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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, in the phrase “particle acoustic damper,” the word “acoustic” should be deleted so as to be consistent throughout the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 (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 loose 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 comprised of a first layer and a second layer (see Figure 2, #2-2) that are is formed of spun bond polyolefin fiber web ([0087]), whereby the first layer forms a cavity (could be bottom layer #a, in the same way as Applicant’s) defining a volume that contains the loose particles, (#c), and the second layer (top layer #a) covers the 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 three dimensional shape (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.
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, 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]).
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.
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 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) that includes at least one particle damper according to claim 1 (Hirose, #4, when combined with Kurashima, #200), wherein the pouch of the at least one particle damper (see annotated view of Kurashima, Figure 4b) comprises a contact surface (defined by end outer surface at #1, in contact with panel #302) adapted for contacting a vibrating surface (302) of the vehicle, wherein 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 fiber web (defined by bag #1/2/3 of Hirose, when combined) is configured to transfer vibrational energy from the vibrating surface (Kurashima, #302) to the loose particles inside the pouch (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.
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, 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 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 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, 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 a method of using of the noise attenuating trim part (Kurashima, device of Figure 4a-b, #210/200, when combined) including a particle 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.
With respect to claims 18, Hirose and Kurashima teach wherein the cavity is not completely filled with loose particles (see [0090]-[0091] – note the two examples show different M/V ratios which relates to a filling amount, rendering it obvious that the cavity is not completely full to a point where it cannot except even a single additional loose particle).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner considers the obvious combination of Hirose and Kurashima to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-17, Applicant argues Sound absorbers described in Hirose or in Kurashima is not suitable “for locally damping the vibration of panels.” The Examiner disagrees, as the device of Hirose, when combined with Kurashima does in fact teach locally damping the vibration of panels. As discussed in the rejection, material #220 denotes that particle damper when combined with Hirose, and material #200 is mounted to the panel with either a felt or air layer #210 in between. The material functions to prevent sound vibration from infiltrating the vehicle through vehicle fender/panel #302. Since the panel and particle damper are mechanically attached, it is considered to be locally damping the vibration of panels #302.
Further regarding claims 21-17, Applicant argues that “the cited prior references fail to disclose or suggest all the elements of Claim 1, most importantly, “loose particulate matter.” The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive, and in the Hirose reference, the particles are contained within a bag, but are not mixed with an adhesive or binder material. Because the particles are not attached to one another and can move within the bag, they are considered to be “loose” using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). With regard to arguments against claim 12, Applicant appears to be mischaracterizing the references, as it is unclear how Applicant arrived at the conclusion that “Hirose is configured to be positioned at a distance from the concerned vehicle body panel,” as the Examiner cannot find such a teaching in Hirose. Hirose merely states that the material is useful in the construction of many applications including vehicles. Regarding Kurashima, as disused above, fender liner #200 denotes the particle damper when combined with Hirose, which is attached to vehicle panel #302 with either an air layer or felt material filling space #210 therebetween. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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