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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13, 15, 20, 24 and 27-29, in the reply filed on is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the special technical features shared between Groups I-V is not taught by Miller, specifically the limitation of the surface layer includes an elastomeric composition having a glass transition temperature of about 10°C or less, a crystallinity of about 5 percent or less at 23°C, or both. This is not found persuasive because this limitation was not previously presented across all groups, specifically, this limitation was not required by claim 30. While Miller failed to teach this limitation, each of the shared technical features as currently presented are taught by the combination of Josefsson and Okamoto as presented below in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the elastomer is free of any melting temperature or glass transition temperature of about 35°C or more, and the claim also recites “preferably about 20°C or more, and more preferably °C or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is further noted that the narrower limitation is considered as the narrower limitation such that although 20°C or more is broader than 35°C or more, this broadening of the range further restricts the list of materials suitable for the elastomer. As such, 35°C or more allows for a broader range of suitable materials whereas 20°C or more provides a narrower list of suitable materials.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “a surface roughness of about 0.5 microns or more,” and the claim also recites “preferably 1.0 microns or more, even more preferably about 2.0 microns or more, even more preferably 4.0 microns or more, even more preferably 6.0 microns or more, even more preferably 10 microns or more, and most preferably 20 microns or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitations of the surface layer having a thickness of 400 microns or less and 5 microns or more, and the claim also recites “preferably about 250 microns or less, about 150 microns or less, or about 100 microns or less” and “preferably 10 microns or more, about 20 microns or more, about 30 microns or more, about 50 microns or more, about 50 microns or more, or about 60 microns or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation optionally wherein the hollow beads have an average specific gravity of about 0.10 or more, and the claim also recites “about 0.20 or more, about 0.30 or more, about 0.40 or more, about 0.50 or more, about 0.60 or more, about 0.70 or more, or about 0.75 or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation optionally wherein the hollow beads have an average specific gravity of about 2.0 or less, and the claim also recites “about 1.7 or less, about 1.4 or less, about 1.1 or less, about 1.0 or less, about 0.90 or less, or about 0.80 or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “wherein the glass or ceramic beads have a narrow size distribution (e.g. a ratio of the weight average diameter to the number average diameter is about 2.0 or less,” and the claim also recites “about 1.80 or less, about 1.60 or less, about 1.40 or less, about 1.20 or less, or about 1.10 or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation a ratio of the specific gravity of the elastomer to a specific gravity of the filler is about 0.20 or more and 2.0 or less, and the claim also recites “about 0.35 or more, about 0.50 or more, about 0.60 or more, about 0.70 or more, or about 0.75 or more” and “about 1.60 or less, about 1.50 or less, about 1.40 or less, about 1.30 or less, or about 1.25 or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation a ratio of a thickness of the surface layer to a number average diameter of the filler is about 10 or less and 0.20 or more, and the claim also recites “about 7 or less, about 5 or less, about 3 or less, about 2 or less about 1.6 or less, about 1.4 or less, about 1.3 or less, about 1.2 or less, about 1.1 or less about 1.0 or less” and “about 0.30 or more, about 0.40 or more, about 0.50 or more, about 0.60 or more, about 0.75 or more, or about 0.9 or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 24 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation wherein the article has a thickness of about 0.30 mm or more and about 10 mm or less, and the claim also recites “about 0.50 mm or more, about 0.70 mm or more, or about 0.80 mm or more” and “about 7 mm or less, about 4 mm or less, about 3 mm or less, about 2.0 mm or less, about 1.7 mm or less, about 1.40 mm or less, or about 1.30 mm or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 28 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the first metallic layer is a steel, and the claim also recites “preferably a galvanized steel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the first metallic layer having a thickness of about 0.20 to about 1.0 mm, and the claim also recites “preferably about 0.30 to about 0.70 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the second metallic layer is a steel, and the claim also recites “preferably a galvanized steel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the second metallic layer having a thickness of about 0.20 to about 1.0 mm, and the claim also recites “preferably about 0.30 to about 0.70 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the core layer contacts the first metallic layer and the second metallic layer, and the claim also recites “preferably the surface of the galvanized steel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the core layer has a thickness of about 0.01 to 0.2 mm, and the claim also recites “preferably about 0.015 to about 0.070 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the cover layer includes glass or ceramic beads, and the claim also recites “preferably hollow beads” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the cover layer includes glass or ceramic beads in the elastomeric composition, and the claim also recites “preferably having a cross-linked elastomer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the cover layer has a thickness of about 0.02 mm to about 0.25 mm, and the claim also recites “preferably 0.04 mm to about 0.15 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of the article has a total thickness of about 0.40 to 2.4 mm, and the claim also recites “preferably from about 0.7 to about 1.8 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 28 is 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 28 recites the limitation "the cover layer" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3, 20, 24, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2005/0019590) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2009/0227737).
Regarding claim 1, Josefsson teaches vibration damping materials which include a laminate of first and second thin metal sheets with a first rubber layer sandwiched therebetween and a second rubber layer as an outermost layer to be placed into contact with a panel (“a sound damping article for attaching to a casting comprising a multi-layer composite including: a first metallic layer; a second metallic layer; one or more core layers interposed between the first metallic layer and the second metallic layer so that direct contact between the first metallic layer and the second metallic layer is avoided”) (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0001]; [0008]). The rubber layers may be formed from any suitable elastomer (“wherein each of the one or more core layers is formed from a polymeric material”) (Paragraph [0016]). As discussed above, the second rubber layer is placed outside of the sandwiched laminate to contact an automobile panel (“a surface layer (i.e. damping surface) for contacting the casting, wherein the surface layer is an outer layer over the first metallic layer or the second metallic layer”) (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0001]).
Josefsson is silent with respect to the elastomer of the second rubber layer being an elastomeric composition having a glass transition temperature of about 10°C or less, a crystallinity of about 5 percent or less at 23°C, or both.
Okamoto teaches a vibration absorber composition including a mixture of a rubber elastomer and a block copolymer (Paragraph [0013]). The mixture ultimately has a glass transition temperature of between -40 to 30°C which provides sufficient elasticity at room temperature (Paragraph [0029]). The compositions result in a material with excellent vibration damping properties, has excellent elasticity, and can be compression molded (Paragraph [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the second rubber layer from the compositions of Okamoto, which teaches a mixture of a rubber elastomer and a block copolymer, resulting in a glass transition temperature of between -40 to 30°C which provides sufficient elasticity at room temperature and further results in excellent vibration damping properties, has excellent elasticity, and can be compression molded.
Regarding claim 2, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Okamoto further teaches the rubber elastomer including ethylene-propylene copolymer and natural rubber (Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The second rubber layer is further taught to have a thickness of less than 0.5 mm (500 microns) (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 20, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Okamoto further teaches the compositions being cross-linked (Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 24, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The first rubber layer may have a thickness of 0.5 mm or less (Paragraph [0009]). The second rubber layer may have a thickness of 0.5 mm or less (Paragraph [0010]). The metal layers may have thicknesses of 0.3 to 1.5 mm (Paragraphs [0011]-[0012]). The resulting range for the thicknesses is 0.6 mm to 4 mm.
Regarding claim 27, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the laminates are formed from the two metal layers sandwiching a first rubber layer and a second rubber layer.
Regarding claim 29, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Josefsson is silent with respect to the laminates being characterized by reducing the maximum value of the noise transfer function in the frequency range of 400 Hz to 800 Hz by about 10 dB or more at one or more of the following temperatures: 20°C, 50°C, 60°C, 70°C, 80°C or 90°C.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials and methods of forming the articles of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that substantially identical materials and methods would result in substantially identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
In the instant case, the articles of claim 1 require the first and second metallic layers with a core layer therebetween and a surface layer which has a glass transition temperature of 10°C or less. Furthermore, the metallic layers may be formed from any suitable metallic material (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0018]-[0022]). The core layer may be any suitable polymeric material (Paragraph [0023]). The surface layer may be formed from any suitable rubber which achieves the claimed glass transition temperature of claim 1 (Paragraph [0029]).
The combination of Josefsson and Okamoto teaches each of these materials as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
The methods of the instant invention include coating the metallic layers and cross-linking the surface layers (Paragraph [0013]).
These methods are taught by Josefsson such that the rubber layers are calendared to the metal layers and are vulcanized (Paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the methods and materials of Josefsson and Okamoto are substantially identical to those of applicant’s invention and would, therefore, have substantially identical properties, including being characterized by reducing the maximum value of the noise transfer function in the frequency range of 400 Hz to 800 Hz by about 10 dB or more at one or more of the following temperatures: 20°C, 50°C, 60°C, 70°C, 80°C or 90°C.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2005/0019590) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2009/0227737) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Senda et al. (US 2021/0214486).
Regarding claims 6-8, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Josefsson and Okamoto are silent with respect to the second rubber layers further including fillers, as required by claim 6, wherein those fillers include glass or ceramic beads, as required by claim 7, wherein the glass or ceramic beads include hollow beads, as required by claim 8.
Senda teaches block copolymers which exhibit high vibration damping properties (Paragraph [0013]). The compositions including the block copolymers are further provided with various additives including hollow glass spheres which are taught to increase rigidity or for increasing the volume without changing the function of the compositions (Paragraph [0151]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the second rubber layers of Josefsson and Okamoto to further include hollow glass spheres which are taught by Senda to increase rigidity or increase volume without changing the function of the compositions they are applied to.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2005/0019590) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2009/0227737) and Senda et al. (US 2021/0214486) as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, in further view of Marshall et al. (US 2006/0122049).
Regarding claim 11, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the second rubber layer includes hollow glass spheres.
Josefsson, Okamoto and Senda are silent with respect to the hollow glass spheres having a narrow size distribution being 2.0 or less.
Marshall teaches methods of forming glass microbubbles which are taught to be fillers and rigidifiers that can be placed in elastomeric compositions (Paragraphs [0001]; [0004]; [0031]). The glass microbubbles are taught to have a particle size distribution, measured by weight and number averages, of less than 0.9 in order to provide an additional degree of control during use of the microbubbles (Paragraphs [0018]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the hollow glass spheres of Josefsson and Senda to further have a particle size distribution span of 0.9 or less in order to provide an additional degree of control during use of the spheres as taught by Marshall.
Regarding claim 13, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, the second rubber layer includes hollow glass spheres. The second rubber layer may have a thickness of 0.5 mm (500 microns) or less (Paragraph [0010]).
Josefsson, Okamoto and Senda are silent with respect to a ratio of the thickness of the second rubber layer to the number average diameter of the hollow glass spheres being about 10 or less and/ or about 0.2 or more.
Marshall teaches methods of forming glass microbubbles which are taught to be fillers and rigidifiers that can be placed in elastomeric compositions (Paragraphs [0001]; [0004]; [0031]). The glass microbubbles are taught to have a particle size distribution, measured by weight and number averages, of less than 0.9 in order to provide an additional degree of control during use of the microbubbles (Paragraphs [0018]-[0021]). The microbubbles are further taught to have mean particle sizes of 5 to 250 microns (Paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the hollow glass spheres of Josefsson and Senda to further have a mean particle size of 5 to 250 microns such that this particle size provides the necessary rigidity and filler volume for elastomeric compositions as taught by Marshall. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting ratio of the thickness of the second rubber layer to the mean particle size of the hollow glass spheres is 2 (500 microns/250 microns) to 100 (500 microns/5 microns), overlapping with the claimed range.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2005/0019590) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2009/0227737) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weglewski et al. (US 5,946,866).
Regarding claim 15, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Josefsson is silent with respect to the laminates being attached to the panels via a plurality of attachment features.
Weglewski teaches vibration dampers which may be applied to damping structures (Col. 1, Lines 6-10). The dampers are attached to the structures via any combination of bolts, dowels, welding, or adhesive bonding although bolts are preferable due to the convenience of removing the dampers and are unlikely to be damaged during removal (Col. 2, Lines 6-10; Col. 2, Lines 50-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to attach the laminates to the panels via bolts due to the convenience of removing the dampers and are unlikely to be damaged during removal as taught by Weglewski.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefsson (US 2005/0019590) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2009/0227737) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Senda et al. (US 2021/0214486) and Weglewski et al. (US 5,946,866).
Regarding claim 28, Josefsson teaches the laminates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the laminates include first and second thin metal sheets with a first rubber layer sandwiched therebetween and a second rubber layer as an outermost layer to be placed into contact with a panel (“the core layer contacts the first metallic layer and the second metallic layer”). The first and second thin metal sheets are formed from any suitable metal, including carbon steel (“the first metallic layer is a steel” & “the second metallic layer is a steel”) (Paragraph [0013]). The metal sheets have thicknesses of 0.3 to 1.5 mm (Paragraphs [0011]-[0012]). The first rubber layer has a thickness of less than 0.5 mm (Paragraph [0009]). The second rubber layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm or less (Paragraph [0010]). The resulting range for the thicknesses is 0.6 mm to 4 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a textured may be either roughened or smooth and the surface of the second rubber layer would either be rough or smooth, meeting the limitation of the surface layer having a textured surface.
Josefsson and Okamoto are silent with respect to the second rubber layers further glass or ceramic beads.
Senda teaches block copolymers which exhibit high vibration damping properties (Paragraph [0013]). The compositions including the block copolymers are further provided with various additives including hollow glass spheres which are taught to increase rigidity or for increasing the volume without changing the function of the compositions (Paragraph [0151]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the second rubber layers of Josefsson and Okamoto to further include hollow glass spheres which are taught by Senda to increase rigidity or increase volume without changing the function of the compositions they are applied to.
Josefsson is silent with respect to the laminates having three or more holes or other attachment components.
Weglewski teaches vibration dampers which may be applied to damping structures (Col. 1, Lines 6-10). The dampers are attached to the structures via any combination of bolts, dowels, welding, or adhesive bonding although bolts are preferable due to the convenience of removing the dampers and are unlikely to be damaged during removal (Col. 2, Lines 6-10; Col. 2, Lines 50-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to attach the laminates to the panels via bolts due to the convenience of removing the dampers and are unlikely to be damaged during removal as taught by Weglewski. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any number of bolts may be used to secure the laminates to the panels (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 bolts, etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights