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.
Claims 1 – 7, 14, 15, 17, 19 – 21, 23, 25 – 27 and 29 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazoe et al. (10,854,183) in view of Eatwell et al. (US 2007/0014418).
With respect to claims 1, 27, 32 and 33, Yamazoe et al. teach a sound insulation structure (Figs.3A and 3B) comprising an elastic membrane part (Fig.3B, Item 18), an elastic support wall part (Fig.3B, Item 14) standing on the membrane part, and weight parts (Fig.3B, Item 25) standing on the membrane part, wherein the membrane part is divided into a plurality of compartments (Fig.3A, Items 26) by the support wall part (Fig.3B, Item 14); the weight parts (Fig.3A and B, Item 25) are located inside some or all of the plurality of compartments (Fig.3A, Item 26); in the compartments in which the weight parts are located, one weight part is disposed in one compartment (Figs.3A and B); the height of the support wall part (Fig.3B, Item 14) extending in a direction perpendicular to the membrane part is greater than the height of the weight parts (Fig.3B, Item 25) extending in the direction perpendicular to the membrane part; but fail to disclose wherein each of the weight parts constitutes a spring mass resonator having a spring part having elasticity and a mass part having a mass greater than that of the spring part.
Regarding claims 27, 32 and 33, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ the sound insulation structure in a plane, an automobile or any other device 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).
On the other hand, Eatwell et al. teach a sound insulation structure (Fig.5) comprising a weight part (Fig.5, Items 212 and 210) constituting a spring mass resonator standing on a membrane (Fig.5, Item 102) and having a spring part (Fig.5, Item 210) having elasticity and a mass part (Fig.5, Item 212) having a mass greater than that of the spring part (¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Eatwell et al. configuration with the Yamazoe et al. design because it would provide a structure that could be tuned to a broader sound frequency range while maintaining its size, improving the overall performance of the sound insulation structure.
With respect to claims 2 – 4, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the membrane part, the support wall part, and the spring parts of a desired material with predetermined physical properties because it would tune the structure to provide a preferred acoustic and structural performance as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; also, 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.
With respect to claim 5, Eatwell et al. teach wherein the spring part (Fig.5, Item 210) of each weight part is located on the side to which the membrane part (Fig.5, Item 102) is attached, and the mass part (Fig.5, Item 212) is located on the side opposite the side to which the membrane part is attached.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Eatwell et al. teach wherein the mass part of each weight part (Fig.5, Item 212) has a larger volume than the spring part (Fig.5, Item 210).
With respect to claims 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 29, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the compartments with predetermined dimensions and configuration because it would tune the structure to provide a desired acoustic performance as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Yamazoe et al. and Eatwell et al. inventions.
With respect to claim 30, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the membrane part and the support wall in any known manner because the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
With respect to claim 31, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide a decorative and/or protective layer over a sound insulation structure because it would provide the final application with a more acceptable and appealing look.
Conclusion
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it 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
September 26, 2026
