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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 8, 13 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwase (JP 2013008012).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Iwase teaches a sound absorption sheet (Fig.1a), comprising a plurality of resonance units (Fig.1a, Items 20) connected into a single sheet, wherein each of the plurality of resonance units comprises a unit base(Fig.1a, Item 40); a sound absorption cavity (Figs.1a and 3c, Item 20) being formed inside the unit base; a through hole (Figs.1a and 3c, Item 30) being arranged on the unit base; and a neck (Figs.1a,b and 3c, Item 50), wherein the neck is arranged inside the sound absorption cavity (Figs.1a and 3c, Item 20), the neck has a tubular structure (Figs.1b, Items 50), a first end of the neck comprises a first opening, a second end of the neck comprises a second opening, the first opening is connected with the through hole and is in communication with outside, the second end of the neck is located inside the sound absorption cavity, and the second opening is in communication with the sound absorption cavity (Figs.1a and 3c).
Regarding claim 13, the Examiner has given little patentable weight to the way the device is going to be employed 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 2 and 14, Iwase teaches wherein the neck (Figs.1a,b, Item 50) is a straight tube, and a length of a part of the neck accommodated in the sound absorption cavity (Fig.1a, Item 20) is less than a dimension of the sound absorption cavity in a thickness direction of the sound absorption sheet.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 15 and 16, Iwase teaches wherein the neck (Fig.4c, Item 50) is a curved tube and wherein the curved tube is U-shaped or helical (Fig.4c).
With respect to claims 5 and 17, Iwase teaches wherein the first end of the neck is inserted in the through hole or an end surface of the first end of the neck is bonded with an inner wall surface of the unit base (Figs.9a and b).
With respect to claims 7 and 19, Iwase teaches wherein the plurality of resonance units are arranged in an array (Fig.1a).
With respect to claims 8 and 20, Iwase teaches wherein an outer edge of a cross section of the unit base perpendicular to a thickness direction of the sound absorption sheet is in a polygonal shape (Fig.3c).
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 6, 9, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase (JP 2013008012).
With respect to claims 6, 9 and 18, Iwase teaches the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fails to disclose wherein a cross section of an inner hole of the neck is in a circular shape, and a diameter of the circular cross section of the inner hole of the neck is in a range of about 1 mm to about 2 mm; or the cross section of the inner hole of the neck is in an elliptical shape, a major axis of the elliptical cross section of the inner hole of the neck is in a range of about 1 mm to about 2 mm, and a minor axis of the elliptical cross section of the inner hole of the neck is in a range of about 1 mm to about 2 mm; or the cross section of the inner hole of the neck is in a polygonal shape, and a side length of the polygonal cross section of the inner hole of the neck is in a range of about 1 mm to about 2 mm, or wherein a dimension of the sound absorption cavity in a thickness direction of the sound absorption sheet is in a range of about 7 mm to about 40 mm, and a wall thickness of the unit base is in a range of about 1 mm to about 2 mm.
The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the cross section of an inner hole of the neck being of any particular shape, and the diameter of the circular cross section of the inner hole of the neck, the sound absorption cavity and a wall thickness of the unit base with a particular dimension because it would tuned the system to provide a predetermined 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; also, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976); and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to choose from the finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
With respect to claim 12, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to fabricate the sound absorption sheet using any known and appropriate method since the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase (JP 2013008012) in view of Fukumoto et al. (US 11,780,384).
Iwase teaches the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fails to disclose wherein an inner wall surface of the unit base has a first wall surface and a second wall surface opposite to each other, and each of the first wall surface and the second wall surface comprises a curved surface, and wherein the curved surface is a wavy curved surface, a cylindrical surface, or a zigzag curved surface.
Nevertheless, Fukumoto et al. teach a sound absorption sheet (Figs.1A,B), comprising a plurality of resonance units (Fig.1B, Items 4A) wherein an inner wall surface of the unit base has a first wall surface and a second wall surface opposite to each other, and each of the first wall surface and the second wall surface comprises a curved surface, and wherein the curved surface is a wavy curved surface, a cylindrical surface, or a zigzag curved surface (Figs.1A, 3B and 3E).
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 Fukumoto et al. configuration with the Iwase design because it would further help tune the sound absorption sheet to obtain its target sound frequency band as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
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 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights