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 .
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 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “The reversible system” in line 1. It appears that the claim should recite “A reversible system” in line 1 because a reversible system has not been disclosed prior to line 1. The claim also recites “the ferromagnetic supports” in lines 6 and 7. A ferromagnetic enamel is claimed in line 5. However, “ferromagnetic supports” have not been disclosed prior to lines 6 and 7. Further, the claim recites “the ferromagnetic sheets” in line 11. Again, a ferromagnetic enamel is claimed in line 5. However, “ferromagnetic sheets” have not been disclosed prior to line 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites “the magnetic sheet” in line 2. Claims 1 and 2 disclose “a ferromagnetic enamel”. It appears that claim 4 should recite “the ferromagnetic enamel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites “the sheets of high-density crosslinked ethylene acetate”. The claim should recite “the sheets of high-density crosslinked ethylene acetate foam” for consistency with claim 1. The claim also recites “the characteristic of absorbing the irregularities of the substrate. That is, the lower part…” in line 4. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, does not disclose a characteristic of absorbing irregularities of a substrate. Also, the period after the word “substrate” should be removed. Further, the claim recites “the acetate sheet corrects the imperfections” and “the perfect seating”. The claim should recite “the sheets of high-density crosslinked ethylene acetate foam corrects imperfections of the substrate, maintaining proper planimetry on its surface for a perfect seating of the plates.” 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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, the term "etc." renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "etc."), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayarri (ES 1232466, see machine translated version) in view of Morishita et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0284362).
Regarding claim 1, Bayarri teaches a reversible system (paragraphs [0007], [0052]) characterized in that it comprises sheets that impart soundproofing (paragraph [0035]) and a ferromagnetic sheet made of vinyl material (enamel) (paragraphs [0017], [0021], [0023]) and plates such as ceramic tiles (paragraph [0017]) that are designed to adhere removably to the ferromagnetic sheets by means of a magnetic adhesion (paragraphs [0017]); and the sheets that impart soundproofing have pairs of first and second opposite faces, the first faces being configured to rest on a surface of a structural floor or wall base, while the second faces of the sheets that impart soundproofing are configured such at the ferromagnetic sheets sit on them (paragraphs [0065]-[0067], Fig. 1).
Bayarri fails to teach wherein the system comprises sheet of high density crosslinked ethylene acetate foam that impart soundproofing, waterproofing, and thermal and antistatic properties to the system. However, Morishita et al. teach a foam molded body (page 2, paragraph [0031]) having a density of 20 to 500 kg/m3 (high density) (page 14, paragraph [0152]) crosslinked ethylene acetate foam (page 3, paragraphs [0033], [0034], page 15, paragraph [0161]) that impart sound insulation (page 3, paragraph [0042], page 10, paragraph [0100]), waterproofing (page 7, paragraph [0074], page 13, paragraph [0150]), and includes a heat stabilizer (thermal) (page 11, paragraph [0121]) and antistatic agent (antistatic properties) to the body (page 11, paragraph [0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam of Morishita et al. in the system of Bayarri in order to improve damping properties and sound insulation properties of a panel and provide weight reduction (Morishita et al., page 2, paragraph [0022]).
The limitation “for installing plates of different natures" is deemed to be a statement with regard to intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. The system of Bayarri, as modified by Morishita et al., is capable of being used for installing plates of different natures in that it contains the same constituents and displays the same characteristics as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Bayarri teaches wherein each of the plates comprises a decorative body (paragraph [0021]) and a ferromagnetic sheet made of vinyl material (enamel) (paragraphs [0017], [0021], [0023]) that is bonded to a first face of the decorative body (paragraph [0021]) which includes a second decorative face that is situated opposite the first face (paragraph [0021]), the plates being affixed on top of the ferromagnetic sheets via the ferromagnetic sheet made of vinyl material (enamel) that is bonded to the decorative body of the plates (paragraphs [0017], [0021], [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Bayarri teaches wherein the ferromagnetic sheet made of vinyl material (enamel) (paragraphs [0017], [0021], [0023]) provides an improvement in the shearing motion of the plate (paragraphs [0027], [0029], [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Bayarri teaches wherein the magnetic sheet of made of magnetized rubber material (paragraphs [0023], [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Bayarri fails to teach wherein the high density crosslinked ethylene acetate foam sheets have soundproofing, waterproofing, and thermal and antistatic properties. However, Morishita et al. teach a foam molded body (page 2, paragraph [0031]) having a density of 20 to 500 kg/m3 (high density) (page 14, paragraph [0152]) crosslinked ethylene acetate foam (page 3, paragraphs [0033], [0034], page 15, paragraph [0161]) that impart sound insulation (page 3, paragraph [0042], page 10, paragraph [0100]), waterproofing (page 7, paragraph [0074], page 13, paragraph [0150]), and includes a heat stabilizer (thermal) (page 11, paragraph [0121]) and antistatic agent (antistatic properties) to the body (page 11, paragraph [0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam of Morishita et al. in the system of Bayarri in order to improve damping properties and sound insulation properties of a panel and provide weight reduction (Morishita et al., page 2, paragraph [0022]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayarri (ES 1232466, see machine translated version) in view of Morishita et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0284362), in further view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0146661).
Bayarri and Morishita et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 6, Bayarri fails to teach wherein the sheet of high density crosslinked ethylene acetate have a thickness of 4 millimeters with the characteristic of absorbing the irregularities of the substrate. That is, the lower part of the acetate sheet corrects the imperfections of the substrate, maintaining proper planimetry on its surface for the perfect seating of the plates. However, Zhang et al. teach a composite for use in an acoustic panel (page 1, paragraphs [0001], [0014]) comprising a crosslinked ethylene vinyl acetate foam layer (page 1, paragraph [0005]) having a thickness of about 0.5-50 mm which reads on Applicant’s claimed 4 millimeters (page 4, paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the foam to that of Zhang et al. depending on the article (Zhang et al., page 4, paragraph [0099]).
The limitation “absorbing the irregularities of the substrate. That is, the lower part of the acetate sheet corrects the imperfections of the substrate, maintaining proper planimetry on its surface for the perfect seating of the plates" is deemed to be a statement with regard to intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. The system of Bayarri, as modified by Morishita et al. and Zhang et al., is capable of absorbing irregularities of the substrate in that it contains the same constituents and displays the same characteristics as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 12/22/2025