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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/26regarding claim1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 the prior art as applied in the previous rejection was not relied on to teach a metallic protective layer, however as layer 44 of McCarthy, previously identified as the protective layer is taught to also be optionally a metallic layer (column 10 lines 1-20) namely a metal foil, such a layer is disclosed.
Regarding however the newly claimed limitations of claims 14 and 18 that the layer is a metallized film, such a limitation is not taught by McCarthy in view of Vidovic. The arguments regarding such a limitation being taught are persuasive and a new rejection in view of the new limitation is provided below.
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.
1.Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy (US4456705) in view of Vidovic (US201702214697).
With respect to claim 1 McCarthy discloses a sound control membrane comprising:
An adhesive layer (46);
A protective layer (44) attached to the adhesive layer ; and
A thermal isolating layer (42) attached to the adhesive layer;
Wherein the adhesive layer (46) is disposed between the protective e layer (44) and the thermal
isolating layer (42),
wherein the protective layer (44) is a metallic layer (column 10 lines 1-20).
McCarthy does not expressly disclose the adhesive layer as being a viscoelastic adhesive layer.
Vidovic discloses a multilayer sound control membrane including the use of a viscoelastic
material as the adhesive for bonding the respective elements together (see paragraph 20).
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the
effective filing to combine the teachings of Vidovic to use a viscoelastic material as the adhesive as it
would provide additional damping to the sound while simultaneously serving as a bonding agent between the respective layers.
With respect to claim 2 McCarthy as modified further discloses wherein the viscoelastic layer is formed form a rubber material (para 20 of Vidovic).
With respect to claim 3 McCarthy as modified further discloses wherein the viscoeleastic layer is formed from butyl rubber (para 20 of Vidovic).
With respect to claim 4 while not expressly disclosing the use of a caoutchouc material it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any appropriate known viscoelastic material based upon the desired properties of the device as finally produced. 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 respect to claim 5 McCarthy as modified further discloses wherein the thermal isolating layer (42) is formed from a foam material (see column 10 lines 1-20 of McCarthy).
With respect to claim 6 McCarthy as mdofieid further discloses (see again column 10) wherein the thermal isolating layer is formed from foamed polymer material.
With respect to claim 7 McCarthy as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the thermal isolating layer is formed from foamed caoutchouc. The selection of any known material to be foamed would have been obvious based upon the desired properties of the final device. 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.
With respect to claim 8 McCarthy as modified further discloses wherein the protective layer is formed from metallic foil (McCarthy column 10 lines 1-20).
With respect to claim 9 McCarthy as modified further discloses wherein each of the viscoelastic layer, the protective layer and the thermal isolating layer is a flexible layer (by nature of being formed of the respective materials this is necessarily the case).
With respect to claim 10 McCarthy discloses the device as being laminated, the inclusion of the overall foamed layer which is an adhesive means that the surface portion of the foamed layer would be an adhesive layer in the manner as claimed.
With respect to claim 11-13 As it regards selecting the desired thermal conductivity or level of sound insulation and thickness this would be merely a matter of tuning and optimizing the structure. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
2. Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy (US4456705) in view of Vidovic (US201702214697) as applied to claims 1-13 above and in further view of Sherman (US20080318065).
With respect to claim 14 McCarthy as modified discloses the invention as claimed respect wherein the protective layer is a metallized film. McCarthy as modified discloses the sue of a metal foil, but not a metallized film (see McCarthy column 10 lines 1-20).
Sherman discloses (para 153) the use of metallized films in a multilayer acoustic as an equivalent to a metal foil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to use a metallized film in place of a metal foil as they are functional equivalents and the resulting product would have predictable success.
With respect to claim 15 McCarthy as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the level of sound reduction being between 10 and 35 dB. This would constitute only a tuning of the structure and would have been an obvious matter to one of orinday skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 16 McCarrthy as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the temperature is exposed to the claimed temperature range. The device is taught to be used with an automobile floor, and as such would be exposed to the temperatures of the outside world and the temperatures resulting from the heat passing through the exhaust pipes of the automobile. The selection of a material which would be able to withstand the claimed temperature range would have been an obvious matter for one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the temperature range expected to be encountered by any given structure.
With respect to claim 17 McCarthy as modified discloses the device as claimed except for the presence of a peelable cover layer, such installations are known in the art for the application of sound deadening materials which are preformed and then adhered to the vehicle structure. One of orinday skill would have selected such a process to allow for simple installation in a known manner which could be accomplished without the need for specialized tools by a person repairing a vehicle.
With respect to claim 18 McCarthy as modified further discloses a sound control apparatus comprising: A sound control apparatus comprising: A sound control membrane as detailed in the above rejections of claims 1 and depending including the use of the metallized film as detailed in claim 14; and a member around which the sound control membrane is wrapped (attachment to the floor panel is considered to suggest a wrapping process to one of ordinary skill).
With respect to claim 19 McCarthy as modified further discloses wherein the viscoelastic layer is formed from butyl rubber (para 20 of Vidovic). With respect to claim 20 McCarthy as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the inclusion of a removable cover layer to be removed prior to installation (device is intended to be applied, the use of a cover layer to protect an adhesive is a known means of installation and would have been an obvious matter to select to allow installation without the need for specialized tools).With respect to claim 19 McCarthy as modified further discloses wherein the viscoelastic layer is formed from butyl rubber (para 20 of Vidovic).
With respect to claim 20 McCarthy as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the inclusion of a removable cover layer to be removed prior to installation (device is intended to be applied, the use of a cover layer to protect an adhesive is a known means of installation and would have been an obvious matter to select to allow installation without the need for specialized tools).
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 FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 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) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837