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.
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 8-9, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568.
Regarding claim 8, JP 63290727 discloses:
A vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1; see the abstract, lines 1-2) comprising a foam (see the abstract, lines 10-11) having a first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) on which a plurality of protrusions (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) are arranged.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP 63290727 does not disclose that the foam member has an average elastic modulus in a compressive strain range of 0 to 30% being from 3 kPa to 27 kPa, inclusive.
Notwithstanding, WO 2021209568 discloses an auxetic polyurethane foam used for vibration absorption (see page 15, lines 12-14) in car manufacturing which has a Young’s modulus (elastic modulus) in compression up to 5% strain of 21.9 kPa in when loading in a y-direction and a Young’s modulus (elastic modulus) in compression up to 5% strain of 24.03 kPa (see page 26, lines 10-15) when loading in a z-direction. In addition, the density of the foam is 52.5 kg/m3 (see page 26, line 10) .
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The WO 2021209568 reference is considered to be relevant art in that the WO 2021209568 reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to foams used in vehicle manufacturing, as the JP 63290727 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the foam of JP 63290727 as auxetic polyurethane foam having an average elastic modulus in a compressive strain range of 0 to 30% being from 3 kPa to 27 kPa, inclusive and a density of 52.5 kg/m3 as taught by WO 2021209568 with a reasonable expectation of success which is a type of foam that is suitable for vibration absorption in vehicle applications. Motivation provided on page 15, lines 12-14 of WO 2021209568.
Regarding claim 9, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
The vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) according to claim 8, as explained above, wherein the first outer surface is a profiled surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727 and mentioned on line 10 of the abstract of JP 63290727).
Regarding claim 14, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
A vehicle structure, wherein the vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) according to claim 8, as explained above, is sandwiched between a vehicle body panel (1; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) and an interior member (2; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727), and the first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) is brought into contact with the vehicle body panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727).
Regarding claim 15, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
A vehicle structure, wherein the vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) according to claim 9, as explained above, is sandwiched between a vehicle body panel (1; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) and an interior member (2; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727), and the first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) is brought into contact with the vehicle body panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727).
Regarding claim 18, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
A vibration damping structure, wherein the vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727), according to claim 8, as explained above, is sandwiched between members (namely a vehicle body panel (1; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) and an interior member (2; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727), and the first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) is brought into contact with at least one of the members (namely the vehicle body panel (1; Fig. 1) of JP 63290727).
Regarding claim 19, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
A vibration damping structure, wherein the vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727), according to claim 9, as explained above, is sandwiched between members (namely a vehicle body panel (1; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) and an interior member (2; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727), and the first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) is brought into contact with at least one of the members (namely the vehicle body panel (1; Fig. 1) of JP 63290727).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
The vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) according to claims 8 and 9, respectively, and as explained above, where the density of the foam is 52.5 kg/m3 as taught by WO 2021209568 (see page 26, line 10).
However, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 does not disclose that an
apparent density of the foam of 40 kg/m3 or less.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the foam material of JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 to have a density of 40 kg/m3 or less with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 and Squier US 3,252,732.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
The vibration damping member, where JP 63290727 discloses the vibration damping member (3; Fig. 1; see the abstract, lines 1-2 comprising a foam (see the abstract, lines 10-11) having a first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above) directed upward on which a plurality of protrusions (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above) are arranged and an interior panel (2; as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above), where the vibration damping material (3; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) is on an upper surface of the interior panel (2; as shown in Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727), according to claims 8 and 9, respectively, as explained above.
However, JP 63290727 does not explicitly disclose that the interior panel is a roof liner, where the vibration damping material is on an upper surface of such a roof liner.
Notwithstanding, Squier discloses a vehicle roof construction with a roof liner (14; Figs. 3-5) having a vibration damping foam member (18; Fig. 5; see col5, lines 37-42) on an upper surface of the roof liner (14; Figs. 3-5) as shown in Fig. 5.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Squier reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Squier reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle body constructions with a foam sandwiched between an inner member and an outer member for vibration dampening, as the JP 63290727 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the construction of JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 at a vehicle roof as taught by Squier US 3,252,732, where the interior member is a roof liner, and where the vibration damping material is on an upper surface of the roof liner, as taught by Squier with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the benefit of vibration dampening at the roof of the vehicle body.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squier US 3,252,732 in view of JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 and Squier US 3,252,732.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 discloses:
The vibration damping member, where JP 63290727 discloses the vibration damping member (see the abstract, lines 1-2) comprising a foam (see the abstract, lines 10-11 of JP 63290727) having a first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) on which a plurality of protrusions (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) are arranged and an interior panel (2; Fig. 1; as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727), where the vibration damping member (see the abstract, lines 1-2 of JP 63290727) is sandwiched between the interior panel (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above), and the vehicle body panel (1; Fig. 1 of JP 63290727) and the first outer surface (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) is brought into contact (see annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 63290727) with the vehicle body panel, according to claims 8 and 9, respectively, as explained above.
However, JP 63290727 does not explicitly disclose that the interior panel is a roof liner and the vehicle body panel is a roof panel which together form a ceiling structure.
Notwithstanding, Squier discloses a vehicle roof construction with a roof liner (14; Figs. 3-5) having a vibration damping foam member (18; Fig. 5; see col5, lines 37-42) on an upper surface of the roof liner (14; Figs. 3-5) as shown in Fig. 5 and where the vibration damping foam member (18; Fig. 5) is sandwiched between the roof liner (14; Figs. 3-5) and a roof panel (10; Fig. 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Squier reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Squier reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle body constructions with a foam sandwiched between an inner member and an outer member for vibration dampening, as the JP 63290727 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the construction of JP 63290727 in view of WO 2021209568 at a vehicle roof as taught by Squier US 3,252,732, where the interior member is a roof liner, and the vehicle body panel is a roof panel and where the vibration dampening foam member is sandwiched between the roof liner and a roof panel to form a ceiling structure, as taught by Squier with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the benefit of vibration dampening at the roof of the vehicle body.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doerfling US 4,150,850 discloses foam laminates and headliners where a foam layer (709; Fig. 3) has a plurality of protrusions (76; Fig. 3. However, the reference does not disclose the specific elastic modulus as required by current claim 8.
Seksaria et al. disclose a vehicle body panel (15; Fig. 2A) with an exterior member (25; Fig. 2A) and an interior member (20; Fig. 2A) as well as a foam layer (49; Fig. 2A) sandwiched therebetween. The arrangement is for dampening vibration. See col. 8, lines 56-58. However, the reference does not disclose the specific elastic modulus as required by current claim 8.
Stahl US 3,042,446 discloses a headliner panel with a foam layer (22; Fig. 2). However, the reference does not disclose the specific elastic modulus as required by current claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 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, 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
