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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite since it is incomplete, i.e., while the preamble recites a process of producing a sound-absorbing panel, there is nothing in the body of the claim that recites a step of doing so and just recite the steps of producing a mat that can be used to produce/make the panel.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-11 are vague and indefinite a broad range or limitation followed by linking terms (e.g., preferably, maybe, for instance, especially) and a narrow range or limitation within the broad range or limitation is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Claim 5 is vague and indefinite because is improper, since it recites an open Markush group. Markush groups are closed by nature and cannot contain the open transitional phrase “comprises.” It is improper to use the term "comprising" instead of "consisting of." Ex parte Dotter, 12 USPQ 382 (Bd. App. 1931).
Claim 12 is rejected since it fails to recite a claim within one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101, and also vague and indefinite under 35 USC 102(b) since it is an improper definition of the process. It is appropriate to reject a claim that recites a use but fails to recite steps under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both rejections. For failure to recite a claim within one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101; as established on §2173(q) of the MPEP.
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 1-5, 7 and 9- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1))as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Noble, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0127921 A1 (cited in the IDS filed on December 10, 2024).
With regard to claims 1 and 11-12, Noble teaches a method for producing a sound-absorbing panel, the method comprising the steps of:
- preparing a predetermined amounts of cellulose fibers;
- immersing the cellulose fibers into a first water basin to form a cellulose pulp (10);
- preparing a predetermined amount of textile fibers;
- mixing in water, said cellulose pulp with said textile fibers to obtain a final pulp; see ¶-[0024]);
- depositing said final pulp on a forming mold (20);
- pressing (30) at least said final pulp in order to cause at least partial removal of the water contained in the final pulp making a fiber mat;
- drying said fiber mat so as to cause evaporation of the water remained in said fiber mat making a sound-absorbing panel; see (¶- [0006], [0017], [0019], [0022]- [0025]; claims 1-3; figures). Note that the process produce a sound absorbing panel reading on claims 11 and 12 since the claimed density of claim 11 is within the range of known sound panel and thus considered inherent or at the very least adjusting the density of the panel to fall within the claimed range is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding to claims 2-3 and 7, Noble teaches making a multi-layer mat using the pulp slurry formed on the mixing step; see ¶-[0015] in which incorporate by reference references that teach the making of multi-layers and ¶-[0024] which teaches the use of part of the fibers/pulp slurry as the base in which other part(s) is are deposited on its surface.
With regard to claims 4-5 Noble teaches the use of the same type of textile fibers, including from waste textiles; see ¶-[0025]-[0027].
Regarding to claim 10, Noble teaches the use of cellulose fibers which are known to have length within the claimed range1 and thus this limitation is implicit/inherent to the reference or at the very least using such known size cellulosic fibers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It seems that Noble teaches all the limitations of the above claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over any of Mayers et al., (hereinafter Mayers), United State Patent No. 10,464,846 B2, Xu, United State Patent No. 10,094,614 B2 and Kemp et al., (hereinafter Kemp), United State Patent No. 9,376,810 B2, just to cite a few.
All of the above references, Mayers, Xu and Kemp, teach the making of sound-absorbing panels made by the formation of a slurry of natural/cellulosic fibers/pulp and textile fibers, which are deposited in a forming mold, e.g., fourdrinier machine, wet-pressed and then dried; see column 2, lines 32-55, column 3, lines 1-41, paragraph bridging column 6 and 7, column 8, lines 27-42 of Mayers; column 2, lines 21-56; column3, lines 1-54co. 5, lines 19-38 and column 6, lines 48-67 of Xu and abstract and column 2, line 56 through 4, line 23 of Kemp.
Note that the wet-process of the references is a molding process, where the fibers are deposited in a foraminous wire and molded to a flat sheet/mat. The references also teach id the formation of a sound-absorbing panel with the formed mat.
It seems that the references teach all the limitations of the above claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by any of Noble, Mayers, Xu and Kemp (all cited above) with or without Schoots et al., (hereinafter Schoots), US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0246842 A1 (cited in the IDS filed on December 10, 2024).
The above references teach the limitations of the independent claim, claim 1, id, but are silent with regard of the coloring of the fibers; however coloring of the fibers is common in the art as obvious design choice, i.e., if a predetermined color is desired on the final product, and using a powder dye with the claimed particle size is within the levels of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. This is evidenced by Schoots teaches the coloring of the fibers/pulps with dyes that can be natura or synthetic and can be in a paste or powder forms; see ¶-[0002]-[0003] and [0058]-[0065].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Method for Producing a Sound-Absorbing Panel.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 The examiner takes official notice of this fact and will provide evidence if necessary.
Prosecution Insights