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) 1-17,19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illburck (DE9417813) in view of Klesczewski (US2009264547) and Eggerz (EP2251231)
With respect to claim 1 Illburck discloses (abstract figure 1) an acoustically effective component for a motor vehicle, the component comprising:
A bag (2) formed from at least one plastic film, and which forms a chamber and
A filling which is arranged in the chamber (5,5’) wherein the filling has foam particles of open cell or mixed cell foams.
Illburck is silent as to the use of both viscoelastic and non-viscoelastic foams disclosing instead the use of conventional foams which are permanently displaced by the movement of the foam flakes within the bag.
Klesczewski discloses that the use of viscoelastic foams in the formation of automotive acoustic elements.
Eggers discloses the use of both viscoelastic and non viscoelastic foams in a sound absorber to provide the desired sound absorbing effects.
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Eggers and Klesczewski to use both visco-elastic foams and non viscoelastic foams in a single sound absorber for an automotive structure with the automotive sound structure of Illburck. The motivation for doing so would be to provide different acoustic characteristics together in the device and thus provide for a greater sound absorption.
With respect to claim 2 Illburck as modified further discloses wherein the particle have an average size of at least 5 millimeters (see Illburck page 5).
With respect to claim 3 Illburck as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the claimed density, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any density required for the absorption of sound, such parameters as density are known to be results effective in the art of bulk sound absorbers. 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 with regard to the specific percentages of the respective portions it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to select such vales as a matter of routine testing. Further it has been held 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 5 Illburck as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the claimed density, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any density required for the absorption of sound, such parameters as density are known to be results effective in the art of bulk sound absorbers. 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 6 Illburck as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the claimed density, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any density required for the absorption of sound, such parameters as density are known to be results effective in the art of bulk sound absorbers. 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 as it regards the use of PUR (polyurethane foam) Klesczewski para 3 discloses the use of such a material.
With respect to claim 8 with regard to the specific percentages of the respective portions and the percentage difference between them it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to select such vales as a matter of routine testing. Further it has been held 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 Illburck as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the claimed density, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any density required for the absorption of sound, such parameters as density are known to be results effective in the art of bulk sound absorbers. 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 10 with regard to the specific percentages of the respective portions it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to select such vales as a matter of routine testing. Further it has been held 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 11 Illburck further discloses wherein the plastic film has one or more of the claimed features, Illburck discloses the device (abstract) as being hermetically sealed to provide evacuation of air from the bag for an insertion, as such the plastic film is impermeable to media, as it is impermeable to air.
With respect to claim 12 Illburck (see figure 4 and page 4) further discloses wherein the plastic film is pressed, glued or welded to itself to form the bag (discloses as being welded “verschweisst”).
With respect to claim 13 with regard to the specific percentages of the respective portions it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to select such vales as a matter of routine testing. Further it has been held 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 14 Illburck (abstract) further discloses wherein the component is an exterior or interior component of a motor vehicle.
With respect to claim 15 Illburck as modified discloses the device to be inserted into a hollow portion of the vehicle, one of ordinary skill would have selected any known hollow space within the vehicle structure in need of silencing for the use of the device including any of the claimed spaces. This would be only an intended use of the device. The manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
With respect to claim 16 Illburck as modified discloses both the article of manufacture and implicitly the method of forming including the steps of providing elements which are taught to be present, and inserting (Illburck abstract).
With respect to claim 17 Illburck as modified further discloses different types of filling material, as such there will necessarily be a weight of each of them (see above rejection of claim 1 discussion the use of both visco elastic and non viscoelastic foams)
With respect to claim 19 Illburck as modified further discloses wherein the bag is sealed (see hermetic seal as discloses in abstract of Illburck) once the filling has been inserted.
With respect to claim 21Illburck as modified further discloses a method of use including a compression before use in the hollow cavity of the vehicle (see again abstract of Illburck).
With respect to claim 22 Illbruck as modified further discloses the use of the device in a vehicle but is silent to the degre3ss of compression. Such a compression would have been a matter of routine testing to allow for insertion into the cavity. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klinkman (US20200223112) discloses a thermoforming acoustic member for within a hollow cavity of a vehicle; Vigil (US9969442) discloses a vehicle body frame including foamed acoustic member; Herrington (US8293808) discloses a flexible porous foam; Tokai rubber (EP0913414) discloses a soft polyurethane foam and vehicle member including; Lohmar (DE3710731) discloses a polyurethane sound reduction member for vehicle.
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