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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 and 09/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glain (US 20210229183 A1) in view of Herrera et al. (US 8820477 B1), herein Herrera, and Stuck et al. (US 20220297415 A1), herein Stuck.
In regards to claim 1, Glain teaches a finishing profile member for covering the edge surface of a panel [Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6, 0005-0007]. The panel being formed of a sound absorbing layer as the core with textile walls surrounding the core and a reinforcing portion surrounding the edges of the panel and covered with the textile layer [Fig. 6, 0005-0007, 0038]. The reinforcing member is c-shaped channel and thus has a wall and flanks [Fig. 6, 0012, 0038]. The core is a foam material [0033, 0049].
Glain does not expressly teach that the sound damping layer is sandwiched by composite walls.
Herrera teaches acoustic panels for sound attenuation over a wide variety of frequencies [Abstract, Col 1 lines 45-51].
Herrera expressly teaches that linear acoustic facesheets are provided to sandwich a sound dampening core [Col 1 45-60, Col 2 lines 27-34]. The facesheets comprise a composite material [Col 4 lines 10-26]. The linear acoustic facesheets facilitate noise attenuation through viscous losses that occur through the linear material layer [Col 2 lines 27-34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the linear acoustic facesheets comprising a composite material as taught by Herrera on sound dampening layer of Glain. One would have been motivated to do so by the additional noise dampening provided by the facesheets.
Glain does not teach that the reinforcement comprises at least one shaping zone in which a plurality of cuts are made, such that said reinforcement can be shaped along the shaping zone to follow a curvature profile of the edge surface of the panel.
Stuck teaches a method of forming shaping zones in rigid substrates in order to enable bending of the panel more easily in the shaping/bendable zones [Abstract, Claim 1]. The shaping zones are formed by cutting grooves into one side of the substrate [Fig. 1-2, 0009, 0015-0016]. Stuck teaches the grooves facilitate easy bending at essentially any angle, including 360 degrees to form a tubular structure from panel [0009, 0016]. The use of the grooves also reduces cracking and delamination of a functional and/or ornamental layer or layers on the opposite side of the panel [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the shaping zones comprising the cuts as taught by Stuck on the reinforcement of Glain. One would have been motivated to do so as Glain shows the privacy panel can have complicated curves and shapes and Stuck teaches the grooves increase the ease of bending and surface stresses on the external face that could cause cracking or delamination of outer layers. Further, it would have been the application of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
In regards to claim 2, Stuck teaches the cuts are made through the backside of the substrate to ensure the exposed face does not crack or any further layer does not delaminate [Fig. 1, 0006]. Applying this to Glain would yield cuts through the flanks and partially into the backside of the wall, thus allowing twisting of the reinforcement.
In regards to claim 9, Glain further teaches the textile shell may further comprise an outer surface layer [0009].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Glain does not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 3-8 and 10 and no teaching or suggestion was found in the art to modify the panel of Glain to meet these limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights