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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6-8,11-13,15,17,20-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US20080001431).
With respect to claim1 Thompson discloses a system (11 in figures 2a and 2b) comprising:
A decorative element (16) having a first side and second opposing side; and
An acoustic article (18) configured to be disposed on the opposing second side of the decorative element, wherein the acoustic article:
Comprises an entangled fiber structure (para 90 bonded fiber nonwoven web);
has a thickness; and compresses when subjected to pressure (as would be the case given the structure of the bonded fiber nonwoven web ).
While not expressly disclosing at least 0.4mm and a compression of less than 25% of the thickness when subjected to a pressure of 2lbf/in2, the selection of such values would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to optimize the qualities of the layers for both sizing considerations and uses as flooring for damping both sound and compression when stepped upon.
With respect to claim 2 Regarding the use of a polymer as the decorative element is taught to be carpet and moreover automotive carpet, the use of a polymer material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as being both conventional and known to be resistant to damage from water.
With respect to claim 6 Thompson (para 90) further discloses an article wherein there is no call for a filler and as such it is considered to be have no filler dispersed throughout.
With respect to claim 7 Thompson further discloses (para 90) wherein the acoustic article consists essentially of a nonwoven material and air dispersed therethrough.
With respect to claim 8 Thompson further discloses wherein the acoustic article comprises a plurality of fibers (nonwoven web). Regarding the selection of the denier, it would have been an obvious matter to select any desired values based upon the desired properties of the web and by extension the acoustic article.
With respect to claim 11 Thompson discloses the use of bicomponent fibers having different melting points (para 55-56). While not expressly disclosing first and second separate pluralities of fibers which each have different melting points, this would be an analogous structure to the bicomponent fibers in terms of the manner of attachment and binding together. The use of separate fibers in place of a single bicomponent fiber would allow one to tune the mix of the fibers in a way that would be understood by one of ordinary skill. The use of such materials would have been only the use of known materials in known ways.
With respect to claim 12 Thompson further discloses wherein the acoustic article comprises a plurality of layers (see figure 2b there are taught multiple layers, 18,24,25, 26,28).
With respect to claim 13 Thompson as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of layers have different densities (para 40 and 91).
With respect to claim 15 Thompson as modified further discloses wherein the acoustic article comprises a first layer (18) and a second layer (24) that is coupled to the first layer, wherein the first layer is disposed between the decorative element (16) and the second layer.
With respect to claim 17 Thompson as modified further discloses (para 88) an adhesive disposed between the first layer and the decorative element.
With respect to claims 20 and 21 Thompson as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the system is configured to achieve and HIIC rating of at least 65, and further at least 68 in a lab test on 6” of concrete floor with no ceiling. The tuning of the system would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at any desired outcome as the materials and structures are discloses buy Thompson as modified. 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 22 Thomson as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly wherein the IIC rating is at least 58 in the test as claimed. The selection of such an IIC rating would have been an obvious smatter as the materials and structures are taught, the tuning of the system would allow for such a result. 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 23 Thompson as modified discloses the article having a density (implicit in any structure) while not expressly disclosing at least 4.5 pounds per cubic foot, such a value would have been obvious to select. It has been held 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 claims 24 and 25 Thompson discloses a structure which will necessarily compress when subject to pressures (air space between the fibers) the selection of the specific claimed values would have been an obvious smatter based upon the desired properties. Further it has been held 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 28 Thompson as modified further discloses a method of installing the system onto a subfloor surface (para 0003-0007).
2. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US20080001431) as applied to claim 15 and in further view of Grah (US20060216471).
With respect to claim 16 Thompson does not disclose the use of a woven material for the first layer.
Grah discloses (para 131) the use of a woven structure in a multilayer acoustic absorber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Grah to use a woven structure as an upper layer of the device of Thompson to ensure the entrance of the sound waves into the lower layers for damping by providing repeated and regular openings.
3. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US20080001431) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Windmoeller (WO2018197597).
With respect to claim 18 Thompson as modified discloses the invention as claimed except for the provision of a barrier between the acoustic article ad the decorative element, the barrier being liquid impermeable and/or breathable.
Windmoeller discloses (para 14 ) the use of a vapor barrier which is liquid impermeable in a flooring system (see element 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the use of a vapor barrier element with the multilayer flooring element of Thompson as modified to protect against the incursion of water into the layers this would reduce the likelihood of mold and the rusting of the lower flooring element of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 19 Thompson as modified further discloses a leveling material (Windmoeller para 22, compensating layer) between the barrier and the decorative element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schulze (US20240227696) discloses a sound insulating multilayer structure including carpeting; Mullet (US20220339915) discloses a sound insulating multilayer; and Von Fange (US11257475) discloses a microperforated wood veneer acoustic panel.
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
Prosecution Insights