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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 6, 2026, with respect to 35 USC 102 rejection in view of Ogawa et al (JP2020189414 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) have been fully considered and are persuasive as Ogawa teaches a melamine foam with a density of 6-11 kg/m3. The 35 USC 102 rejection in view of Ogawa has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Wang does not teach or suggest a density of the sheet-like material in the form of the porous body of 20 to 200 kg/m3.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion noting Wang teaches the core as configured as/used in a glass mat thermoplastic composite (GMT) or light weight reinforced thermoplastic (LWRT) has an areal density of 300 to 4000 gsm (0.3 to 4 kg/m2) and teaches the overall thickness of the core as a GMT or LWRT is 4 mm or less (0.004 m or less) [0085] thus, the density of the core is (0.3 to 4 kg/m2) / 0.004 m = 75 to 1000 kg/m3).
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 the 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),
wherein a density of the sheet-like material in the form of the porous body is 20 to 200 kg/m3. ([0085]- the core as configured as/used in a glass mat thermoplastic composite (GMT) or light weight reinforced thermoplastic (LWRT) has an areal density of 300 to 4000 gsm (0.3 to 4 kg/m2); the overall thickness of the core as a GMT or LWRT is 4 mm or less (0.004 m or less); thus the density of the core is (0.3 to 4 kg/m2) / 0.004 m = 75 to 1000 kg/m3).
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 the porous body and the resin film 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 and two porous bodies 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].
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 3-4 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 Ogawa et al (JP2020189414 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches heating the reinforcing fibers, the thermoplastic material and the expandable graphite material to a first temperature above a melting point of the thermoplastic material without any substantial lofting of the expandable graphite material to form a web [0005] but does not specify in the compression step, the plurality of layered sheet-like materials are compressed at a temperature of 10 to 200°C.
Ogawa teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a sound-absorbing member [0001] wherein 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) to sufficiently bond the layers [0010].
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 a specific compression temperature as taught by Ogawa with reasonable expectation of success to sufficiently bond the layers [0010].
Regarding Claim 4, Wang does not specify the adhesive is provided by spray application or transfer with a roll coater.
Ogawa teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a sound-absorbing member [0001] wherein 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.) to simply apply adhesive with little working time [0033].
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 spraying or roll coating adhesive as taught by Ogawa with reasonable expectation of success to simply apply adhesive with little working time [0033].
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].
Claim 14 is 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 Goto (JP2018036518 with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang does not specify a compressive elastic modulus of the sheet-like material in the form of the porous body is 0.001 to 5.0 MPa at 25°C.
Goto teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a sound-absorbing member [0001] wherein a compressive elastic modulus of the sheet-like material in the form of the porous body is 0.001 to 5.0 MPa at 25°C ([0011]- elastic modulus of 0.01 to 0.2 MPa at 24°C) in order to produce a sound-absorbing member with a sufficient sound adsorption coefficient ([0032]- when the modulus is too high, the sound adsorption coefficient is low).
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 a specific elastic modulus of the porous body as taught by Goto with reasonable expectation of success to produce a sound-absorbing member with a sufficient sound adsorption coefficient ([0032]- when the modulus is too high, the sound adsorption coefficient is low).
Claim 15 is 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 Ogawa et al (JP2020189414 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) and Wyner et al (PGPub 2021/0154970).
Regarding Claim 15, 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].
Wang further teaches heating the reinforcing fibers, the thermoplastic material and the expandable graphite material to a first temperature above a melting point of the thermoplastic material without any substantial lofting of the expandable graphite material to form a web [0005] but does not specify in the compression step, the plurality of layered sheet-like materials are compressed at a temperature of 15 to 150°C.
Ogawa teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a sound-absorbing member [0001] wherein the plurality of layered sheet-like materials are compressed at a temperature of 15 to 150°C ([0037]- the heating temperature of the lamination step is not particularly limited as long as it is less than 240°C) to sufficiently bond the layers [0010].
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 a specific compression temperature as taught by Ogawa with reasonable expectation of success to sufficiently bond the layers [0010].
Wang and Ogawa do 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 further modify the combination of Wang and 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
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 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 8/18/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights