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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “automotive noise attenuating trim part comprising at least one foam or felt layer, whereby a second outer surface (of the particle acoustic damper pouch) is in contact or connected to the at least one foam or felt layer of claims 12-17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3, 7-8 and 11-17 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 3, the phrase “whereby the fiber web is fully bonded, forming a paper-like material” is indefinite, as this language does not appear to be supported by the disclosure. It is unclear from the disclosure how a fully bonded fiber web forms a paper-like material. The Specification, paragraph [0029], states that “Tyvek as commonly on the market has a paper rather than a fabric-like appearance and consistency;” and in paragraph [0037], the Specification states that “Spunbond materials may be partially or point bonded or fully bonded. Preferably, the fully bonded material is used, to prevent any delamination of the web or lodging or hanging of particles within the fibre web structure.” The Specification does not make any connection between “a fully bonded fiber web material” and “a paper-like material,” nor is it clear if the Tyvek material discussed is fully bonded. While this may potentially be true in practice, or potentially known in the art (which is not suggested by the disclosure), the Specification does not support it, rendering claim 3 indefinite.
Regarding claims 7-8, 11 and 13, 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 7 recites the broad recitation “whereby the pouch is formed in either a sphere or a pyramid 3 dimensional shape”, and the claim also recites “preferably with a footprint that is one of round, oval, or cornered shape with at least 3 corners” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 8 recites the broad recitation “whereby the loose particles are formed from a high density material”, and the claim also recites “preferably a high density metal, preferably based on iron, nickel, zinc or steel or metal alloy, or a mixture of high density materials” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 11 recites the broad recitation “whereby the total weight of the particles in one pouch is less than 100 grams”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 5 and 100 grams, preferably between 30 and 70 grams” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Further, in the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “whereby the loose particles have a median particle size between 20 µm and 1250 µm”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 250 µm and 1000 µm, preferably between 150 µm and 900 µm” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2003150169 A – see translation provided by Examiner) in view of Kurashima (10,619,276).
With respect to claim 1, Hirose teaches a particle acoustic damper (Figures 1-4, #4) for use in an unspecified, but obvious part of a vehicle and reducing noise radiated by the obvious portion of the vehicle (see translation, [0001], [0006]), comprising a pouch (#1/2/3) sealed to provide an enclosure and loose particles (#c) forming a filler inside the enclosure (1/2/3), characterized in that the pouch comprises of at least one layer of a spunbond fiber web ([0087]).
Hirose fails to explicitly teach wherein the particle acoustic damper is used for locally damping vibration of vehicle panels and reducing noise radiated by them.
Kurashima teaches wherein it is known to provide a similar sound absorbing material/damper material (Figures 4a-b, #200) for use in locally damping vibration of vehicle panels (302) and reducing noise radiated by them (Col. 9, Line 39-Col. 10, Line 55 - note that sound is a form of vibration).
Because Hirose teaches that the particle acoustic damper material can be used for sound absorption within a vehicle, without specifying where or how it is installed in the vehicle, and Kurashima teaches applying a similar acoustic damper material to a vehicle panel, such the material can be used as a sound absorbing member for a vehicle exterior to suppress vehicle exterior noise (moving car noise generated when traveling) that infiltrates the interior of the vehicle (see Kurashima, Col. 1, Lines 21-25; Col. 2, Lines 4-17; Col. 9, Lines 31-38), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Hiroseirose, with the apparatus of Kurashima so as to arranged the device of Hirose in a vehicle such that it suppresses vehicle exterior noise (moving car noise generated when traveling) that infiltrates the interior of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 2, Hirose teaches whereby the spunbond fiber web is made of a polyolefin ([0058]-[0060]).
With respect to claim 3, Hirose teaches whereby it is obvious that the fiber web is fully bonded, forming a paper-like material (see material, [0087]), in the same way as Applicant’s. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 4, Hirose teaches, further comprising a glue layer ([0056] - i.e., hot-melt adhesive) to laminate and/or seal the at least one fiber web at the rims into a closed pouch forming an enclosure for the filler particles ([0055]-[0056]).
With respect to claim 5, Hirose and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 4.
Hirose and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the glue layer is based on at least one of ethylene vinyl acetate, branched polyethylene, acrylate, epoxy, polyamide, and polyurethane.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide whereby the glue layer is based on at least one of ethylene vinyl acetate, branched polyethylene, acrylate, epoxy, polyamide, and polyurethane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, glue layers based on at least one of ethylene vinyl acetate, branched polyethylene, acrylate, epoxy, polyamide, and polyurethane are well known and would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Hirose teaches whereby the pouch is formed from two layers (see Figure 2, #2-2) of spun bond polyolefin fiber web ([0087]), whereby at least one of the layers forms a cavity (could be bottom layer #a, in the same way as Applicant’s) with at least a volume of loose particles (#c) as filler, and the other layer (top layer #a) covers the filled cavity and attaches to a surrounding rim to close the cavity (clearly seen in Figure 3, #2-2).
With respect to claim 7, Hirose teaches whereby the pouch (1/2/3) is formed in either a sphere or a pyramid 3 dimensional shape, preferably with a footprint that is one of round, oval, or cornered shape with at least 3 corners (clearly seen in Figure 1)
With respect to claim 8, Hirose and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 1.
Hirose and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the loose particles are formed from a high density material, preferably a high density metal, preferably based on iron, nickel, zinc or steel or metal alloy, or a mixture of high density materials.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide whereby the loose particles are formed from a high density material, preferably a high density metal, preferably based on iron, nickel, zinc or steel or metal alloy, or a mixture of high density materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, loose particles formed from a high density material, preferably a high density metal, preferably based on iron, nickel, zinc or steel or metal alloy, or a mixture of high density material are well known and would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art so as to desirably tune the device.
With respect to claim 9, Hirose and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 1.
Hirose and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the loose particles are formed by mixing particles based on different high density material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide whereby the loose particles are formed by mixing particles based on different high density material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, loose particles formed by mixing particles based on different high density material are well known and would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art so as to desirably tune the device.
With respect to claim 10, Hirose whereby the loose particles are from a recycled or reclaimed source ([0102]).
whereby the total weight of the particles in one pouch is less than 100 grams, preferably between 5 and 100 grams, preferably between 30 and 70 grams.
With respect to claim 11, Hirose and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 1. Hirose further teaches wherein whereby the total weight of the particles in one pouch is of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Hirose and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the total weight of the particles in one pouch is less than 100 grams, preferably between 5 and 100 grams, preferably between 30 and 70 grams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide whereby the total weight of the particles in one pouch is less than 100 grams, preferably between 5 and 100 grams, preferably between 30 and 70 grams, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, selecting a total weight of the particles would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so as to desirably tune the device.
With respect to claim 12, Hirose and Kurashima teach an automotive noise attenuating trim part (Kurashima, # Figures 4a-b, when combined) comprising at least one foam or felt layer (Kurashima, #210 - Col. 9, Lines 53-55) characterized in that the layer comprises at least one particle acoustic damper according to claim 1 (Hirose, #4, when combined with Kurashima, #200), whereby the particle acoustic damper pouch (see annotated view of Kurashima, Figure 4b) comprises a contact surface (defined by end outer surface at #1, in contact with panel #302) for contacting a vibrating surface (302) of the vehicle and whereby the surface opposite the contact surface (defined by end inner surface at #,) is in contact with at least part of the loose particles (#c of Hirose, when combined), such that the fibers web (defined by bag #1/2/3 of Hirose, when combined) can transfer vibrational energy from the vibrating surface (Kurashima, #302) to the loose particles inside a container (of Hirose, #4) and whereby a second outer surface (outer surface #2 of particle acoustic damper pouch, #200, when combined) is in contact or connected to the at least one foam or felt layer (Kurashima, #210).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, Hirose and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 12. Hirose further teaches whereby the loose particles have a median particle size outside of the claimed range.
Hirose and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the loose particles have a median particle size between 20 µm and 1250 µm, preferably between 250 µm and 1000 µm, preferably between 150 µm and 900 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide whereby the loose particles have a median particle size between 20 µm and 1250 µm, preferably between 250 µm and 1000 µm, preferably between 150 µm and 900 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, selecting a median particle size of the loose particles would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so as to desirably tune the device.
Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to claim 14, Hirose and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 12. Kurashima further teaches the at least one layer (210) being a felt layer (Col. 9, Lines 53-55), whereby the felt layer comprises obvious, but unspecified material components.
Hirose and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the felt layer comprises fibers and/or filaments, and is further comprising a thermoset or thermoplastic binder.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide whereby the felt layer comprises fibers and/or filaments, and is further comprising a thermoset or thermoplastic binder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, it is considered to be well known, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to selected a felt material that comprises fibers and/or filaments, and is further comprising a thermoset or thermoplastic binder, as felt is a commonly used material
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Hirose and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 1. Kurashima further teaches the surface of the foam or felt layer (210) opposite the surface for contacting the vibrating surface (302) of the vehicle.
Hirose and Kurashima fail to teach further comprising one or more additional layers on the surface of the foam or felt layer opposite the surface for contacting the vibrating surface of the vehicle, and whereby the at least one or more additional layers is at least one of a foam layer, or felt layer, a film layer, a foil layer, a thermoplastic elastomeric layer with a high filler content, a decorative layer, such as a nonwoven or carpet layer, or any combinations of such layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one or more additional layers on the surface of the foam or felt layer opposite the surface for contacting the vibrating surface of the vehicle and whereby the at least one or more additional layers is at least one of a foam layer, or felt layer, a film layer, a foil layer, a thermoplastic elastomeric layer with a high filler content, a decorative layer, such as a nonwoven or carpet layer, or any combinations of such layers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, providing additional felt layers #210, or forming layer #210 in a multilayer material configuration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to desirably tune the device by proving an additional layer of sound absorbing material, and such practice is well known.
With respect to claims 17, Hirose and Kurashima teach the use of the noise attenuating trim part (Kurashima, device of Figure 4a-b, #210/200, when combined) including a particle acoustic damper according to claim 12, as an inner dash, an outer dash, a battery lid silencer, a battery insulator, as a carpet system with at least one of a tufted carpet, a needle-punch carpet, a carpet with flocked surface, or a Dilour carpet, as a trunk trim part or trim part for an engine bay area (Col. 9, Line 31-38), wherein the at least one layer (210) is the layer in contact with a vibrating body panel (Kurashima, #302 when combined) when the part is installed in the vehicle. It is noted that when used in a vehicle engine bay instead of a fender, the layers will be arranged in a similar manner to that of Figure 4b, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837