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 § 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(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasland (US4377440) in view of Zuo (US20210285207).
With respect to claim1 Gasland discloses a method of making a panel (abstract a paperboard would constitute a panel), the method comprising the steps of:
Providing a predetermined amount of cellulose fibers (abstract; column 2 lines 50-55), said cellulose fibers having an average length (unspecified but the fibers will inherently have an average length);
Soaking the cellulose in a water basin to form a pulp (column 3 lines 50-65);
Depositing said pulp on a molding die (column 3 lines 50-65 and column 4 lines 30-40, see also figure 3 );
Pressing said pulp in order to cause at least a partial removal of the water contained in the pulp making a fiber mat (column 2 lines 5-15);
Drying said fiber mat so as to cause evaporation of the water remaining in the fiber mat making said panel (column 2 lines 5-15).
Gasland does not expressly disclose the panel as being an acoustic panel.
Cellulosic molded fiber panels are known in the art of acoustic panels and would have been obvious to use in such an application (see Zuo para 101).
Gasland as modified does not expressly disclose the selection of the fiber average length, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such a selection to have been obvious as the fiber length would have an effect on the formation of the pulp and the application through the spraying nozzle which is taught to be the application method of Gasland.
The selection of such fiber lengths would have been within the skill of one in the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 2 Gasland as modified discloses the step of adding at least one dye (Gasland column 7 lines 10-15) so as to give a predetermined coloring to the pulp. While not expressly stating the dye is added to the water basin one of ordinary skill would understand this to be the case as the water would provide a solution for the dye to dissolve into. Further the use of a natural dye would have been an obvious matter of selecting a known dye for a known use. The use of natural dye would have been only using a known material in a known way. 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 3 as it regards the selection of the dye particle size this would have been an obvious matter to select. Dye particle size would be tied to the manner in which the dye dissolved in a known manner and would impart itself into the pulped product in a known manner. Such a selection of range would have been within the skill of one in the art based upon the desired properties thereof. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 4 Gasland (column 1 lines 50-65) further discloses the steps of collecting the water removed from the pulp during said pressing step; introducing the collected water into said basin.
With respect to claim 5 Gasland (column 1 lines 50-65) further discloses the method comprises a step of purifying said collected water so as to remove said at least one dye before the introduction step (filtration is taught to remove impurities. One could determine the dye particles to be an impurity based upon there being an unknown amount of the dye which would produce a nonuniform product and as such filter out the dye particle to allow for a uniform amount of the dye within the slurry).
With respect to claim 6 as it regards the selection of the temperature of drying Gasland (column 3 lines 1-5) discloses drying at different temperatures which would allow for one of ordinary skill to select an appropriate drying temperature including one selected from the claimed range . Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7 Gasland (column 5 lines 10-20) discloses the application on at least one surface of an element produces a waterproofing element. The selection of any known type of waterproofing material would have been obvious. The use of an aqueous solution to apply the waterproofing element would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as such a solution could be applied while the pulped element was still wet without issue this increasing the efficiency of the manufacture. Regarding acrylic per se, such materials are well known in the art to applied to paper elements and as such their use would have been well understood. 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 Gasland as modified further discloses the device having a density (see figures 7-19) regarding a volumetric density rather than areal this would have been an obvious smatter to allow for the consideration of the support of the device as would need to be accounted for in such elements as ceiling panels as is taught by Zuo. Regarding the specific claimed range such values would have been obvious as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 9 Gasland as modified further discloses a sound absorbing value (Zuo discloses an acoustic product). Regarding thew specific claimed range has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bartella (US20200270861) discloses an acoustic panel including acrylic application; Jacek (US20200024844) discloses an acoustic panel; Wu (US20060036004) discloses a cellulose reinforced structure.
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