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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Non-elected claims 14 and 15 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, there has been no information disclosure statement entered into the file. The Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose. See MPEP 2001.
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 1-13 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 1, the limitation in line 4 directed to “the absorptive layer” is indefinite because the term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. This limitation appears to intend to refer to the “first acoustic absorptive layer” set forth in line 3 and will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Similarly, it is suggested to amend the limitation in line 3 directed to “the face layer” to recite --the continuous face layer-- in order to use consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation reciting “wherein the continuous face layer defines a flexible material” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the face layer “defining” a flexible material. In looking to paragraph [0033] of the as-filed specification, the continuous face layer (120) is said to be defined by a flexible material, for example one that can be supplied in roll form, such as laminate, wallcoverings, etc. The limitation of claim 5 therefore appears to intend to require that the continuous face layer is made of (i.e., defined by) a flexible material, and will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation directed to “the first acoustic dampening layer” is indefinite because the term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. This limitation appears to intend to refer to the “first acoustic absorptive layer” set forth in claim 1 and will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation directed to “the channel body” is indefinite because the term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Although claim 7 sets forth that the channel has a body portion, claim 8 depends directly from claim 1 and does not include the limitations set forth in claim 7. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 8 will be interpreted to mean that the channel has a body portion, wherein the body portion is elongated having an open proximal end and an enclosed distal end as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, and 9-13, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 and 8.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dirnberger (US 2022/0341107).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Dirnberger teaches a sound absorber (1; acoustic absorptive panel) for a traffic route noise protection wall, wherein the sound absorber comprises a composite foam board (2) comprising two individual plastic foam part boards (12, 13) (Abstract, [0044], Fig. 2). The first plastic foam part board (12; first acoustic absorptive layer) is located on a rear surface of the second plastic foam part board (13; continuous face layer) (Fig. 2).
A first surface (3) of the first plastic foam part board (12) comprises a number of sound absorber recesses (4; channels) which provide a high sound absorption capacity ([0014]-[0015], Figs. 1-5). The sound absorber recesses may take the form of a groove (6), which can extend over the entire length or width of the foam board, or only over a part thereof ([0031]-[0032]). As shown in Fig. 1, the grooves (6) each have an opening terminating at an outer edge of the foam board. The sound absorber recesses may additionally or alternatively take the form of a blind hole (9) having any cross-sectional shape, such as an elliptic blind hole (16) [0033]. As shown in Fig. 1, the pair of elliptic blind holes closest to the right side edge of the sound absorber each has a channel opening terminating near an outer edge of the foam board.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Dirnberger teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that more than the two plastic foam part boards (12, 13) can be connected, in particular glued together, to form a composite board (2) [0044]. Thus, an additional plastic foam part board disposed between the two boards (12, 13) can be taken to correspond to the claimed second acoustic absorptive layer, which is continuous. Alternatively, an additional plastic foam part board disposed on the side of the second board (13) facing away from the first board (12) can be taken to correspond to the claimed continuous face layer, while the second board (13) can be interpreted as the claimed second acoustic absorptive layer.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Dirnberger teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Dirnberger teaches that the sound absorber (1) is intended for use as a traffic route noise protection wall [0016]. Dirnberger further teaches that plastic foam boards with a Shore A hardness between 15 and 70 have proven to be particularly suitable, where a hardness that is too low is usually accompanied by a low dimensional stability [0021]. Therefore, the second plastic foam part (13; continuous face layer) defines a hard surface which is formed from a flexible material such as a polymer and/or a wallcovering.
Regarding claim 7, Dirnberger teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 1 below, the elliptic blind hole (16; channel) has a body portion which is located in the central, widest part of the blind hole and which is larger in cross-sectional area than the channel opening located at the narrow edge portion of the blind hole.
PNG
media_image1.png
661
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Dirnberger teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 1 below, the groove (6; channel) has a body portion which is elongated and which has an open proximal end opening onto the channel opening and an enclosed distal end.
PNG
media_image2.png
662
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Dirnberger teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. As shown in Fig. 1, the sound absorber recesses (4) may include two sets of three grooves (6; channels) which each extend generally parallel with each other.
Regarding claim 13, Dirnberger teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the panel defines the writing surface of a wall mounted or free-standing whiteboard”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to the intended use of the claimed acoustic absorptive panel. The sound absorber panel taught by Dirnberger is capable of being used in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US 2015/0090526).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Sasaki teaches a sound absorbing board (1; acoustic absorptive panel) comprising a decorative layer (2; continuous face layer) and a rigid substrate material (3; first acoustic absorptive layer) located on a rear surface of the decorative layer (Abstract, Figs. 1-2). Sasaki teaches that the substrate material contains numerous grooves (4; channels), which are mutually parallel and spaced at a pre-determined distance [0021]. As shown in annotated Fig. 2 below, the grooves each have an opening terminating at or near an outer edge of the sound absorbing board, thus terminating at or near an outer edge of the decorative layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
254
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sasaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the decorative layer (2; continuous face layer) may be a single layer or a multi-layer laminate including a plastic film and an adhesive layer ([0023], [0026]). Sasaki further teaches that the sound absorbing board can be used, for example, on wall surfaces [0059]. The decorative layer therefore defines a hard surface formed from a laminate, a polymer, or a wallcovering. Given that Sasaki teaches that the thickness of the decorative film layer may be within the range of approximately 0.01 mm to approximately 0.5 mm ([0026]), the decorative layer is considered to be made of a flexible material.
Regarding claims 7-10, Sasaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the grooves (4) are made so that the cross-sectional surface has a shape containing a neck part (4a) and a trunk part (4b) [0040]. As shown in annotated Fig. 5 below, the trunk part (4a; body portion) is larger in cross-sectional area than the neck part (4a; channel opening), wherein the trunk part is elongated and has an open proximal end opening to the neck part and an enclosed distal end. The open proximal end and the enclosed distal end are each rounded.
PNG
media_image4.png
269
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the panel defines the writing surface of a wall mounted or free-standing whiteboard”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to the intended use of the claimed acoustic absorptive panel. The sound absorbing board taught by Sasaki is capable of being used in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Claims 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boucké (US 2025/0122730).
Regarding claim 1, Boucké teaches a decorative panel (100; acoustic absorptive panel) comprising a core (105; first acoustic absorptive layer) and a decorative structure (109; continuous face layer) affixed to an upper side of the core ([0189], Figs. 1a-1e, 2a-2d). The lower side of the core is provided with at least one core groove (106; channel), wherein the core grooves shown in Fig. 1b each have an opening terminating near an outer edge of the decorative structure (i.e., at a distance (X1) away from the coupling profile (101)), while the core grooves shown in Fig. 1c each have an opening terminating at an outer edge (i.e., extending from one coupling profile to an opposing coupling profile (101, 105) ([0191]-[0192]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Boucké teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the core can comprise a plurality of sub-layers, wherein each core layer can comprise a thermoplastic polymer, and that an elastic and/or compressible intermediate core layer may be situated between two more rigid core layers ([0036], [0038]). The intermediate core layer therefore corresponds to the claimed second acoustic absorptive layer which is continuous.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Boucké teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the decorative structure (continuous face layer) can comprise at least one decorative layer, at least one transparent wear layer, optionally at least one back layer situated between the decorative layer and the core, and optionally a lacquer layer or other protective layer applied on top of the wear layer ([0069]-[0070]). Boucké further teaches that the decorative panel can be used as a wall panel or a decorative wall covering, and typically has a thickness between 3 and 10 mm ([0002], [0074]). The decorative structure therefore defines a hard surface formed from a flexible material such as a laminate or wallcovering.
Regarding claim 6, Boucké teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the core (first acoustic absorptive layer) may be based upon a polymer, such as PET [0037].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Boucké teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the core grooves (106; plurality of channels) run substantially parallel ([0075], Figs. 1b, 1c).
Regarding claim 13, Boucké teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the panel defines the writing surface of a wall mounted or free-standing whiteboard”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to the intended use of the claimed acoustic absorptive panel. The decorative panel taught by Boucké is capable of being used in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirnberger (US 2022/0341107) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 2023-0081032, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 6, Dirnberger teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Dirnberger further teaches that the plastic foam of the composite foam board (2) can be any type of plastic foam, such as polyethylene or polypropylene ([0018]), the reference does not expressly teach that the plastic foam is formed from PET.
However, in the analogous art of sound absorbing materials, Park et al. teaches a laminate which is excellent in sound absorption and sound insulation performance [0012]. In particular, Park et al. teaches that the laminate comprises a foam layer having closed cells, wherein the foam layer is made from an environmentally friendly material that can be recycled, such as PET ([0014], [0033], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound absorber taught by Dirnberger by selecting PET as the plastic foam material of the foam board, as taught by Park et al., given the art-recognized suitability of PET as a foam layer for a sound absorbing laminate. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select PET as the plastic foam material in order to improve the environmental impact of the sound absorber by incorporating recycled and/or recyclable materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baert et al. (US 2021/0285231) teaches a panel (100), such as a wall panel, comprising a core layer (101) having a plurality of cavities (102), and a top layer attached to the top surface of the core layer ([0084], [0087], Fig. 2a). Figs. 1a-1d illustrate different embodiments of the cavities, such as a plurality of substantially parallel lines, a network of interconnected cavities, a plurality of individual cavities which extend in a longitudinal direction and have locally widened areas, and a series of spaced apart substantially V-shaped cavities [0085].
Lee (KR 101751359, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a whiteboard that enables sound to dissipate when the surface is struck with a marker ([0001], [0012]). The whiteboard comprises a panel (100) having a plurality of grooves (104) formed on one surface, and a color coating layer (102) ([0056], Figs. 6-7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785