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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/29/26 has been entered.
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, 4, 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taxak (WO 2021/113172 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Taxak teaches a particle damper (Figures 4-5, defined by pouch #16, when filled with loose particles – [0037], [0044]) for locally damping vibration of vehicle panels and reducing noise radiated by them (note the pockets having utility in both sound attenuation and vibration dampening - [0028], [0031], [0043]-[0044]) comprising a pouch (16) sealed to provide an enclosure (12/14) and loose particles forming a filler inside the enclosure ([0037], [0044]), characterized in that the pouch (16) comprises of at least one layer (one of layers 12/14) of a spunbond fiber web ([007]).
With respect to claim 2, Taxak teaches whereby the spunbond fiber web is made of a polyolefin ([007], [0026]).
With respect to claim 4, Taxak teaches further comprising a glue layer to laminate and/or seal the fiber web at rims into a closed pouch (16) forming an enclosure for the loose particles ([0035]).
With respect to claim 6, Taxak teaches whereby the pouch (16) is comprised of a first layer (14) and a second layer (12) that are formed of spun bond polyolefin fiber web ([0031] – note the molded and lofted layers #14/12 can be the same material and manufacturing processes]; or [0037] – note that pocket can be formed by two abutting lofted layers), whereby the first layer (14) forms a cavity (defined by pocket #16) defining a volume that contains the loose particles ([0037], [0044]), and the second layer (12) covers the cavity and attaches to a surrounding rim to close the cavity.
With respect to claim 17, Taxak teaches method of using of the noise attenuating trim part including a particle damper according to claim 1 (Figures 4-5, defined by pouch #16, when filled with loose particles – [0037], [0044]), 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 ([0016], [0017]), wherein the at least one layer (one of layers #12/14) is the inherently layer in contact (direct or indirect) with a vibrating body panel when the part is installed in the vehicle.
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 3, 5, 7-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taxak (WO 2021/113172 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claim 1.
Taxak fails to explicitly teach whereby the fiber web is fully bonded.
However, 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, selecting a fully bonded fiber web would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claim 4.
Taxak fails 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 7, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claim 1. Taxak further teaches whereby the pouch (16) is formed in a three dimensional shape.
Taxak fails to explicitly teach whereby the pouch is formed in either a sphere or a pyramid three dimensional shape.
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 pouch is formed in either a sphere or a pyramid three dimensional shape, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Taxak.
With respect to claim 8, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claim 1.
Taxak fails to explicitly teach whereby the loose particles are formed from a 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 from a 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 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, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claim 1.
Taxak fails 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, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claim 1.
Taxak fails to explicitly teach whereby the loose particles are from a recycled or reclaimed source.
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 w whereby the loose particles are from a recycled or reclaimed source, 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 from a recycled or reclaimed source 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 11, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claim 1. Taxak further teaches wherein whereby the total weight of the particles in one pouch is of an obvious, but unspecified amount.
Taxak fails to explicitly teach whereby the total weight of the particles in one pouch is less than 100 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, 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 claims 18-20, Taxak teaches the particle damper of claims 1 and 6. Taxak further teaches “the pockets 16 may also be filled with a secondary material to further improve acoustic performance, insulative performance, or both of the article 10. For example, the pockets 16 may be filled with loose particles (e.g., foam particles, fibrous particles, etc.) to further insulate the cabin, to further improve sound attenuation, or both. As such, it should be gleaned from the present teachings that the article 10 may be highly tunable and customizable based on requirements of a given application ([0044]).”
Taxak fails to explicitly teach wherein the cavity is not completely filled with the loose particles, and/or wherein the cavity is not substantially filled with loose particles.
However, it is considered to be obvious that Taxak teaches that the cavity can include loose particles in such a way that the cavity is not completely or substantially filled with the loose particles, as Taxak teaches that the pockets can be void of any material or “filled” with loose particles, and that “it should be gleaned from the present teachings that the article 10 may be highly tunable and customizable based on requirements of a given application”. Taxak is clearly not using the term “filled” to mean that the pocket must be completely or substantially filled; rather; the term “filled” is used to mean that material can be present in the pockets as opposed to being “void of any material”. The term “filled” is clearly not intended to mean completely or substantially filled in a limiting way, as if Taxak only allows for either no material (i.e. void of any material) or that the pockets are completely/substantially filled. If that were the case, the device would not be “highly tunable and customizable based on requirements of a given application” as clearly stated by Taxak ([0044]). In light of Taxak’s teaching of being highly tunable and customizable, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the pockets can be “filled” with loose particles to any desirable amount so as to be highly tunable and customizable based on requirements of a given application.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taxak (WO 2021/113172 A1) in view of Kurashima (10,619,276).
With respect to claim 12, Taxak teaches an automotive noise attenuating trim part (10) comprising: at least one particle damper according to claim 1; wherein the pouch (16) of the at least one particle acoustic damper comprises a contact surface (outer surface of one of #12/14) adapted for contacting a vibrating surface of the vehicle (when installed as described in [0016]-[0017]), whereby the surface opposite the contact surface is in contact with at least part of the loose particles ([0037], [0044]), such that the fiber web (12/14) is configured to transfer vibrational energy from the vibrating surface to the loose particles inside the pouch (16).
Taxak fails to teach the automotive noise attenuating trim part comprising: at least one foam or felt layer that includes at least one particle damper according to claim 1, and whereby a second outer surface is in contact or connected to the at least one foam or felt layer.
Kurashima teaches wherein it is known to provide a similar sound absorbing material/damper material (Figures 4a-b, #200), and further including an an automotive noise attenuating trim part (Kurashima, Figures 4a-b, #200/210; when combined with trim part #10 of Taxak) comprising: at least one foam or felt layer (Kurashima, #210 – note that space #210 can include a felt layer - Col. 9, Lines 53-55) that includes at least one particle damper according to claim 1 (Taxak, #10, when combined with Kurashima, #200), wherein the pouch of the at least one particle damper (see annotated view of Kurashima Figure 4b provided below, when the Taxak pouch #16/component #10 is installed as #200 of Kurashima) comprises a contact surface (Kurashima, defined by end outer surface at #1, in contact with panel #302) adapted for contacting a vibrating surface (Kurashima,302) of the vehicle, wherein the surface opposite the contact surface (Kurashima, defined by end inner surface at # 1) is in contact with at least part of the loose particles (of Taxak, when combined), such that the fiber web (Taxak #12/14) is configured to transfer vibrational energy from the vibrating surface (Kurashima, #302) to the loose particles inside the pouch (of Taxak, #10) 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
625
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because Taxak teaches that the particle acoustic damper material “may be utilized in various other applications outside of vehicle trim packages, such as within… an exterior of a vehicle ([0017])”, 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 Taxak irose, with the apparatus of Kurashima so as to arranged the device of Taxak 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 13, Taxak and Kurashima teach the particle acoustic damper of claim 12. Taxak further teaches whereby the loose particles have a median particle size outside of the claimed range.
Taxak and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the loose particles have a median particle size between 20 µm and 1250 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, 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, Taxak 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.
Taxak and Kurashima fail to explicitly teach whereby the felt layer comprises fibers and/or filaments, and further consists of 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 consists of 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 select 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, Taxak 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.
Taxak 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, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers Taxak and the combination with Kurashima, to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the case of claim 12, the Examiner has cited clear motivation taken directly from the Kurashima reference in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, therefore the rejection is proper.
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
Prosecution Insights