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
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.
Claims 1 and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain et al., US 2018/0237967 A1 in view of Silvestri et al., US 2017/0223443 A1 and in further view of Rogge et al., US 2015/0255252 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hossain teaches a method for preparing a protective vent that can be used with an electroacoustic device, such as a mobile phone, which reads on the claimed “method for preparing a composite filter medium for electroacoustic components.” See Hossain [0017], [0054]. The vent is a “filter medium” because it is a permeable member used to protect against contaminants. Id. at [0017], [0025].
The method comprises electrospinning a nanofiber membrane onto a carrier layer to form the protective vent. See Hossain [0056], [0059]. The carrier layer is formed on warp/weft fabric of synthetic monofilaments. Id. at [0020], [0047], Table 1 (p. 9). The nanofibers of the membrane have a diameter of 80 to 250 nm. Id. at [0052]. This reads on the claimed step of—“forming a first filter medium formed by weft and warp fabric made of synthetic monofilaments through depositing nanofibers having a diameter of between 50 nm and 700 nm on a base fabric formed of monofilaments by means of an electrospinning process, thereby generating a combined structure.”
The protective vent is then subjected to a plasma coating method to apply a thin film to the vent impart oil or water-repellant properties. See Hossain [0035]–[0037], [0064].
Hossain differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the acoustic impedance of the protective vent. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the protective vent has an acoustic impedance of 25 MKS Rayls, as claimed.
But Hossain teaches that the acoustic impedance of the vent should be relatively low, with acoustic impedance being result effective because it affects the acoustic properties of the vent. See Hossain [0028]. Also, Silvestri teaches a resistive material that is used to ventilate air pressure that builds up in an electroacoustic device, such as an earphone, where the resistive material can be made of a porous material constructed from a textile or other permeable materials, and where the resistive material has an acoustic impedance of 10 to 20,000 MKS Rayls. See Silvestri [0024], [0027]. It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal acoustic impedance of the protective vent of Hossain to achieve the desired acoustic properties of the vent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed value of an acoustic impedance of 25 MKS Rayls because the vent of Hossain should have a relatively low acoustic impedance, while Silvestri teaches that an acoustic impedance of 10 to 20,000 MKS Rayls is achievable for similar venting materials.
Hossain further differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the particular steps of the plasma coating process, as required by the claim.
But Rogge teaches a method for applying plasma coatings to fabrics, including filtration media articles. See Rogge [0002]. The method comprises three steps: first a step for gassing out the textile, then a pre-treatment step such as etching and finally a plasma coating step. Id. at [0090].
The gassing out step comprises supplying the textile to a plasma chamber whose pressure has been reduced to a low base pressure while continuously pumping gas from the plasma chamber to remove moisture and trapped gases from the textile. See Rogge [0071]–[0072]. The base pressure can be between 10 to 50 mTorr. Id. at Table 1, p. 9. The time needed for the gassing out step depends on the type of polymers used to make the textile, and the textile is continuously unwound and wound onto a second roller (i.e., re-wound) inside the chamber at a speed of 1 to 30 m/min through the plasma chamber during the degassing step, depending on the moisture content of the textile. Id. at [0071]–[0072], [0076]–[0077].
The pre-treatment step occurs after out-gassing, and comprises plasma etching the fabric in the plasma chamber in the presence of gases such as nitrogen, helium, argon or oxygen and without any polymer containing gases. See Rogge [0081]–[0083]. The fabric can move at a speed of 1 to 30 m/min during the plasma etching step. Id. at [0084]. Also, etching is a process of forming surface irregularities on the fabric.
The plasma coating step occurs after the pre-treatment step, and involves plasma coating a polymeric coating onto the fabric for a time period of 2 minutes or less. See Rogge [0103]. The polymeric coating imparts a superhydrophobic surface with an oil repellency level between 3 to 8 onto the fabric. Id. at [0102].
The three-step process of Rogge is beneficial because the polymer coating has improved adhesion and durability. See Rogge [0115]. It would have been obvious to use the three-step process of Rogge as the plasma coating process of Hossain to improve the adhesion and durability of the film onto the vent.
With this modification, the plasma chamber of Rogge reads on the “vacuum chamber.” Also, the step of treating the vent of Hossain with the out-gassing step of Rogge reads on the claimed step of—“following the depositing of the nanofibers, degassing the base fabric and the nanofibers inside a vacuum chamber.” See Rogge [0071]–[0072], Table 1, p. 9. The prior art range of 10 to 50 mTorr is within the claimed range of 5 to 250 mTorr. The step of the material being continuously unwound and re-wound inside the chamber at a speed of 1 to 30 m/min depending on the moisture content of the material is within the claimed range of a speed between 0.1 and 50 m/min. While Rogge is silent as to the amount of time that the fabric is subjected to out-gassing, the reference teaches that the time needed for gassing out depends on the type of polymers used to make the textile, with the fabric moving at a speed of 1 to 30 m/min through the plasma chamber. Id. at [0071], [0077]. Also, the out-gassing step is performed to ensure that moisture and other gases are removed from the fabric before it is plasma coated. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal amount of time for outgassing vent of Hossain depending on the amount of time needed to remove moisture and other gases from the vent. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of out-gassing for 5 seconds to 5 minutes because the fabric moves at a speed of 1 to 30 m/min through the plasma chamber during outgassing. See Rogge [0077].
Also, the step of pre-treating the vent of Hossain with the plasma etching technique of Rogge within the plasma chamber after out-gassing reads on the claimed step of—“following the degassing, plasma treating the base fabric and the nanofibers to form surface irregularities on the base fabric and the aforementioned nanofibers, wherein the plasma treating is carried out in the vacuum chamber and in the presence of a carrier gas selected from nitrogen, helium, argon or oxygen, and without any polymer-containing gases.” See Rogge [0081]–[0083]. While Rogge is silent as to the amount of time that the fabric undergoes the plasma etching process, the process is performed for a sufficient amount of time so that etching is complete. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal amount of time for the plasma etching to occur to ensure that it is complete. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of plasma etching for 5 seconds to 5 minutes because the fabric moves at a speed of 1 to 30 m/min during the plasma etching step. See Rogge [0084].
The step of plasma coating the vent of Hossain after the plasma etching step reads on the claimed step of—“following the plasma treating, covering said filter medium by plasma deposition of a polymeric coating on the base fabric and the nanofibers” for 3 minutes or less than 2 minutes. See Rogge [0102]–[0103], Table 1, p. 9 (residence time in plasma). The prior art range of less than 2 minutes overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 to 6 minutes, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I.
Regarding claim 7, Hossain in view of Rogge teaches that the electrospinning process involves extruding a polymer dissolved in a solvent through a nozzle and stretching the fibers between the nozzle and an electrode. See Hossain [0070]. The nanofibers are deposited on the carrier layer (the “base fabric”), because the membrane is electrospun onto the carrier layer. Id. at [0059]. The plasma coating is of nanometric thickness of the surfaces of the carrier layer and membrane. Id. at [0063]–[0064]; Rogge [0099].
Regarding claim 8, Hossain in view of Rogge teaches that the plasma coating process (the “plasma deposition of said polymeric coating”) comprises creation of a vacuum of 20 to 80 mTorr (work pressure), an electrode power of 100 to 500 W, and an exposure time of 3 minutes. See Rogge Table 1, p. 9. The prior art range of 20 to 80 mTorr overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 50 mTorr, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The prior art range of 100 to 500 W overlaps with the claimed range of 150 to 350 W, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The prior art range of 3 minutes is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 6 minutes.
Regarding claim 9, Hossain in view of Rogge teaches that the plasma coating process (the “plasma deposition of said polymeric coating”) comprises creation of a vacuum of 20 to 80 mTorr (work pressure), an electrode power of 100 to 500 W, and an exposure time of 3 minutes. See Rogge Table 1, p. 9. The prior art range of 20 to 80 mTorr is within the claimed range of 10 to 400 mTorr. The prior art range of 100 to 500 W is within the claimed range of 100 to 2000 w. The prior art range of 3 minutes is within the claimed range of 5 seconds to 5 minutes.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 1, in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that the mention of an acoustic impedance of 10 to 20,000 MKS Rayls does not indicate that such values are achievable. See Applicant Rem. filed March 9, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 6–7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because a reference is presumed operable. See MPEP 2121.
The Applicant further argues that the claim as a whole is non-obvious, asserting that the claimed method achieves advantageous properties such as unprecedented acoustic impedance levels. See Applicant Rem. 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed acoustic impedance of 25 MKS Rayls is not unprecedented because Silvestri teaches a venting material with an acoustic impedance of 10 to 20,000 MKS Rayls. See Silvestri [0027].
The Applicant further argues that it would not have been obvious to use the process of Rogge with Hossain, asserting that Rogge relates to the problem of removing residues resulting from the manufacturing process used to make a textile. See Applicant Rem. 8; Affidavit filed March 09, 2026 (“Affidavit”) 8–10. It is argued that Rogge is completely unrelated to the manufacturing of a composite filter medium for electroacoustic components, while asserting that electroacoustic components do not have residues that impede the binding of a coating that would need to be removed during the manufacturing process. See Applicant Rem. 9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The plasma coating of Hossain is applied to the protective vent, which includes a nanofiber membrane that is applied to a carrier layer. The carrier layer can be a textile. See Hossain [0035]. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefit of using the process of Rogge with Hossain to remove residues related at least to the manufacture of the textile material used for the carrier layer. Note also that the nanofiber membrane is a textile because it is a nonwoven web of fibers. See Hossain [0023].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights