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 .
Summary
The Applicants arguments and claim amendments received on 08/04/2026 are entered into the file. Currently claim 14 is amended; claim 17 is cancelled; resulting in claims 1-16 and 18-19 pending for examination.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldwin et al. (US 2007/0163042, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3 and 5, Baldwin et al. teaches a fibrous construction material (wall or ceiling panel) comprising a non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall) and a surface layer (85; decorative layer) (Figure 7A, [0004, 0019-0036]). The non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall) is comprised of a blend of fibers, such as bi component polyester fibers incorporating a sheath of CO-PET polyester around a standard PET polyester core (plastic), wherein the non-woven fibrous mat is carded and densified via needle loom to form an enhanced density batting material (i.e. felt like shape)([0019-0021, 0025, 0027]). The surface layer (85; decorative layer) is a paint or veneer sheet (layer for use as a board) with any desired functional and/or aesthetic pattern ([0030-0032]).
Baldwin et al. teaches the same structure and materials as required by claim 1 as described above, and therefore, would inherently be an acoustic panel. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 4, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
The limitation reciting “recycled plastic” is directed to a method of making and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of making the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, Baldwin et al. teaches all the structural features of 1 as stated in the rejection above, therefore, the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall) comprised of bi component polyester fibers incorporating a sheath of CO-PET polyester around a standard PET polyester core (plastic) is capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the surface layer (85; decoration layer) can be applied to the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall) via adhesive ([0031]).
Regarding claim 13, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitation of claim 1 above, ad further teaches that the surface layer (85; decorative layer) can be a veneer or laminate ([0031]).
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carapinha (US 2017/0284084).
Regarding claim 1, Carapinha teaches a modular acoustic structure (acoustic wall panel) comprising a layer of wood, a layer of polyurethane foam (520; rear wall) and a layer of fabric (520; decorative layer), wherein the polyurethane foam (520; rear wall) would have a moss-like microscopic structure (Figure 5; [0005, 0009-0013, 0027-0031, 0042-0044]). The layers of polyurethane foam (520; rear wall) and fabric layer (520; decorative layer) each absorb sound waves and may each absorb different frequency rages of soundwaves differently, allowing for the fine tuning of which frequency ranges of soundwaves are absorbed ([0043-0044]).
Regarding claim 18, Carapinha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the polyurethane foam layer (521; rear wall) and fabric layer (520; decorative layer) can be shaped to form various sound baffles (i.e. grooves) to absorb, direct and/or otherwise affect sound waves ([0044]).
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.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2007/0163042; previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference does not expressly teach that the surface layer (85; decorative layer) is adhesively bonded to the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall), such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as adhesives are known for bonding two layers together.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the surface layer (85; decorative layer) is a paint or veneer sheet (layer for use as a board) with any desired functional and/or aesthetic pattern ([0030-0032]).
While the reference does not expressly teach that the veneer is a wood or stone veneer, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired pattern for the visual appearance of the resultant product.
Regarding claim 14, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the surface layer (85; decorative layer) is a laminate such as FORMICA® ([0031]). While not expressly stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FORMICA® laminate used as the surface layer (85; decorative layer) to have any desired pattern, including stone or wood, as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual appearance of the fibrous construction material (wall or ceiling panel) in the space it will be used.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall) has a starting thickness of about 0.5 inches (12.7mm) ([0027]), failing squarely within the claimed range. The reference, however, does not expressly teach the thickness of the surface layer (85; decorative surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the surface layer (85; decorative surface) to fall within the claimed range based upon the desired properties of the resultant product.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2007/0163042; previously cited) in view of Kruesemann et al. (US 2011/0135849; previously cited).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches that a wide range of materials can be used for the surface layer (85; decorative layer) so as to impart desired functional and aesthetic characteristics ([0030-0032]), the reference does not expressly teach that the surface layer (85; decorative layer) is a metal layer.
Kruesemann et al. teaches a multilayered article used for panels, floorings, wall coverings and ceilings, wherein the multi-layered article is comprised of a substrate and a decorative layer ([0009, 0017-0025]). Kruesemann et al. teaches that the decorative layer can be comprised of a metallic motif, wood motif or marble motif, and further that the multilayered article can comprise a metal containing layer in the form of irregular or regular patterns, ([0018-0025, 0088-0090, 0110-0120]).
As Baldwin et al. and Kruesemann et al. teach decorative panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface layer (85; decorative layer) of Baldwin et al. to include the metallic motif or metal pattern layer taught by Kruesemann et al. as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual appearance and properties of the resultant panel.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2007/0163042, previously cited) in view of Foley (WO 2007/133927; previously cited).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches that the surface layer (85; decorative layer) is a paint or veneer sheet (layer for use as a board) with any desired functional and/or aesthetic pattern ([0030-0032]), the reference does not expressly teach that the surface layer (85; decorative layer) comprises a moss-like structure, such as moss or an artificial moss.
Foley et al. teaches a decorative laminate for paneling, comprising a base layer of kraft paper (110) and a decorative layer (120) containing printing such as a stone appearance, wood grain or color ([0011-0012). Foley et al. further teaches that the decorative layer (120) can further comprise a decorative feature through surface application, the decorative feature can include natural fibers such as banana fiber, moss, sisal and others based on the desired visual effect (i.e. microscopically shaped) ([0022]). While not expressly stated, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the moss disclosed by Foley et al. would either be moss or artificial moss.
As both Baldwin et al. and Foley et al. teach panels with decorative layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface layer (85; decorative layer) of Baldwin et al. to include the decorative feature of moss taught by Foley et al. as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual effects of the resultant panel for the end user.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2007/0163042; previously cited) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2007/0116933).
Regarding claim 18, Baldwin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, however, the reference does not expressly teach that the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall) comprises a plurality of grooves wherein the decorative layer is arranged between the grooves.
Kobayashi et al. teaches a decorating material for floor tiles and wall panels, wherein the decorating material is comprised of a substrate (2; rear wall) and a decorative layer of a solid color and pattern layer (6, 7; decorative layer) (Figure 1, 2, 6; [0005, 0014, 0050-0071, 0074, 0085]). The substrate layer (2; rear wall) is comprised of plastic films or plastic sheets such as polyethylene terephthalate, and can comprise synthetic resin fibers ([0052-0059]). The decorative layer of a solid color and pattern layer (6, 7; decorative layer) can be adhered to the substrate layer (2; rear wall) by a primer layer ([0056]). Kobayashi et al. further teaches that the decorative layer of a solid color and pattern layer (6, 7; decorative layer) includes woodgrain patterns and stone-grain patterns (i.e. slate) ([0056-0069]). Kobayashi further teaches that the substrate (2; rear wall) can be subjected to concave/convex shaping (plurality of groove) on one or both surfaces to enhance adhesion of the substrate (2; rear wall) to the layer to be laminated thereon ([0054]).
Baldwin et al. and Kobayashi et al. teach decorative panels, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall) of Baldwin et al. to include the concave/convex pattern taught by Kobayashi et al. to enhance adhesion of the addition layers of the surface element. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the decorative pattern between the concave/convex pattern based upon the desired visual appearance of the resulting decorative material.
Regarding claim 19, Baldwin et al. and Kobayashi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 18 above, and while the references do not expressly teach the claimed shapes for the concave/convex shaping (plurality of groove), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concave/convex shaping (plurality of groove) to have any shape or cross section, such as rectangular, semicircular, semi-elliptical or V-shaped, as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual appearance of the resulting decorative material.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carapinha (US 2017/0284084).
Regarding claim 6, Carapinha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference does not expressly teach that the fabric (520; decorative layer) is adhesively bonded to the polyurethane foam layer (521; rear wall), such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as adhesives are known for bonding two layers together.
Regarding claim 19, Carapinha teaches all the limitations of claim 18 above, however, the reference does not expressly teach that the sound baffles (i.e. grooves) have a rectangular cross section, semicircular cross section, semi-elliptical cross section or a V-shaped cross section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross sectional shape the baffles to have any of the claimed cross sectional shapes based upon the desired manner in which the polyurethane foam layer (521; rear wall) absorb, direct and/or otherwise affect sound waves (See Carapinha [0044]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carapinha (US 2017/0284084) in view of Foley et al. (WO 2007/133927; previously cited).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Carapinha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, however, the reference does not expressly teach that the fabric layer (520; decorative layer) comprises a moss-like structure, such as moss or an artificial moss.
Foley et al. teaches a decorative laminate for paneling, comprising a base layer of kraft paper (110) and a decorative layer (120) containing printing such as a stone appearance, wood grain or color ([0011-0012). Foley et al. further teaches that the decorative layer (120) can further comprise a decorative feature through surface application, the decorative feature can include natural fibers such as banana fiber, moss, sisal and others based on the desired visual effect (i.e. microscopically shaped) ([0022]). While not expressly stated, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the moss disclosed by Foley et al. would either be moss or artificial moss.
As both Carapinha and Foley et al. teach panels with decorative layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabric layer (520; decorative layer) of Carapinha to include the decorative feature of moss taught by Foley et al. as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual effects of the resultant panel for the end user.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of Claim 14 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 is overcome by Applicants amendments to the claim in the response filed 08/04/2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections over Baldwin et al., the Applicant argues on pages 8 through 11 that the rear wall, non-woven fibrous material 82, cited by the rejections is completely different from the enhanced density batting material 66 cited in the rejection as having the desired felt like shape. This argument is not persuasive.
The language of the claim is “felt-like microscopic shape, a fleece-like microscopic shape or a moss-like microscopic shape”, which does not limit the plastic of the rear wall to having a felt, fleece or moss shape, but is broader to be a surface which a shape that is to any degree like a felt, fleece or moss shape. The instant specification does not provide a definition or specific structural requirements for of each of the surface shape options, but simply that it has a shape that is like a felt, fleece or moss shape in some capacity.
In looking to Baldwin et al., the reference teaches a fibrous construction material for construction materials, wherein needle punched felts have been found to provides strength and stiffness suitable for use as a replacement for wood or particle board and has substantially reduced weight ([0018]). Baldwin et al. further discloses the formation of the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall), which is formed by a blend of polyester fibers being formed into a carded web material that is conveyed through a serious of needle looms to form an enhanced density batting material (66) ([0019-0021, 0023]). The enhanced density batting material (66) is either a single layer structure or a multi-layer structure layered with an adhesive material ([0027]). Both forms are put through a press to enhance the density to form the non-woven fibrous mat (82; rear wall). Baldwin et al. does describe an embodiment wherein a low melting point constituent is used, such that the temperature of the press is heated to a temperature to activate the low melting point constituent, wherein upon heating, a low melting point fiber constituent is activated ([0027]).
When discussing a felt-like structure, the instant specification discloses that “a felt-like structure comprises fibers which adhere to on another…for example, for the fibers of the felt-like structure to be hydro-entangled or to be partially fused to one another” (see pg-pub [0018]). The commonly accepted definition of “felt” is “a cloth made of woold and fur often mixed with natural or synthetic fibers through the action of heat, moisture, chemicals and pressure” (see FELT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster).
Based upon the disclosure of the instant application, and the commonly accepted definition of “felt”, it is maintained that the non-woven fibrous mat taught by Baldwin et al. would fall into the category of “felt-like” as it is comprised of plastic fibers that are mixed together via heat and pressure (see at least [0027] of Balwin et al.).
Regarding the rejections over Carapinha, the Applicants argue on pages 11 through 14 that the reference fails to describe, teach or suggest a rear wall, as the polyurethane foam corresponding to the rear wall in the rejections, is a sandwiched structure wherein the polyurethane foam is in the middle. The Applicant points to Figure 5 which illustrates that the polyurethane foam layer 521 is between the fabric layer 520 and the wood layer 522. This argument is not persuasive.
The claims recite “a rear wall”, wherein rear is broadly interpreted to mean behind or after something. It is noted that the claims do not recite or require that the rear wall is the exterior or outermost layer of the acoustic wall panel. In Carapinha, the polyurethane foam layer is behind or after the fabric layer, therefore, the polyurethane foam is a rear layer with respect to the fabric layer.
The Applicant further argues on pages 13 and 14 that the polyurethane foam does not have a moss-like microscopic shape, but rather has a microstructure that is geometric, consisting of a network of hollow, bubble like cavities known as honeycomb, polyhedral or spherical cellular structures. This argument is not persuasive.
When discussing the moss-like structure, the instant application simply discloses that “It is further conceivable for the rear wall to have a moss-like structure”, and does not provide any further guidance as to what structure would or would not be considered to fall within the scope of “moss-like” with respect to the claimed invention. Therefore, the term will be considered broadly to include materials and structures that are porous.
The Applicant argues that the microstructure of a polyurethane foam does not have a moss-like shape, because the microstructure of polyurethane foam is geometric as previously stated, however, the Applicant does not provide any description as to what the structure the term “moss-like” means in the context of the claimed invention. Furthermore, per the language of the claim, the structure does not have to be moss, but be “moss-like”. Therefore, the Applicants arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained. The references provided as attachments cited on page 19 of the response filed 08/04/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
On pages 14 through 17, the rejections over Baldwin et al. and secondary references Kruesemann et al. (claims 9 and 10), Foley (claims 11 and 12) and Kobayashi et al. (claims 18 and 19) are discussed. The Applicant argues that none of the secondary references teach an acoustic wall panel with a rear wall made of plastic having felt-like microscopic shapes, fleece-like microscopic shapes or moss-like microscopic shapes as required by claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons expressed above regarding Baldwin.
With respect to Kruesemann et al., the Applicant argues on page 16 that Kruesemann et al. does not teach or suggest an acoustic wall panel, nor does the reference teach a rear wall of plastic having felt-like microscopic shapes, fleece-like microscopic shapes or moss-like microscopic shapes as required by claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as Kruesemann et al. was used to teach the feature of the surface layer (85; decorative layer) being a metal layer, as described in the above rejections of claims 9 and 10.
With respect to Foley, the Applicant argues on page 16 that Foley does not teach or suggest an acoustic wall panel, nor does the reference teach a rear wall of plastic having felt-like microscopic shapes, fleece-like microscopic shapes or moss-like microscopic shapes as required by claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as Foley was used in the above rejections of claims 11 and 12 to teach a decorative layer comprising a moss or artificial moss.
With respect to Kobayashi et al., the Applicant argues on page 16 that Kobayashi et al. does not teach or suggest an acoustic wall panel, nor does the reference teach a rear wall of plastic having felt-like microscopic shapes, fleece-like microscopic shapes or moss-like microscopic shapes as required by claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as Kobayashi et al. was used in the above rejections of claims 18 and 19 to teach a rear wall having a plurality of grooves wherein the decorative layer is arranged between the grooves.
On pages 17 through 18, the rejections over Carapinha and secondary in view of Foley (claims 11 and 12) are discussed. The Applicant argues that none of the secondary references teach an acoustic wall panel with a rear wall made of plastic having felt-like microscopic shapes, fleece-like microscopic shapes or moss-like microscopic shapes as required by claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons expressed above regarding Carapinha. Furthermore, Foley is used in the above rejections of claims 11 and 12 to teach a decorative layer comprising a moss or artificial moss.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
