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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites that “at least 50% is in contact…”, but there is no recitation what the 50% limitation is referencing and therefore this claim (and dependent claims 2-18) are indefinite.
Claims 2-13 are all dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a wheel arch, but these dependent claims are directed to a wheel arch liner. This change in scope of the claims causes these claims to be indefinite.
Claim 4 is further indefinite as it recites the limitation “the optional third layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether each layer has the recited variable characteristics or these characteristics vary between the different (first/second) layers.
Claim 9 is further indefinite due to the use of the term “preferably” in two places. It is unclear if these preferred characteristics are being positively recited as further limitations to the scope of the claim.
Claim 12 is further indefinite as it recites the limitation “the third layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim is also indefinite due to the use of the term “preferably” in two places. It is unclear if these preferred characteristics are being positively recited as further limitations to the scope of the claim.
Claim 13 is further indefinite due to the use of the term “preferably” in two places. It is unclear if these preferred characteristics are being positively recited as further limitations to the scope of the claim.
Claim 15 is further indefinite due the claim's recitation that "in particular, a third film layer” is provided. This language causes confusion as to whether any additional structural or positional relationship should be read into the claim due to the use of the “in particular” terminology (i.e., whether this phrase adds any further limitation to the claim). Claims 16-18 are rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
Claim 16 is further indefinite as it recites the limitations “the molding tool” and “the mold.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for either of these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4-9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson, Jr. et al. (9,922,634).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Thompson discloses wheel arch for a motor vehicle, with a wheel arch housing component (48; see e.g. Fig. 5) for at least partially delimiting the wheel arch for a vehicle wheel of the motor vehicle, and with a wheel arch lining (44 in Fig. 5), which is arranged on the surface of the wheel arch housing component facing the wheel and extends at least partially along this surface, wherein the wheel arch lining (44) comprises at least one support layer (46, see e.g., description of the second layer starting at Col. 11, line 17) and one fiber layer (45, see e.g., description of the first layer starting at Col. 4, line 30), wherein the support layer forms the outer side of the wheel arch lining facing the wheel and the fiber layer being arranged between the wheel arch housing component and the support layer (see Fig. 5), and the support layer and the fiber layer being thermally bonded to one another (see Col. 12, lines 54-63 describing that the layers can be bonded to each other and to other components using thermal bonding) and formed to a wheel arch lining and wherein at least 50% is in contact with the wheel arch housing component (see Fig. 5 showing at least 50% of the liner is in contact with the arch housing 48).
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Thompson further discloses that a fiber layer (45/First Layer) comprises a protective layer (see e.g., Fig. 6 showing a protecting layer 52 bonded to an inboard woven sound insulating layer 56, see Col. 14, lines 60-67) arranged on the surface of the fiber layer facing, wherein such a configuration would result in the inner layer 52 facing the wheel arch housing component in a wheelhouse liner use case (see Col. 12, lines 6-19).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Thompson further discloses that the support layer (second layer, see Col., 11 lines 23-28 describing the sound absorption feature of the second layer) and/or the fiber layer comprise sound-absorbing properties and the fiber layer, the optional third layer, and the support layer together have sound-insulating properties (see Col., 4, lines 31-43 describing the sound insulative feature of at least the first/fiber layer).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Thompson further discloses that the individual layers within the wheel arch lining comprise a variable thickness, density and/or weight per unit area (see e.g., Col. 5, lines 38-54 describing the physical properties of the first/fiber layer; and Col. 11, lines 54-67 describing the second layer).
Regarding claims 6-8 (as best understood), Thompson further discloses that the first/fiber layer has a maximum thickness of 35mm or less (see Col. 5, lines 1-4 describing the thickness of the first fiber layer can be less than a range of possible thicknesses which read upon the recited thicknesses regardless of whether they are installed on the arch).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), Thompson further discloses that the laminated material that can be formed as an arch liner can be air-permeable (see air permeable first layer Col. 12, lines 21-22 and air permeable second layer at Col. 14, lines 23-27), preferably with an air resistance of 500 to 6000 Rayls, preferably with an air resistance of 1500 to 4000 Rayls (see e.g., Col., 4, lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Thompson further discloses that the first/fiber layer comprises a basis weight of 400 to 1600 g/m2 (see Col. 4, line 64).
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Thompson further discloses that the first/fiber layer or the second/support layer comprises matrix fibers and binder fibers, wherein the matrix fibers are short fibers or continuous filaments, preferably based on a thermoplastic material, further preferably of synthetic, mineral or natural origin (see Col. 5, lines 5-36 describing the materials used being a matrix fiber and binder fibers).
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 of this title, 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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Loisier et al. (EP 3409468, see attached copy).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, while Thompson discloses that multiple layers can be laminated together to form a sound insulating construction and particularly, that the first fibrous layer can include thin film layer (see e.g., Col. 10, lines 11-21), it does not disclose the weight per unit of a third adhesive layer.
Loisier teaches that a laminated thermoplastic automobile component can use a polyurethane adhesive layer (3, see ¶0025) between a fibrous layer (2) and a denser/decoupling layer (4) and that this layer (3) can have a weight between 5-200 g/m2 (see e.g., ¶0025).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the wheel arch of Thompson to include a thermoplastic adhesive layer between the fiber layer and support layer as taught by Loisier to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., bonding layers in a laminated structure with an adhesive material) to known devices (e.g., a laminated sound absorbing construction) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Menozzi (US 2020/0139667).
Regarding claim 10, while Thompson discloses a plastic second support layer (e.g., layer 46 in Fig. 5), it does not disclose the weight per unit of this layer.
Menozzi teaches another laminated wheel arch (see ¶0001) wherein the layers can have a weight per unit area within the recited range of 500-1400 g/m2 (see ¶0045).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the wheel arch of Thompson to use a support layer having a weight/area between 500-1400 g/m2 as taught by Menozzi to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a plastic layer having a particular weight to area) for another (a generic plastic material) to yield predictable results (a component that balances weight, cost, and relative strength).
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Yang et al. (CN 111016373, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 18, while Thompson discloses that a multiple layered laminated construction is thermally bonded/formed together (see e.g., Col. 10, lines 11-21), it does not disclose that a single-stage thermal forming of the layers.
Yang teaches another laminated sound insulative construction wherein the layers are thermally bonded via a mold/forming tool that uses steam pressurized up to 15 bar (see top of page 4 of attached translation) to single stage thermal form an acoustic panel, wherein the two mold halves use steam to melt and harden the different layers, including forming a more rigid layer, while maintaining a fibrous opposite layer (see e.g., third page to fourth page of attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have manufactured the wheel arch liner of the wheel arch of Thompson using a steam-introducing thermal mould as taught by Yang to arrive at the claimed device/methodology with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using pressure and heat to bond the layers of a laminated construction together) to known devices (e.g., a laminated sound insulating wheel arch liner) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a wheel liner that does not require multiple stages to consolidate the multiple layers together).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Yang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Delpero et al. (US 2020/0122651).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, the layers of Thompson are discloses as being air permeable and/or impermeable (see air permeable first layer Col. 12, lines 21-22 and air permeable second layer at Col. 14, lines 23-27), and while the above Thompson/Yang combination provides for a steam moulded sound insulating wheel arch liner, it does not disclose that the steaming process results in the inner layer becoming air permeable.
Delpero teaches another acoustic fibrous noise attenuating moulding process, wherein the application of a steam to layers of the laminated attenuator results in the layer(s) to be air permeable (see ¶0082).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have manufactured the wheel arch liner of the wheel arch of the Thompson combination to use the introduction of steam to cause the air permeability of the layer(s) as taught by Delpero to arrive at the claimed device/methodology with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using steam to create voids/permeability in a material during a moulding operation) to known devices (e.g., a laminated sound insulating wheel arch liner formed by steam moulding) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a wheel liner having layers that are air permeable).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618