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 § 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.
Claims 3 and 11 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 claims 3 and 11, intendent claims 1 and 9 establish that “the first foam layer, second foam layer and third foam layer are coupled together free of an intervening layer,” while claims 3 and 11 then require “wherein the first foam layer is coupled to the second foam layer through one or more of an adhesive, fastener, lamination, pour, or binder,” which is indefinite. Adhesives, fasters, laminations and binders will implicitly or explicitly constitute “intervening layers,” as the “inherent tackiness” of the layers being poured onto one another is the only coupling method described by Applicant’s disclosure as being free of an intervening layer (See Specification, [0016], [0061]-[0062]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(12) as being anticipated by Zickmantel (8,631,899).
With respect to claim 1, Zickmantel teaches an insulation component (device of Figure 11, #14/15/16/17/18/19), comprising: a first foam layer (15) having a first density (Col. 8, Lines 64-67); a second foam layer (16) coupled to the first foam layer (15), wherein the second foam layer (16) has a second density less (Col. 9, Lines 3-6) than the first density; and a third foam layer (17) coupled to the second foam layer, wherein the third foam layer has a third density (Col. 9, Lines 9-12) less than the second density; the first foam layer (15), second foam layer (16) and third foam layer (17) are coupled together free of an intervening layer (Col. 5, Lines 26-33); the first (15) and second (15) foam layers comprise a similar material (Col. 4, Line 65-Col. 5, Line 4; Col. 10, Lines 18-20); and the first density, second density and third density define a density gradient that at least partially provides an average sound absorption coefficient between 0.1 and 0.4 to the insulation component (See Figure 9).
With respect to claim 9, Zickmantel teaches an insulation component (device of Figure 11, #14/15/16/17/18/19), comprising: a first foam layer (15) having a closed-cell structure (Col. 4, Line 67-Col. 5, Line 1; Col. 9, Lines 22-23 – note the semi-closed foam of layer #15 includes a closed cell structure) and a first density (Col. 8, Lines 64-67); a second foam layer (16) coupled to the first foam layer (15), wherein the second foam layer (16) having a open-cell structure (Col. 9, Lines 22-23); and the second foam layer (16) has a second density less (Col. 9, Lines 3-6) than the first density; and a third foam layer (17) coupled to the second foam layer, wherein the third foam layer has a third density (Col. 9, Lines 9-12) less than the second density; the first foam layer (15), second foam layer (16) and third foam layer (17) are coupled together free of an intervening layer (Col. 5, Lines 26-33); the first (15) and second (15) foam layers comprise a similar material (Col. 4, Line 65-Col. 5, Line 4; Col. 10, Lines 18-20); and the first density, second density and third density define a density gradient that at least partially provides an average sound absorption coefficient between 0.1 and 0.4 to the insulation component (See Figure 9).
With respect to claim 17, Zickmantel teaches method (method of forming device of device of Figure 11), comprising: providing a first polyol; adding a first isocyanate to the first polyol (note that Zickmantel teaches that the foam layers are PU/polyurethane foams - Col. 4, Line 65-Col. 5, Line 4; Col. 10, Lines 18-20; and polyol and isocyanate are inherent to polyurethane foams as is well known and discussed in Applicant’s Specification, [0025]-[0029]) to form a first foam core (15), wherein the first foam core (15) includes a first density (Col. 8, Lines 64-67); providing a second polyol; adding a second isocyanate to the second polyol (note that Zickmantel teaches that the foam layers are PU/polyurethane foams - Col. 4, Line 65-Col. 5, Line 4; Col. 10, Lines 18-20; and polyol and isocyanate are inherent to polyurethane foams as is well known and discussed in Applicant’s Specification, [0025]-[0029]) to form a second foam core (16), wherein: the second foam core (16) has a second density (Col. 9, Lines 3-6) less than the first density; and the first (16) and second (16) foam cores comprise a similar material (Col. 4, Line 65-Col. 5, Line 4; Col. 10, Lines 18-20); and coupling the first foam core (15) to the second foam core (16) ; and coupling a third foam core (17) to the second foam core (16) together to form an insulation component (device of Figure 11), the insulation component (106), wherein the third foam layer has a third density (Col. 9, Lines 9-12) less than the second density; the first foam layer (15), second foam layer (16) and third foam layer (17) are coupled together free of an intervening layer (Col. 5, Lines 26-33); and the first density, second density and third density define a density gradient that at least partially provides an average sound absorption coefficient between 0.1 and 0.4 to the insulation component (See Figure 9).
With respect to claims 2, 10 and 18, Zickmantel teaches wherein the insulation component (Figure 11, #14/15/16/17/18/19) includes the average sound absorption coefficient at a frequency range between 50 and 2,050 Hz (see Figure 9). Note that the frequency range yielding an average sound absorption coefficient between 0.1 and 0.4 fall within the range between 50 and 2,050 Hz.
With respect to claims 3 and 11, Zickmantel teaches wherein the first foam layer (15) is coupled to the second foam layer (16) through one or more of an adhesive, fastener (defined by housing #19), lamination, pour, or binder.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Zickmantel teaches further comprising a facer layer (could be layer 14 and/or perforated front side of layer 19 – Col. 8, Lines 46-52) coupled to either the first (15) or second foam layers.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Zickmantel teaches wherein the facer layer (19) includes at least one of a plurality of microparticles or perforations (Col. 8, Lines 49-52).
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Zickmantel teaches a wall system (Figure 11), comprising: a wall (13); and the insulation component (14/15/16/17/18/19) of claim 1.
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 4-5, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickmantel (8,631,899).
With respect to claims 4, 12 and 19, Zickmantel teaches the insulation component and method of claims 1, 9 and 17.
Zickmantel fails to teach wherein the first foam layer includes a density between 1.4 and 1.9 pcf.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the first foam layer includes a density between 1.4 and 1.9 pcf, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, altering the density of the foam layer #15 of Zickmantel be to be between 1.4 and 1.9 pcf would have been obvious so as to desirably tune the device, as is well known in the art.
With respect to claims 5, 13 and 20, Zickmantel teaches the insulation component and method of claims 1, 9 and 17.
Zickmantel fails to teach wherein the second foam layer includes a density between 0.3 and 0.8 pcf.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the second foam layer includes a density between 0.3 and 0.8 pcf, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, altering the density of the foam layer #16 of Zickmantel be to be between 0.3 and 0.8 pcf would have been obvious so as to desirably tune the device, as is well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers the newly cited Zickmantel to teach all of the limitations as claimed.
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 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