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.
1.Claims 1, 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano Tadashi (JPH0469229) hereinafter ‘229.
With respect to claim 1 ‘229 discloses a sound insulation sheet, comprising a sheet member (20) and convex members (21,22),
The sound insulation sheet having at least a convex member A (21) and a convex member B (22) different in shape from each other as the convex members,
The sound insulation sheet having two or more convex regions each having the convex member A present on one surface of the sheet member and
Two or more convex regions each having the convex member B present on one surface of the sheet member (see figure 2A).
‘229 does not expressly disclose wherein at least two peaks are obtained in a graph obtained by measuring a sound transmission loss with the horizontal axis of a frequency X and a vertical axis of deltaTL (dB) obtained by the claimed formula and at least two peaks each having a height of 3dB or more.
The selection of the formula for the measuring of the dB response would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill so as to determine the amount of sound deadening and further the tuning of the device such that the desire values of peaks of 3db would have been only an optimization of the structure. The selection of the values of the device to provide any desired outcome in terms of sound reduction of a sound reduction member would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill given that the structures themselves are taught.
It has been held that 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 3 ‘229 as modified further discloses wherein the convex member is present in a plurality of convex regions and the convex member B comprises a dot shaped convex member (see pillar 22).
With respect to claim 15 ‘229 as modified further discloses a sound insulation structure comprising the sound insulation sheet according to claim 1 laminated to a sound absorbing material (see figures 1, 2a, 2b and abstract).
2. Claims 2, 4-11,13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano Tadashi (JPH0469229) hereinafter ‘229 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Koshitouge (US20220028363).
With respect to claim 2 ‘229 discloses the invention as claimed except wherein convex member A comprises a line-shaped convex member.
Koshitouge discloses the use of linear members (4) on a sheet (2) in the formation of a sound reduction member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the linear members of Koshitouge with the sound insulation sheet of ‘229 so as to provide a wider bandwidth of sound reduction.
With respect to claim 4 ‘229 as modified further discloses a sheet member (20 in ‘229) and convex members (21,m 22 of ‘229),
The sound insulation sheet having at least a line shaped convex member (taught by Koshitouge) and a plurality of dot shaped convex members (22 of ‘229),
The sound insulation sheet having two or more convex regions having line shaped convex members present on one surface of the sheet member and two or more convex regions each having a plurality of the dot shapes convex members present on one surface of the sheet member (see alternating pattern taught by ‘229 and the different shapes of ‘229 and Koshitouge).
With respect to claim 5 ‘229 as modified further discloses having a row structure composed of one or more rows of dot shaped convex members arranged in each of the convex regions where a plurality of the dot-shaped convex members are present, wherein a longitudinally direction of the row structure is substantially parallel to a longitudinal direction of a row structure comprised of the line shaped convex member (see arrangement both of ‘229 figure 2 and row arrangement of Koshitouge).
With respect to claim 6 ‘229 as modified further discloses wherein the row structure composed of line shaped convex member and the row structure composed of dot shaped convex members are arranged alternately in a plan view (see again figure 2a of ‘229 and figures of Koshitouge).
With respect to claim 7 ‘229 as modified further discloses wherein the row structure composed of line shaped convex member and the row structure composed of the dot shaped convex member are arranged alternately and at equal intervals in a plan view (see again ‘229).
With respect to claim 8 ‘229 as modified further discloses wherein the dot shaped convex members in the row structure are arranged at equal intervals (see again figure 2a of ‘229 and figures of Koshitouge).
With respect to claim 9 as it regards the selection of the values of 3.,5 or more and 15 or less the selection of such a range would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of tuning the structure for a desired output. 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 ‘229 as modified further discloses wherein the dot shaped convex members are each cylindrical in shape (see elements 22 in ‘229).
With respect to claim 11 ‘229 as modified further discloses wherein the dot shaped convex members are each prismatic in shape (it is considered that the triangular members 21 meet such a limitations).
With respect to claim 13 ‘229 does not expressly disclose wherein at least two peaks are obtained in a graph obtained by measuring a sound transmission loss with the horizontal axis of a frequency X and a vertical axis of deltaTL (dB) obtained by the claimed formula and at least two peaks each having a height of 3dB or more.
The selection of the formula for the measuring of the dB response would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill so as to determine the amount of sound deadening and further the tuning of the device such that the desire values of peaks of 3db would have been only an optimization of the structure. The selection of the values of the device to provide any desired outcome in terms of sound reduction of a sound reduction member would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill given that the structures themselves are taught.
It has been held that 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 ‘229 as modified further discloses the use of a photo-curable resin or thermoplastic resin for the formation of the convex members (Koshitouge para 27).
3. Claim 12 is rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano Tadashi (JPH0469229) hereinafter ‘229 further view of Koshitouge (US20220028363) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Lesage (US20230077204).
With respect to claim 12 ‘229 discloses the use of various types of convex members (including pillars and prisms and the linear members of Koshitouge) but does not expressly disclose s plurality of different length line shaped members. Koshitogue discloses the use of different dimensioned linear members (see different thicknesses) but does not disclose a plurality of different length linear members.
Lesage discloses (see figure 4 and para 22) the use of different dimensioned including different length linear members as a means of an attenuation panel.
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 Lesage to provide a broad band of frequencies to be attenuated while using the same methods of construction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Uchida (US12359424) discloses a sound insulating structure; Su (US12080264) discloses a flexural wave absorption system; and Koshitouge (US20210039361) discloses a composition for sound deadening.
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