DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed January 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claim 11 has been amended.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Jung, optionally in view of Karube, made in the Office action mailed October 1st, 2025 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The Section 103 rejections over Jung in view of Lee made in the Office action mailed October 1st, 2025 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive/non-existent.
The Section 103 rejections over Guo in view of Jung and optionally Karube, made in the Office action mailed October 1st, 2025 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The Section 103 rejections over Guo in view of Lee, made in the Office action mailed October 1st, have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive/non-existent.
The Section 103 rejections over Kenaley in view of Katsuda and optionally Repolié made in the Office action mailed October 1st, 2025 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive/non-existent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Poron have been fully considered and would be substantially persuasive, wherein the type of Poron taught by Karube (SR-S 48P) may comprise more closed cells than most Poron (i.e. is semi-closed cell) and/or is open cell but acts as a closed cell material under very low compression.
However, the invention that Applicant argues does not match the claimed invention. The claim only requires that air flows from an internal space defined between the waterproof sound-transmitting layer and a support layer and an outside of the internal space. Even if the Poron were semi-closed cell at least some of the cells would be open enough such that air would/could flow at least partially within the Poron substrate (i.e. outside of the internal space), which is what gives it its trademark conformability and sealing properties under compression, whereas Poron not under compression comprises a substantially open cell structure, which the adhesive layers set forth herein would not be subject to substantial compressive forces under normal working conditions.
Applicant argues that the airflow passage is designed to reduce pressure such that it allows air to escape. Neither of these features are claimed. Furthermore, the requirement that the airflow passage pass therethrough has been removed. If these features were reintroduced and additionally set forth within the claim then Applicant’s arguments would be fully persuasive and the rejections would be withdrawn.
Furthermore, as related to Jung in view of Lee, Applicant argues that since all rejections are based on the use of Poron in Jung that all the remaining rejections are then traversed. This is untrue and a mischaracterization of the Examiner’s rejections.
The rejection of Jung (or Guo) in view of Lee, in particular, comprises a different, alternative grounds of rejection, wherein Jung teaches the membrane formed may comprise electrospun nanofibers and Lee teaches that membranes formed by electrospinning nanofibers may additionally comprise adhesive tapes also formed by electrospinning nanofibers, wherein the substrates and/or adhesive layers [0087-0089], which would also (inherently) be an air-permeable (yet waterproof) porous nanoweb [0047, 0049] and improved over the use of conventional adhesive (tapes) [0090].
Applicant while acknowledging its existence, otherwise entirely ignores the rejection over Kenaley in view of Katsuda and optionally Repolié.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jung (WO 2016/099181 A1) (hereinafter “Jung”) as evidenced by Rogers Corporation (Poron Urethane Sealing Gasketing Design Guide) (hereinafter “Rogers”), using U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0280236 for purposes of citation/translation, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jung in view of Karube et al. (JP 2015-162710 A) hereinafter “Karube”), as evidenced by Inaoc (Slimflex®) (hereinafter “Inoac”) and Rogers.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Jung teaches a waterproof sound device (All Figs. [100]) comprising a waterproof sound transmitting membrane (All Figs. [130]) [0057], a (nonporous) pass unit (support layer) (All Figs. [150]), and an annular/ring-shaped adhesive film on both surfaces of the membrane, one of which attaches the membrane to the pass unit (All Figs. [122]), wherein the pass unit comprises a plurality of pass holes (All Figs. [151]) formed in a region not overlapping the adhesive film, and wherein the adhesive film may be an adhesive tape and additionally comprise a material such as poron [0064], wherein generally poron comprises an open cell structure that is permeable when not under compression allowing air flow at least within the substrate and only starts to acting as a closed cell structure only after being compressed as evidenced by Rogers.
In the event that the Poron is not seen as an adhesive substrate having an adhesive agent on both surfaces of the substrate: Karube teaches a waterproof, sound transmitting member comprising a waterproof sound transmitting membrane (All Figs. [2]), wherein the membrane comprises a ring-shaped attaching member comprising an adhesive support layer (All Figs. [3]) having adhesive (agent) layers on both surfaces (All Figs. [5/6]) [0024], wherein support layer is preferably a urethane-based foam, an exemplary foam being Poron, in viewpoint of cushioning properties, flexibility, high expansion ratio [0023, 0027], wherein the model number of SR-S 48P comprises a 480 kg/m3 PET coated substrate having at least semi-continuous air cells therein as evidenced by Inaoc, wherein the semi-continuous microcellular structure would be at least partially permeable due to its semi-continuous air cells allowing air flow at least within the substrate until subjected to compression as evidenced by Rogers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an adhesive layer comprising a substrate having an airflow passage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an adhesive bonding film for a waterproof membrane as comprising cushioning properties, flexibility, high expansion ratio [0023, 0027] and would have increased the spacing distance such that the membrane would not be brought into contact with the pass unit as desired by Jung [Jung; 0033].
Claims 11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guo (CN 205705607 U) (hereinafter “Guo”) in view of Karube et al. (JP 2015-162710 A) hereinafter “Karube”), and optionally Jung (WO 2016/099181 A1) (hereinafter “Jung”), as evidenced by Inaoc (Slimflex®) (hereinafter “Inoac”) and Rogers Corporation (Poron Urethane Sealing Gasketing Design Guide) (hereinafter “Rogers”).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Guo teaches waterproof and breathable device that allows for the passing of communication/sound as comprising a waterproof membrane (All Figs. [4]) having a relatively high air permeability such as a PTFE single or PTFE composite layer membrane [0006, 0015] and a (nonporous) plastic sheet (All Figs. [2]) comprising a plurality of openings/holes (All Figs. [8]) that do not overlap with a ring-shaped double-sided adhesive tape (All Figs. [3]) that attaches that waterproof membrane to the plastic sheet.
However, the ring-shaped double-sided adhesive tape is not taught to comprise an airflow passage allowing airflow to pass therethrough such as comprising a substrate having a plurality of pores.
Karube teaches a waterproof, sound transmitting member comprising a waterproof sound transmitting membrane (All Figs. [2]), wherein the membrane comprises a ring-shaped attaching member comprising an adhesive support layer (All Figs. [3]) having adhesive (agent) layers on both surfaces (All Figs. [5/6]) [0024], wherein support layer is preferably a urethane-based foam, an exemplary foam being Poron, in viewpoint of cushioning properties, flexibility, high expansion ratio [0023, 0027], wherein the model number of SR-S 48P comprises a 480 kg/m3 PET coated substrate having at least semi-continuous air cells therein as evidenced by Inaoc, wherein the semi-continuous microcellular structure would be at least partially permeable due to its semi-continuous air cells allowing air flow at least within the substrate until subjected to compression as evidenced by Rogers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an adhesive layer comprising a substrate having an airflow passage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an adhesive bonding film for a waterproof membrane as comprising cushioning properties, flexibility, high expansion ratio [0023, 0027].
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jung (WO 2016/099181 A1) (hereinafter “Jung”), using U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0280236 for purposes of citation/translation, in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0071472 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 11-13, Jung teaches a waterproof sound device (All Figs. [100]) comprising a waterproof sound transmitting membrane (All Figs. [130]) [0057], a (nonporous) pass unit (support layer) (All Figs. [150]), and an annular/ring-shaped adhesive film on both surfaces of the membrane, one of which attaches the membrane to the pass unit (All Figs. [122]), wherein the pass unit comprises a plurality of pass holes (All Figs. [151]) formed in a region not overlapping the adhesive film, wherein the membrane may be in the form of a nanofiber web formed by electrospinning [0027-0032, 0071, 0076, 0093].
However, the adhesive layer and/or its substrate is not taught to comprise a plurality of pores or a hole that provides an airflow passage that allows airflow therethrough from the internal space formed between the waterproof membrane and the plastic support sheet to an outside of the internal space.
Lee teaches a waterproof air-permeable membrane comprising an electrospun nanofiber web [0048-0049, 0097], wherein the double-sided adhesive films/tapes are additionally formed by electrospinning nanofibers forming both the substrate (Fig. 9 [162]) and both first and second adhesive agent layers (Fig. 9 [164/166]) [0088-0091], meaning they are equally as air-permeable, and would allow for an increase in adhesive force over that of a conventional substrate double-sided tape [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an adhesive layer comprising a substrate and adhesive layers having an airflow passage formed therethrough by the plurality of pores/hole of a porous nanofiber web. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase adhesive force over that of a conventional substrate double-sided tape [0090].
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guo (CN 205705607 U) (hereinafter “Guo”) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0071472 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Guo teaches waterproof and breathable device that allows for the passing of communication/sound as comprising a waterproof membrane (All Figs. [4]) having a relatively high air permeability such as a PTFE single or PTFE composite layer membrane [0006, 0015] and a (nonporous) plastic sheet (All Figs. [2]) comprising a plurality of openings/holes (All Figs. [8]) that do not overlap with a ring-shaped double-sided adhesive tape (All Figs. [3]) that attaches that waterproof membrane to the plastic sheet forming an internal space therebetween.
However, the adhesive layer and/or its substrate is not taught to comprise a plurality of pores or a hole that provides an airflow passage that allows airflow therethrough from the internal space formed between the waterproof membrane and the plastic support sheet to an outside of the internal space.
Lee teaches a waterproof air-permeable membrane, improved over a polytetrafluoroethylene porous film (PTFE) [0005-0006] comprising an electrospun nanofiber web [0048-0049, 0097], wherein the double-sided adhesive films/tapes are additionally formed by electrospinning nanofibers forming both the substrate (Fig. 9 [162]) and both first and second adhesive agent layers (Fig. 9 [164/166]) [0088-0091], meaning they are equally as air-permeable, and would allow for an increase in adhesive force over that of a conventional substrate double-sided tape [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an adhesive layer comprising a substrate and adhesive layers having an airflow passage formed therethrough by the plurality of pores/hole of a porous nanofiber web. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase adhesive force over that of a conventional substrate double-sided tape [0090].
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kenaley et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0329289 A1) (hereinafter “Kenaley”) in view of Katsuda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0037256 A1) (hereinafter “Katsuda”), and optionally Repollé et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 5,828,012).
Regarding claims 11-15, Kenaley teaches a waterproof pressure-equalizing assembly (Figs. 1-3 [38]) that transmits sound with zero to minor insertion losses [0003, 0011, 0030, 0036-0037, 0042], the pressure-equalizing assembly comprising a nonporous membrane/film (Figs. 1-3 [20]) [0033, 0044] and an adjacent ring-shaped breathable adhesive layer (Figs. 1-3 [24/124]) comprising a breathable adhesive layer (Figs. 1-3 [26/28]) and/or breathable substrate (Figs. 1-3 [24/124]) that may comprise a plurality of pores and/or a hole/channel [0019-0020, 0033, 0046, 0113-0114], wherein the breathable layer mitigates or prevents deformation in the nonporous membrane that could otherwise impede the acoustic response by providing a venting pathway that allows air therethrough but not too much air to provide a balance of pressure such as upon a rapid increase of pressure from the transducer, such as a microphone, or a temperature change in the acoustic cavity [0034, 0038, 0040, 0045-0047].
Kenaley does not teach a support layer being a nonporous film having a plurality of discharge holes formed only within the region not overlapping ring-shaped breathable/adhesive attached to the other surface of the breathable adhesive layer having an airflow passage in the substrate and/or adhesive.
Katsuda teaches a waterproof vibration assembly over a microphone comprising a waterproof vibration membrane (All Figs. [11]) bonded to an outward deformation inhibiting member (All Figs. [7]) via a first sing-shaped adhesive/spacer (All Figs. [9]) and bonded to an inward deformation inhibiting member (All Figs. [14]) via a second ring-shaped adhesive/spacer (All Figs. [12]) on a side closer to the microphone (All Figs. [14]), each deformation inhibiting member comprising a plurality of small holes (All Figs. [8] & [15], respectively, in a formation area not overlapping that of the ring-shaped adhesive spacers [0021], wherein the outward deformation inhibiting member protects against deformation and/or rupture of the membrane from increases in internal pressure such as dramatic temperature and/or pressure differences [0024-0025] and the inward deformation inhibiting member protects against deformation and/or rupture of the membrane from of increases in external pressure such as strong water intrusion [0023].
Since Kenaley has only solved/accounted for extreme deformations due to rapid increases in internal pressures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide only an inward deformation inhibiting member having the plurality of small holes not overlapping that of the breathable adhesive layer positioned such that the breathable adhesive layer would remain adjacent the nonporous membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to also prevent the membrane from being ruptured or overly deformed due to extreme increases in external pressure such as strong water intrusion [0023], wherein the formation area comprising the plurality of small holes would have been provided a hermetic surface outside the sound-transmission area [0028]
Katsuda also teaches that both members are perforated stainless steel plates (as recited above) or stainless steel meshes, wherein the meshes are filled in and made hermetic everywhere except the holes not overlapping the sing-shaped adhesive/spacer [0021, 0028]. In the event that it would not have been obvious to only provide the inward deformation inhibiting member as claimed:
Repollé teaches a waterproof sound transmitting cover assembly for an acoustic device such as a microphone, wherein an improvement over membranes supported on both sides by stainless steel due to the relative thickness and heaviness [col. 2, lines 15-27] comprises a waterproof sound-transmitting protective membrane (All Figs. [22]) that is supported on a surface closer to the microphone by a support layer (All Figs. [30]) via a ring-shaped adhesive layer (All Figs. [20]), the support layer comprising a polymeric porous material that supports the membrane against external hydrostatic pressure forces such as intrusion by water from being dropped in a swimming pool, which also allows the use of thinner, weaker protective membranes which improve sound transmission through the cover assembly and also allows for cover assemblies that are more easily handled in the assembly and manufacturing process (col. 5, lines 16-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide only an inward deformation inhibiting member having the plurality of small holes not overlapping that of the breathable adhesive layer positioned such that the breathable adhesive layer would remain adjacent the nonporous membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to also prevent the membrane from being ruptured or overly deformed due to extreme increases in external pressure such as strong water intrusion [Katsuda/Repollé], while also providing a lighter and thinner cover assembly, which also allows the use of thinner, weaker protective membranes which improve sound transmission through the cover assembly and also allows for cover assemblies that are more easily handled in the assembly and manufacturing process [Repollé], wherein the formation area comprising the plurality of small holes would have been provided an hermetic surface outside the sound-transmission area [Katsuda].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 February 24th, 2026