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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028363 to Koshitouge et al. ("Koshitouge")..
Regarding claim 12, Koshitouge discloses a soundproofing wall structure (7, Fig. 7) formed of a sound absorbing element 2,13 and a skin layer 10, wherein the skin layer 10 is only sound stopping layer in the wall structure. Koshitouge discloses that the skin layer 10 which is the sound stopping layer can be made of steel (par 0214) having about 1 mm of thickness (par 0215). The skin layer 10 is made from the same material (steel) and same thickness (1-2mm) as applicants (see page 3, lines 16 and 24 of applicant’s Specification). Therefore, the skin layer necessarily has a coincidence frequency outside of a predetermined human speech frequency region defined based on frequencies around 500 Hz at which human speech has the greatest intensity. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshitouge in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0324515 to Hällfors (“Hallfors”).
Regarding claim 1, Koshitouge discloses a soundproofing wall structure (7, Fig. 7) formed of a sound absorbing element 2, 13 and a skin layer 10, wherein the skin layer 10 forms an exterior surface of a structure (par 0132) with the sound absorbing element necessarily facing an interior of the structure, wherein the skin layer 10 is only sound stopping layer in the wall structure. Koshitouge discloses that the skin layer 10 which is the sound stopping layer can be made of steel (par 0214) having about 1 mm of thickness (par 0215). The skin layer 10 is made from the same material (steel) and same thickness (1-2mm) as applicants (see page 3, lines 16 and 24 of applicant’s Specification). Therefore, the skin layer necessarily has a coincidence frequency outside of a predetermined human speech frequency region defined based on frequencies around 500 Hz at which human speech has the greatest intensity. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01.
Koshitouge does not disclose that the wall structure is that of an office pod enclosing a soundproof workspace inside of the pod.
Hallfors discloses that a soundproofing wall structure (Hallfors 200) can be used as wall structure to form an office pod enclosing a soundproof workspace inside of the pod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine thhe soundproof wall structure of Koshitouge to be used to construct walls of an office pod enclosing a soundproof workspace inside of the pod as taught in Hallfors with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably create a sound insulated enclosure for a user.
Regarding claim 3, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors does not disclose that wherein the sound absorbing element 2 has a total thickness greater than 85mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Koshitouge to have the sound absorbing element have a total thickness greater than 85mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors discloses that the sound absorbing element 2, 13 comprises a first sound absorbing material layer 13 and second sound absorbing material layer 2 of which the second sound absorbing material layer 2 is closer to the interior of the office pod and forms an inner liner layer.
Regarding claim 5, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors discloses at least one air layer 12 in between the skin layer 10 and a sound absorbing material layer 2 of the sound absorbing element.
Regarding claim 6, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors discloses that the total thickness (g) of the air layer(s) 12 is less than half of the total thickness of the sound absorbing element 2.
Regarding claim 7, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors does not expressly disclose that the sound absorbing element 2, 13 has an overall flow resistivity below 100 kPas/m2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a sound absorbing material with an overall flow resistivity below 100 kPas/m2, since 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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors does not expressly disclose that the first sound absorbing material layer 13 has a flow resistivity within the range extending from 4 to 30 kPas/m2, and the second sound absorbing material layer 2 has a flow resistivity at maximum of 100 kPas/m2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use materials with such, since 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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 9, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors discloses that the sound absorbing element 13 is of dustproof material(s).
Regarding claim 10, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors does not disclose that the total thickness of the wall structure is less than 200 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Koshitouge to have the total thickness of the wall structure be less than 200 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Koshitouge in view of Hallfors does not disclose the skin layer attached to load-bearing support structures of the office pod so as to provide the support structures with cross-dimensional rigidity.
Hallfors discloses a skin layer (Hallfors 60) attached to load-bearing support structures (Hallfors 10) of the office pod so as to provide the support structures with cross-dimensional rigidity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the office pod of Koshitouge in view of Hallfors to have the skin layer attached to load-bearing support structures of the office pod as taught in Hallfors with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably add rigidity and a supporting frame to the office structure.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/09/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,869 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights