Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/919,538

SOUND-ABSORBING MATERIAL BLOCK, METHOD FOR PREPARING THEREOF, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 18, 2022
Examiner
COONEY, JOHN M
Art Unit
1765
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Aac Technologies (Nanjing) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
651 granted / 1045 resolved
-2.7% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1081
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1045 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I. in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/26/2026. 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 1-11 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. Claims are confusing as to intent because it cannot be definitively ascertained if the methods of the claims are intended to be defining and limiting the invention to methods for forming the sound-absorbing material block referred to in the preamble or are intended to be defining and limiting the invention to methods for forming an installation involving the placement of the sound-absorbing material block in a speaker rear cavity. Ambiguity in determining the actual process being defined by the claims is made evident due to the conflict between 1.) the recitations of both the preamble and the final words of claim 1, and 2.) the actual process operations that are set forth by the body of the claims (i.e. the filling of a speaker cavity). Appropriate correction is required. Claims are additionally confusing as to intent because without further definition of the functional roles of components being set forth by the claims, it cannot be definitively determined what materials may fulfill the various roles laid out by the recited component elements laid out by the claims. By way of example, without recitation of the crosslinking function being served by the recited “cross-linking” agent being set forth by the claims, it cannot be definitively ascertained what materials may or may not be considered “cross-linking” agents in the context of the instant invent, and this ambiguity is carried through the various other components that lack any definitive correlation with each other. Appropriate correction is required. Claims are further confusing as to intent because it cannot definitively be determined how or if the recited “sequential” operations set forth by the claims are intended to set forth a limitation to the performance of said operations, without further definition of the operations by the claims, since the recited operations “drying” and “dehydrating” fall in substantial overlap with each other. In that most, if not all operations, without further definition in the recitations of the claims, that would be “drying” would also be “dehydrating”, it cannot be ascertained what degree of limitation, if any, is intended through the recitation that these substantially duplicated operations are performed “sequentially”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims have been treated as if the “sequential” operations could be met by an individual operation meeting that is performed continually for any amount of time (i.e. multiple sequences in continuum). 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. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-114495883 {previously cited} in view of Shackleford et al.(2020/0027436). CN-114495883 discloses methods for preparing sound-absorbing material block by mixing raw materials constituting porous material as claimed [note, also, claim 4], gelling/thickening agent as claimed and in amounts as claimed[note, also, claim 2], binder as claimed and in amounts as claimed[note, also, claim 5], foaming agent as claimed and in amounts as claimed [note, also, claims 6 & 7], and water as a solvent [note, also, claim 8]{see page 3, Embodiments 1-5 and the claims of the provided translation}, applying the mixed material into the back cavity of a speaker {page 4 lines 7-9 of the provided translation}, and drying for time sufficient to meet both the “drying” and “dehydration” operations as defined by the claims {see page 4 lines 5 & 6 and Embodiments 1-5 of the provided translation}[note, also, claims 10 and 11] as well as the “sequential” nature of their performance {see, also, rejection above under 35USC112}. CN-114495883 differs from applicants’ claims in that it does not particularly require the “cross-linking agent” as defined by applicants’ claims. However, Shackleford et al. discloses employment of calcium carbonate, which meets the requirements of applicants’ claims in this regard, in sound absorbing preparations for the purpose of imparting its recognized filling/bulking effect {see paras [0054], [0067], [0122], [0151] and Table 3}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the calcium carbonate of Shackleford et al. in the preparational processes of CN-114495883 for the purpose of imparting its recognized filling/bulking effect in order to arrive at the processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. Regarding claim 9, though specific order of mixing the raw materials as claimed is not specified by CN-114495883 taken in its combination with Shackleford et al., MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. holds that changes to the sequence of adding ingredients would have been obvious with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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. /JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600558
AEROSOL CAN CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600813
POLYURETHANE INSULATION FOAM COMPOSITION COMPRISING A STABILIZING COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595348
High-strength eTPU
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595332
PREPARATION OF POLYURETHANE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595347
HYDROFLUORO OLEFIN PROPELLANT IN A POLYURETHANE FOAM COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+21.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1045 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month