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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 6 the function boxes are not properly identified as to what function they represent. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 13 – 15, 19 – 24, 26 – 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joris (WO 02/00973).
The Examiner has given little patentable weight to the limitation describing the fiber for a noise damper being used in a compressed air system because it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
With respect to claims 13, 22, 26 and 27, Joris teaches fibers (Fig.4, Item 62) for a noise damper comprising noise damping fibers of the noise damper (Fig.5) and a fiber mesh, comprising a plurality of noise damping fibers knitted, braided or woven into the fiber mesh (Page 6, Lines 16 – 19, Page 7, Line 10 and Absract), wherein the noise damping fibers comprises surface grooves (Fig.4, Items 63) formed by surface treatment (Fig.4, Item 51).
Regarding claim 27, Joris teaches a method for producing a noise damping fiber mesh, the method comprising the steps of forming thermoplastic fibers by a molding tool or an extruding tool; surface treating the fibers by the molding tool, the extruding tool, or another tool configured to treat a surface of thermoplastic fibers; and knitting, braiding or weaving a plurality of the surfaced treated fibers into the noise damping fiber mesh (Fig.4; Abstract, Page 3, Lines 18 – 20, Page 5, Line 36 – Page 6, Line 19 and Page 7, Line 10).
With respect to claims 14, 23 and 28, Joris teaches wherein a treated surface of the fiber has fringes and/or burrs (Fig.4, Items 66 – 69).
With respect to claims 15, 24 and 29, Joris teaches wherein the fiber is made of a thermoplastic (Abstract and Page 3, Lines 18 – 20).
With respect to claims 19, 20 and 32, Joris teaches wherein a length of the fringes and/or burrs of the fiber is at least 0.05 mm or wherein the length of the fringes and/or burrs of the fiber is in the range of 0.05 to 10 mm (Page 8, Lines 31 – 33).
With respect to claim 21, Joris teaches wherein a cross section of the fiber is rectangular, elliptical or circular (Page 8, Lines 12 – 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16 – 18, 25, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joris (WO 02/00973).
Joris teaches the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fails to particularly disclose wherein a surface roughness of the fiber is at least 10 µm, wherein the surface roughness of the fiber is in a range of 10 pm to 40 µm± 10% or wherein the surface roughness of the fiber is at least twice as high after said surface treatment compared to before said surface treatment.
The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the fiber with a predetermined surfaces roughness because it would tune the fiber to provide a desired acoustic performance as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application; additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights