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 I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/5/25 is acknowledged.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2005024430 A – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Kohara (2006/0021823).
With respect to claim 1, Sato teaches a sound absorption module (Figures 1-8, #100) configured to reduce noise radiated from a tire (defined by wheel #4, inherently including a tire), the sound absorption module (100) comprising: a box outer plate (101) configured to form an outer shape of the sound absorption module (100) and form a skeleton of the sound absorption module (100); and a sound absorption material (104) coupled to an inner surface of box outer plate (101).
Sato fails to explicitly teach wherein the sound absorption module is a sound absorption and isolation module, such that it includes a sound isolation sheet coupled to an inner surface of the box outer plate; and the sound absorption material is coupled to an inner surface of the sound isolation sheet.
Kohara, in the same filed of endeavor (sound absorption/isolation), teaches wherein it is known to further reduce/isolate noise through a structure (Figures 1-2, #1) by providing a noise isolation sheet (11/12) interposed between a similar box outer plate (defined by exterior door structure #1) and a sound absorption material (13), such that when combined the sound absorption module (Sato, #100) is a sound absorption and isolation module, such that it includes a sound isolation sheet (Kohara, #11/12) coupled to an inner surface of the box outer plate (Sato, #101, Kohara, #1); and the sound absorption material (Sato, #104, Kohara, #13) is coupled to an inner surface of the sound isolation sheet (Kohara, #11/12). Note Figure 12 of Kohara, which shows that a sheet which includes the NI sheet (11/12) plus sound absorbing felt material (13) has an increased transmission loss compared to sheet a that includes a felt material by itself ([0057]-[0058]).
Because Kohara teaches that including a sound/noise isolation sheet (layers #11/12) between a cover layer/outer box layer (1) and a sound absorbing material layer (13) functions to increase a transmission loss of sound through the structure, when compared to a similar structure lacking the sound/noise isolation sheet, 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 Sato, with the apparatus of Kohara, so as to further reduce noise through the structure of Sato by incorporating the noise isolation sheet of Kohara into the structure of Sato, yielding an increased sound transmission loss through the structure.
With respect to claim 2, Sato and Kohara teach the sound absorption and isolation module of claim 1. Sato and Kohara further teach wherein the box outer plate (Sato, #101) is made of an obvious, but unspecified material to prevent the noise from escaping to an outside thereof (inherent to main body #101 of soundproofing device #100).
Sato and Kohara fail to explicitly teach wherein the unspecified material of the box outer plate is aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the unspecified material of the box outer plate is aluminum, 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. In this case, forming the main body #101 of the soundproofing device #100 from aluminum would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 3, Sato and Kohara teach the sound absorption and isolation module of claim 1. Sato and Kohara further teach wherein the sound isolation sheet (11/12) is formed of a material to prevent the noise from escaping to an outside of the sound isolation sheet (11/12).
Sato and Kohara fail to explicitly teach wherein the sound isolation sheet is formed of a thermoplastic material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the sound isolation sheet is formed of a thermoplastic material, 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. In this case, forming the foam layers #11/12 of the sound isolation sheet from a thermoplastic material would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 4, Kohara teaches wherein the sound absorption material (13, when combined) is formed of a polyurethane material (i.e. “urethane”) to absorb and reduce the noise ([0049]). It is further noted that 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, Sato as modified teaches wherein the sound absorption material (Figure 7b, #104) has a convex protrusion formed over an entire area of the sound absorption material and configured to increase a sound absorption effect (See translation, pages 8-9, ¶ beginning with the “Modification 1” section on page 8).
With respect to claim 6, Sato as modified teaches wherein the sound isolation sheet (Kohara, #11/12, when combined) and the sound absorption material (Sato, #104) are provided with a cushioning function (inherent to the disclosed materials and their ability to absorb sound) to increase a sound absorption and isolation effect.
With respect to claim 7, Sato as modified teaches wherein the noise is generated from the tire when the tire is inserted into an inner space of the sound absorption material (Sato, 104) and is rotated therein (See translation, page 3, [0007]), wherein the noise is firstly reduced by being absorbed through the sound absorption material (Sato, 104), and wherein the noise is secondly reduced through the sound isolation sheet (Kohara, #11/12, when combined) and the box outer plate (Sato, 101).
With respect to claim 8, Sato as modified teaches further comprising a handle (106) coupled to the box outer plate (101).
With respect to claim 9, Sato as modified teaches further comprising a pad (Figure 4, #102a) member coupled along an edge of one side surface of the box outer plate (1), the pad member (102a) configured to prevent the noise generated from the tire from leaking to an outside of the pad member (102a) by contacting a vehicle body (3) around the tire (See translation, page 7, ¶ beginning with “Fig. 5 shows…”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2005024430 A – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Kohara (2006/0021823), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Park (2018/0174381)
With respect to claim 10, Sato and Kohara teach wherein: the sound absorption and isolation module (Sato, #100 when combined with Kohara, NI sheet #11/12) is formed by integrally combining the box outer plate (Sato, #101), the sound isolation sheet (Kohara, #11/12), the sound absorption material (Sato, #104), and the pad member (Sato, #102a); and the sound absorption and isolation module covers all of the tires (defined by front tires in the example of Sato – see translation, ¶ begging at top of Page 5) of a vehicle entering a an exhaust gas emissions test on a chassis dynamometer, including a roller assembly in a one-to-one correspondence manner (i.e. one module #100 per tire being tested) so as to reduce the noise generated when the tires are rotated (see translation, Page 2, [0005]-end of Page 4).
Sato and Kohara fail to explicitly teach wherein the roller/test assembly includes a “roll-and-brake process”.
Park teaches wherein an additional known vehicle test is a roll and brake test/process, also performed on a similar roller assembly, so as to test for a vehicle error, assembly, an acceleration performance, and a brake performance in a running condition similar to a situation occurring on a road. The roll and brake test/apparatus enables an inline processor to guarantee a quality of a vehicle (see abstract, [0002]-[0003]).
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 Sato as modified, with the apparatus of Park, so as to perform the roll-and-brake test/process of Park with the sound absorption and isolation module of Sato as modified, for the purpose of testing a vehicle such that an inline processor can guarantee a quality of a vehicle, while reducing tire noise during the test process, as the testing devices of both Sato as modified and Park utilize roller assemblies to allow a vehicle wheel to rotate during said tests, generating wheel/tire noise that will be reduced by the sound absorption and isolation module of Sato as modified, when covering all of the tires entering the test process in a one-to one correspondence manner.
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