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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended 1, 3-7, 9, 11-14 and added new claims 16-20. Previously rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are amended to overcome these rejections. These rejections are, therefore, withdrawn. Additionally, previously claims 6, 11 and 12 were objected but are amended and now overcome these objections.
As to the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Nicolai (DE 10 2012 222 000 A1) with machine translation, IDS 06/05/2024, the applicant argues that the last step of the method – “Reduction of the steam or hot air pressure through a lower pressure on the wear layer side compared to the pressure on the underside of the nonwoven layers” – recites a feature/limitation that is not disclosed by Nicolai. Applicant disagrees with the examiner’s position that because both tool halves of the steam/vacuum tool are heated with different temperatures that this naturally reduces the pressure on the wear layer, while cooling the component (See Non-Final Rejection office action 02/09/2026 pp. 8-9). Instead, Nicolai teaches that by applying a vacuum, air is extracted and the material inside is then heated by applying steam, followed by extraction of the steam, thereby cooling the material inside. But this method does not teach or suggest that the steam pressure is reduced to a lower pressure on the wear layer (carpet) compared to the underside pressure of the non-woven layer (absorber, insulation material) (paragraph [0026]). Therefore, the person skilled in the art would not get any indication from Nicolai that there is a need to set up a lower pressure on the wear layer in order to reduce the steam pressure. Moreover, it is clear that vacuum is not applied to the wear layer but rather to the lower half of the tool, meaning that the pressure on the wear layer remains unchanged. (Applicant arguments/remarks 05/04/2026 pp. 6-7).
The examiner counter argues, although not explicitly disclosed, that there is an active and separate reduction of the steam pressure through a lower pressure on the wear layer side compared to the pressure on the underside of the nonwoven layer and the examiner maintains, as in the previous office action, that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a controlled temperature difference between the two tool halves causes this pressure difference to be intrinsically present (paragraph [0026]).
Applicant further argues that the additional prior art references used in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claim 3 (Doehring EP 2 108 497 B1 w/ machine translation IDS 07/03/2024), claim 12, (H. Fuchs and W. Albrecht "Nonwovens (Vliesstoffe), Raw materials, production, application, properties, testing" Second edition, Wiley-VCH, 2012 with translation IDS 07/03/2024) and claim 13, (Oussama, DE 10 2021 108 602 A1 w/ machine translation IDS07/03/2024) do not supply the missing teachings to render obvious claim 1 or claims 3, 12 and 13 as per the argument above.
Examiner answers with the counter argument regarding claim 1 above. New claims 16-20 rejected under new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: it should be clarified whether "the lower tool" is dedicated to the reduction of steam or hot air pressure or vacuum because claim 1 recites "applying a vacuum to the upper tool and/or lower tool" See 112(b) rejection below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because it recites the term “preferably” and is combined with an object: “a multilayer film”; it should be clarified whether the “multilayer film” is required or not.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The acronyms PA 6, 6 , PA6, PP, rPA, rPET and PBT need to be identified. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 and 16-20 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 the limitation "the upper tool and/or lower tool" in the fourth method step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the binding fiber" in the fifth method step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 rejected through dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicolai (DE 10 2012 222 000 A1) with machine translation IDS 06/05/2024. Evidence provided for claim 7: Q. Maddox Glass Helper “Tempered Glass vs Regular Glass: What’s the Difference? October 17, 2022. https://glasshelper.com/tempered-vs-regular-glass/
Regarding Claim 1, Nicolai anticipates a method for producing a sound insulation, (abs, paragraphs [0011] [0012] process for the production of at least two-layer components as absorptive cladding in the interior and/or trunk or for floor trims of motor vehicles, comprising an outer product (material) and an absorber; defined acoustic properties are achieved),
wherein the sound insulation has a wear layer with a surface and/or visible surface layer (paragraph [0012] outer material (wear layer) is formed by applying a vacuum to its visible side) and a non-woven layer (paragraph [0008] open absorbers or insulations include nonwovens produced particularly using the faber flocking process),
the mechanical-physical and acoustic properties of which differ over the surface of the sound insulation, (paragraphs [0012] [0022] material deliberately accumulated locally and the required thickness, different densities result and thus different mechanical and acoustic properties of the absorber or insulation), comprising the steps of:
- Positioning the nonwoven layer as a blank in a steam/vacuum tool (paragraphs [0012] [0020] introduces a one-sided shaped absorber material in a flock box into a steam/vacuum tool, insulation material is suppled as a top layer with a steam-vacuum flow-tight closed back);
- Insertion of a wear layer into the steam/vacuum tool in such a way that a flow-closed side faces the nonwoven layer (paragraph [0012] introduces the top material into the tool with its flow-closed side facing the absorber material), wherein the nonwoven layer has a binding element (paragraphs [0018] [0019] absorber material comprises a thermoplastic binder in fiber form; binder mixed homogeneously with the filler material);
- Close the steam/vacuum tool (paragraph [0012] the tool closes);
- Applying a vacuum to the upper tool and/or lower tool, which makes it easier to contour the wear layer (paragraph [0012] the outer material is formed by applying a vacuum to its visible side, while the absorber material is solidified);
- Applying steam or hot air to the underside of the nonwoven layer, which deforms the wear layer, activates the binding fiber in the nonwoven layer and bonds the wear layer and the nonwoven layer together (paragraph [0012] then a steam/vacuum to its underside thereby forming the component into its final contour, bonding the outer material and the absorber material together)
- Reduction of the steam or hot air pressure, in particular through a lower pressure on the wear layer side compared to the pressure on the underside of the nonwoven layer (paragraphs [0005] [0026] absorber and surface material deformed and cooled in the cold tool; trapped air extracted from the cavity using a vacuum created via the bore system and the steam is extracted from the cavity, and both tool halves can be heated to different temperatures, which intrinsically lowers the pressure on the outer material thereby cooling the part)
Regarding Claim 2, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the nonwoven layer is an airlay nonwoven layer (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the method is carried out in one step and/or in exactly one tool, (paragraph [0012] where steps (a)-(d) disclose one steam/vacuum tool).
Regarding Claim 5, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that
before inserting the wear layer into the steam/vacuum tool, larger thickness and/or contour jumps in the sound insulation are compensated for by partially adding elements (paragraph [0022] amount of material deliberately accumulated locally and the required thickness) and in particular fibers or pads, in particular airlay pads (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the nonwoven comprises a base nonwoven with nonwoven pads partially distributed over its surface in a predetermined manner (paragraph [0011] absorber or insulation produced by flaking absorbing material in a mold creating defined material accumulations (which can be pads) across the component).
Regarding Claim 7, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the wear layer is inserted into the steam/vacuum tool in a non-tempered state (paragraph [0032] outer fabric with mixed fiber (fleece) is placed into the steam/vacuum by hand then heated) to produce largely flat and/or less contoured sound insulation (paragraph [0008] where the nonwoven insulation can include undeformed (flat) sheets). Note: cold condition is determined to be the same as a non-tempered state while heated is equal to a tempered state. See Q. Maddox Glass Helper “Tempered Glass vs Regular Glass: What’s the Difference? October 17, 2022. https://glasshelper.com/tempered-vs-regular-glass/
Regarding Claim 8, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the non-woven layer is inserted into the steam/vacuum tool in a non-tempered state (paragraphs [0020] -0022] [0026] pre-formed absorber material placed into a tool using a robot followed by the outer material where they are brought together into their final shape by heating).
Regarding Claim 9, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the wear layer is placed in the steam/vacuum tool at a tempered state (paragraph [0033] lower half of tool was heated).
Regarding Claim 10, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the wear layer comprises a film which causes one side of the wear layer to be flow-closed, wherein the film is preferably a multilayer film (paragraph [0030] [0032] top fabric (wear layer) is a 90 µm PE/PA/PE film is laminated with the film beforehand).
Regarding Claim 11, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that in a further method step, a layer composite of the wear layer and the nonwoven layer (paragraph [0036] outer material firmly bonded to the absorber or insulation),
Regarding Claim 14, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the wear layer has at least one further layer located underneath the surface and/or visible surface layer, wherein these further layers are preferably selected from a group of layers which includes adhesive layers, acoustic layers (paragraph [0032] outer fabric may contain a mixed fiber fleece as a carrier, is laminated with the film beforehand or an extrusion layer is applied).
Regarding Claim 16, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the wear layer comprises a tufted carpet, wherein the tufted carpet comprises PA6.6, PA6, PP, rPA, rPET and PBT as well as bio-based polyamides or wool as yarn/filament materials (paragraph [0030] PET spunbond carpet).
Regarding Claim 17, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates wherein the wear layer comprises a velour carpet or a flat needlefelt carpet (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 18, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates wherein an insulating layer is provided between the wear layer and the car body floor (paragraph [0006] floor coverings (carpets) have an absorber or insulation firmly bonded to the carpet).
Regarding Claim 19, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the steam applied to the underside of the nonwoven layer in the steam/vacuum tool has a pressure greater than 1.5 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a level of applied steam to the underside of the nonwoven layer having a pressure of greater than 1.5 bar, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use this steam pressure in order to ensure that the insulation and wear layer are heated and deformed at an optimum level to achieve the required mechanical properties (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 20, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates wherein the nonwoven layer has a multi-layer nonwoven (paragraph [0017] layering different materials), and the sound insulation has a density distribution over the length and/or width (paragraph [0022] depending on the amount of material of the insulation different densities result).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolai (DE 10 2012 222 000 A1) with machine translation IDS 06/05/2024 in view of Doehring (EP 2 108 497 B1) with machine translation IDS 07/03/2024.
Regarding Claim 3, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose that the vacuum is drawn again briefly after reducing the steam or hot air pressure and before the steam/vacuum tool opening.
Doehring discloses a method of making molded parts from a nonwoven semi-finished product made from compressed and bonded flakes with fibers (abs, paragraphs [0012] [0018] thermoplastic binding fibers contained within 3D fiber fleece mat). In at least one embodiment, hot air is introduced to activate the binder and at least partially solidifying the semi-finished product which is then transferred into a steam/vacuum-capable tool. The hot air is reduced by evacuation which reduces the hot air pressure, and this is followed by a vacuum drawn briefly before the tool opening (paragraphs [0011] [0020] vacuum is subsequently drawn to cool the semi-finished product, tool is first emptied of air, thermally active with saturated steam, and then cooled again by applying a vacuum) followed by tool opening. (paragraph [0021] the product is then transferred to a porous shaping tool).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Nicolai with Doehring whereby in the method of producing a sound insulation by binding a wear layer with a non-woven layer, that after reducing the hot air pressure by vacuum in the lower tool of Nicolai that vacuum is drawn briefly before the tool opening, as disclosed by Doehring. The skilled artisan would have taken this step in order to cool the layer composite while maintaining the range of saturated steam temperature to avoid condensation (paragraph [0020]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolai (DE 10 2012 222 000 A1) with machine translation IDS 06/05/2024 in view of H. Fuchs and W. Albrecht "Nonwovens (Vliesstoffe), Raw materials, production, application, properties, testing" Second edition, Wiley-VCH, 2012 with translation IDS 07/03/2024.
Regarding Claim 12, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 but does not anticipate that in a further method step, a layer composite of the wear layer and the nonwoven layer, is die-cut and/or cut.
The non-patent literature treatise on Nonwovens (“Vliesstoffe”) which discusses the “airlay” process to manufacture nonwoven composite layer (p. 159, 170 § 4.1.3.1 nonwoven composites bonded with thermoplastic binders). In one embodiment which is a variant of the airlay process, the airlaid process (p. 168 § 4.1.3.2) the fibers used to form a nonwoven fleece and forming a homogenous fiber flow whereby under vacuum a layer structure is created (p. 169 4th paragraph). These fibers are created from shredded pulp using high performance cutting machines (p. 168 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to have modified Nicolai with the disclosure of H. Fuchs, and W. Albrecht whereby the method of Nicolai for producing sound insulation is combined with the method of H, Fuchs and W. Albrecht as disclosed in there non-patent literature paper on Nonwovens, whereby the fibers used in the airlay process are produced by cutting. In order to prepare fibers for homogeneity and disintegration short fibers with lengths from 1 mm would have to be produced by cutting (p. 169 2nd paragraph).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolai (DE 10 2012 222 000 A1) with machine translation IDS 06/05/2024 in view of Oussama (DE 10 2021 108 602 A1) with machine translation IDS 07/03/2024.
Regarding Claim 13, Nicolai anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 but does not anticipate that the wear layer is stretched before forming.
In the same field of endeavor, Oussama discloses a one-step process for floor cladding for a sound insulation made of fiber/absorption fleece which are nonwoven structures (abs). These structures have a wear layer that is stretched before forming (paragraphs [0048] [0063]).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Nicolai with the teaching of Oussama whereby the method of making sound insulation for floor linings and luggage compartment linings for a motor vehicle with a wear layer and a non-woven layer, as disclosed in Nicolai, would include that the wear layer is stretched before forming as taught by Oussama.
The skilled artisan would include this as part of the method step because significant material savings can be achieved by stretching the wear layer over a large area in at least one direction and by stretching it to varying degrees along an axis perpendicular to the stretching direction (paragraph [0063]).
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 WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights