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
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blümel et al. (US 6,063,507) in view of Matsuyama et al. (US 7,762,375), and further in view of Yamashita (US 4,878,414).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Blümel et al. teach a cover panel, comprising a formed first sheet (Fig.2, Item 5) having a plurality of spaced protrusions (Fig.2, Items 4) formed therein; a filling material (Fig.2, Item 7) applied to the formed first sheet; and a second sheet (Fig.2, Item 6) secured to the formed first sheet; but fail to disclose wherein the filling material is a plurality of damping pads.
On the other hand, Matsuyama et al. teach a cover panel, comprising a formed first sheet (Fig.6, Item 31) having a plurality of spaced protrusions (Fig.6, Items 312) formed therein; a plurality of damping pads (Fig.6, Items 1) applied to the formed first sheet.
Yamashita teaches the use of a damping pad being made from felt or rubber (Col.4, Line 40 – 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Matsuyama et al. damping pads with the Yamashita damping material as the Blümel et al. filling material because it would provide a predetermined damping characteristic and would permit the versatility of using the damping pads in selected areas where sound control is more needed, in this manner controlling the overall weight of the cover panel.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Matsuyama et al. teach wherein the plurality of damping pads (Fig.6, Items 1) include a plurality of patches that are adhered to the formed first sheet (Fig.6, Item 31).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the plurality of damping pads being a liquid applied damping material because it would facilitate the application of the damping material just as the application of the well-known polyurethane foam; furthermore, 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 claims 4 and 14, Matsuyama et al. teach wherein the plurality of damping pads (Fig.6, Items 1) are each applied between two adjacent protrusions (Fig.6, Items 312).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Blümel et al. teach wherein the plurality of damping pads (Fig.2, Item 7) are compressed by the second sheet (Fig.2, Item 6).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Blümel et al. teach wherein the first and second sheets (Fig.2, Items 5 and 6) are made from metal (Col.5, Lines 53 – 54) and are welded (Fig.2, Items 9; Col.5, Line 59) together.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Blümel et al. teach wherein the second sheet (Fig.2, Item 6) is adhered (Fig.2, Item 9) to the formed first sheet (Fig.2, Item 5).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide the formed first sheet having a perimeter edge that is raised at a same height as the plurality of spaced protrusions because it would permit the cover to be attached to a surface to be covered, as disclosed by Sachdev et al. (US 2023/0108070), Kloppe et al. (US 4,559,274) or Blacklin et al. (US 4,411,121).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Blümel et al. teach wherein the formed first sheet and the second sheet are made from one of aluminum, magnesium, titanium, polymer composite, carbon fiber composite and steel (Col.6, Line 12). Additionally, 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 claims 10 and 20, Blümel et al. teach wherein the second sheet (Fig.2, Item 6) is flat, and the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide the formed first sheet having a perimeter edge that is raised at a same height as the plurality of spaced protrusions and the second sheet being secured to the raised peripheral surface of the first stamped sheet metal panel because it would permit the cover to be attached to a surface to be covered, as disclosed by Sachdev et al. (US 2023/0108070), Kloppe et al. (US 4,559,274) or Blacklin et al. (US 4,411,121).
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 11, 12 and 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porsche (DE 298 23 412) in view of Mantovani et al. (WO 2008/098395).
With respect to claim 1 and 11, Porsche teaches a cover panel, comprising a formed first sheet (Fig.4, Item 1) having a plurality of spaced protrusions (Fig.4, Items 6a) formed therein; a plurality of damping pads (Fig.4, Item 4) applied to the formed first sheet, the damping pads being made from bitumen (¶ [0021]); and a second sheet (Fig.4, Item 2) secured (Fig.4, Items 7) to the formed first sheet (Fig.4, Item 1); but fails to particularly disclose wherein the damping pads being made from one of metal, silicone, or rubber.
On the other hand, Mantovani et al. teach the use of rubber or bitumen as damping material (Page 8, Lines 5 – 8, Page 9, Lines 4 – 7 and Page 13, Line 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Mantovani et al. rubber as the Porsche damping material because it would provide similar damping characteristics as the bitumen while exhibiting better elasticity, durability and versatility.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Porsche teaches wherein the plurality of damping pads (Fig.4, Items 4) include a plurality of patches that are adhered to the formed first sheet (Fig.4, Item 1).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Porsche teaches wherein the plurality of damping pads (Fig.4, Items 4) are each applied between two adjacent protrusions (Fig.4, Items 6a).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Porsche teaches wherein the plurality of damping pads (Fig.4, Items 4) are compressed by the second sheet (Fig.4, Item 2).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Porsche teaches wherein the first and second sheets (Fig.4, Items 1 and 2) are made from metal (¶ [0027]) and are welded (Fig.4, Items 7) together.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Porsche teaches wherein the second sheet (Fig.4, Item 2) is adhered (Fig.4, Items 7) to the formed first sheet (Fig.4, Item 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a reference(s) that were not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-39853985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
March 16, 2026