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
Claims 1 and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, Line 6, “a thickness of at least one of the sheet-like materials being a porous body” should “a thickness of the porous body”.
In Claim 9, Line 2, “a resin sheet” should read “the resin film”.
In Claim 10, Lines 4-5, “a structure in which a sheet-like material being a porous body and sheet-like material being a porous body” should read “a structure in which two porous bodies”
In Claim 11, Lines 7-9, “a structure in which a resin film, a sheet-like material being a porous body, and a sheet-like material being a porous body are layered” should read “a structure in which the resin film and two porous bodies are layered”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 1, Line 5 and Claim 9, Line 2 recite “a porous body”. It is unclear whether these limitations refer to the same porous body or different porous bodies. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the porous bodies are the same and the recitation in Claim 9 should read “the porous body”. Examiner further notes the recitation in Claim 9 of “a structure in which a sheet-like material being a porous body and a resin sheet are layered” should read “a structure in which the porous body and the resin film are layered”.
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 1-2 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (JP2021193449 cited in IDS with reference to the equivalent English publication PGPub 20170129145).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a method for manufacturing a sound-absorbing member (Abstract) formed by laminating a plurality of sheet-like materials (See Figs; [0008]; [0062]- discussing the layered sheet structure), the method comprising
a compression step of compressing a plurality of sheet-like materials layered [0006]; [0008] via an adhesive [0010] in a thickness direction thereof to obtain a compressed body,
wherein at least one of the plurality of sheet-like materials is a porous body ([0006]-discussing the porous core layer), and
a thickness of at least one of the sheet-like materials being a porous body in the compressed body is 70 to 99% of a thickness before compression ([0012]- compressing the web to a second thickness less than a first thickness).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang further teaches in the compression step, a compressibility in the thickness direction of the plurality of layered sheet-like materials is 10% to 90% ([0012]- the web can be compressed to a second thickness less than a first thickness or in some examples, at least 50% less than the first thickness).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang further teaches the sheet-like material being a porous body is a nonwoven fabric or a resin foam [0007].
Regarding Claim 8, Wang further teaches at least one of the plurality of sheet-like materials is a resin film containing at least one type selected from a group consisting of a polyolefin resin, a polyester resin, and a polyurethane resin [0010]; [0059]; [0081]-[0081].
Regarding Claim 9, Wang further teaches a structure in which a sheet-like material being a porous body and a resin sheet are layered via an adhesive is included in the plurality of layered sheet-like materials (Figs. 3-9).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang further teaches two or more of the plurality of sheet-like materials are porous bodies (Figs. 6-9), and a structure in which two porous bodies are layered via an adhesive is included in the plurality of layered sheet-like materials (Figs. 6-9).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang further teaches two or more of the plurality of sheet-like materials are porous bodies (Figs. 6-9),
at least one of the plurality of sheet-like materials is a resin film containing at least one type selected from a group consisting of a polyolefin resin, a polyester resin, and a polyurethane resin [0010]; [0059]; [0081]-[0081], and
a structure in which a resin film, a sheet-like material being a porous body, and a sheet-like material being a porous body are layered in this order via an adhesive is included in the plurality of layered sheet-like materials (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang further teaches the adhesive contains at least one adhesive component selected from a group consisting of a polyolefin-based resin, a polyester-based resin, a polyurethane-based resin, an acrylic-based resin, and a silicone-based resin [0077].
Regarding Claim 13, Wang further teaches the adhesive is a hot-melt adhesive [0077].
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al (JP2020189414 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa teaches a method for manufacturing a sound-absorbing member formed by laminating a plurality of sheet-like materials [0008], the method comprising
a compression step of compressing a plurality of sheet-like materials layered [0008]; [0022] via an adhesive [0007] in a thickness direction thereof to obtain a compressed body,
wherein at least one of the plurality of sheet-like materials is a porous body ([0008]-melamine foam), and
a thickness of at least one of the sheet-like materials being a porous body in the compressed body is 70 to 99% of a thickness before compression ([0038]- discussing compression ratio).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogawa further teaches in the compression step, a compressibility in the thickness direction of the plurality of layered sheet-like materials is 10% to 90% ([0038]- discussing compression ratio).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogawa further teaches the plurality of layered sheet-like materials are compressed at a temperature of 10 to 200°C ([0037]- the heating temperature of the lamination step is not particularly limited as long as it is less than 240°C).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogawa further teaches the adhesive is provided by spray application or transfer with a roll coater ([0033]- the method for applying the powdered hot melt adhesive is not particularly limited, and examples include applying the powder by scattering it directly, such as by electrostatic spray application, or dispersing it in water or the like to form a dispersion, which is then applied by a spray method, a roll method, a spin method, a dip method, or the like.)
Regarding Claim 7, Ogawa further teaches the sheet-like material being a porous body is a nonwoven fabric or a resin foam [0030].
Regarding Claim 8, Ogawa further teaches at least one of the plurality of sheet-like materials is a resin film containing at least one type selected from a group consisting of a polyolefin resin, a polyester resin, and a polyurethane resin [0030].
Regarding Claim 9, Wang further teaches a structure in which a sheet-like material being a porous body and a resin sheet are layered via an adhesive is included in the plurality of layered sheet-like materials (Figs. 1a, 2, and 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang further teaches the adhesive contains at least one adhesive component selected from a group consisting of a polyolefin-based resin, a polyester-based resin, a polyurethane-based resin, an acrylic-based resin, and a silicone-based resin [0033].
Regarding Claim 13, Wang further teaches the adhesive is a hot-melt adhesive [0033].
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (JP2021193449 cited in IDS with reference to the equivalent English publication PGPub 20170129145) in view of Wyner et al (PGPub 2021/0154970).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Wang does not specify the method is a roll-to-roll method or the method is a roll-to-sheet method.
Wyner teaches an alternative method of lamination (Abstract) wherein roll-to-roll or roll-to-sheet lamination is performed [0055] in order to expedite production [0055].
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 method of Wang to include roll-to-roll or roll-to-sheet lamination as taught by Wyner with reasonable expectation of success to expedite production [0055].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (JP2020189414 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Wyner et al (PGPub 2021/0154970).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Ogawa does not specify the method is a roll-to-roll method or the method is a roll-to-sheet method.
Wyner teaches an alternative method of lamination (Abstract) wherein roll-to-roll or roll-to-sheet lamination is performed [0055] in order to expedite production [0055].
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 method of Ogawa to include roll-to-roll or roll-to-sheet lamination as taught by Wyner with reasonable expectation of success to expedite production [0055].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 3/3/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748