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 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.
Claims 8, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/254886 in view of WO 2020/195675.
WO 2021/254886 discloses a damping material (11) for a vehicle floor comprising a polyurethan foam layer (7), as disclosed in paragraphs [0001] and [0123].
In reference to claim 13, the damping material is used in a vehicle. The vehicle can have an electric drive, as disclosed in paragraph [0002].
In reference to claim 14, the damping material is configured to control vibrations including low frequencies of 100-400 Hz, as disclosed in paragraphs [0002] and [0060].
In reference to claim 15, the damping material is configured to control vibrations including low frequencies of 100-400 Hz, as disclosed in paragraphs [0002] and [0060]. The damping material (11) is placed on a floor surface of a vehicle body, as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed in paragraph [0001].
In reference to claim 17, the method can be used for the floor surface of an electric vehicle, as disclosed in paragraph [0001] and [0002]
WO 2020/195675 teaches a foam layer that has a 25% compressive hardness of 30 kPa, as disclosed in the translation:
The polyolefin-based resin foam sheet of the present invention preferably has a 25% compressive hardness specified in JIS K6767 (1999) in the range of 0.03 to 0.15 MPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the polyurethane foam layer of WO 2021/254886 with a 25% compressive hardness of 30 kPa, as taught by WO 2020/195675, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide sufficient strength and shock absorption.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WO 2021/254886 and WO 2020/195675, as applied to claim 8, in view of JP 2013-047338.
WO 2021/254886, as modified, does not disclose the claimed material property.
JP 2013-047338 shows a characteristic diagram showing a relationship between stress and displacement in a test piece having a height of about 30 mm, for a plurality of examples of rigid polyurethane foam used in a portion in which quietness in a vehicle is desired to be increased. When the approximately straight line is drawn at a range of 0-3% in the compression strain (displacement 0 to 0.9 mm), the value of the stress at the compression strain of 3% falls within the range of 5.1 to 12 kPa, as shown in Figure 1. 3% of 170 kPa is 5.1 kPa and 3% of 400 kPa is 12 kPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the polyurethane foam layer of WO 2021/254886, as modified, with an average elastic modulus from 170 kPa to 400 kPa in a compressive strain range of 0 to 3%, as taught by JP 2013-047338, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide sufficient strength and damping.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WO 2021/254886 and WO 2020/195675, as applied to claim 8, in view of JP 2021-194878.
WO 2021/254886, as modified, does not disclose the claimed material property.
JP 2021-194878 teaches a polyurethane foam sample of 200 mm by 200 mm. A 500 N load compresses the polyurethane foam 50%, as disclosed in paragraph [0048]. This equates to 12.5 kPa. Greater loads are disclosed, 650 to 1200 N, in paragraph [0048]. This equates to 16.25 to 30 kPa. This overlaps the claimed range of 20 to 50 kPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the polyurethane foam of WO 2021/254886, as modified, with a 50% compressive hardness from 20 kPa to 50kPa, as taught by JP 2021-194878, with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent a vehicle occupant’s foot from sinking into the flooring while providing sufficient damping.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 10, in view of JP 2013-047338.
WO 2021/254886, as twice modified, does not disclose the claimed material property.
JP 2013-047338 shows a characteristic diagram showing a relationship between stress and displacement in a test piece having a height of about 30 mm, for a plurality of examples of rigid polyurethane foam used in a portion in which quietness in a vehicle is desired to be increased. When the approximately straight line is drawn at a range of 0-3% in the compression strain (displacement 0 to 0.9 mm), the value of the stress at the compression strain of 3% falls within the range of 5.1 to 12 kPa, as shown in Figure 1. 3% of 170 kPa is 5.1 kPa and 3% of 400 kPa is 12 kPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the polyurethane foam layer of WO 2021/254886, as twice modified, with an average elastic modulus from 170 kPa to 400 kPa in a compressive strain range of 0 to 3%, as taught by JP 2013-047338, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide sufficient strength and damping.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WO 2021/254886 and WO 2020/195675, as applied to claim 8, in view of JP 2021-194878.
WO 2021/254886, as modified, discloses a fiber layer, carpet (9), on the polyurethane foam layer (7).
However, WO 2021/254886, as modified, does not disclose the fiber layer is laminated to the foam layer.
JP 2021-194878 teaches laminating a fiber layer (30) to a polyurethane foam layer (20), as shown in Figures 1-3. An impregnation layer (34) that is impregnated with a raw material of the polyurethane foam layer and is cured is formed in at least a portion of the fiber layer facing the polyurethane foam layer, as shown in Figure 3 and disclosed in paragraph [0041] and [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to laminate the fiber layer to the polyurethane layer of WO 2021/254886, as modified, as taught by JP 2021-194878, with a reasonable expectation for success to secure the fiber layer to the polyurethan foam layer to prevent interference with vehicle control pedals and provide a smooth appearance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0255755 provides additional disclosure of polyurethane material applied to a vehicle floor for damping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights