.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781