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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 13 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 113041993) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hui et al. (CN 109678392) teaching aerogel.
Remarks (Pg. 4, Para. 4) state the following:
“Regarding cited Figure 12 of the Zhang reference, Figure 12 is a log-logplot. Since the value of the x-axis in Figure 12 of the Zhang reference is log D, log (0.02 μm) corresponds to approximately -1.7. However, Figure 12 of the Zhang reference does not show the area where the x-axis value is negative. Clearly then, the Zhang reference fails to show a porous block having pores in which the dV/dlog(D) pore volume at 20 nm can be 0.1 cm3/g or more.”
With respect to the remarks above, Examiner disagrees. Zhang Figure 12 plots cumulative pore volume against macropore diameter in micrometers (Para. 0089) where an x-axis stated as Log D (μm) indicates the x-values are in powers of 10 (labelled as 10-2, 10-1, 100, 101, 102). Therefore, at 20 nm (0.02 μm) shows at least 0.1cm3/g (0.1mL/g). Additionally, newly cited Hui et al. also teaches a cumulative pore volume at 2nm-30nm diameter is 0.6cm3/g – 3.5cm3/g (Hui: Para. 0014).
Due to amendment, the rejection of all claims has been updated.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 113041993) in view of Hui et al. (CN 109678392)
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a block configured to be mounted together with a microspeaker in an enclosure case to adsorb air to serve as a virtual back volume (Zeolite material block 100 mounted with speaker 3 in case 202 with back volume 204; Para. 0003-0004,0077,0095,0098 Fig. 14), the block comprising:
a porous material manufactured by blocking porous particles including silicon and aluminum (Zeolite particles 108 of silicon and aluminum; Para. 0010-0013,0071; Fig. 4,14),
wherein in a pore diameter of the block pore volume at 20 nm (0.02 μm) is 0.1cm3/g (0.1mL/g) or more (In Fig. 12: Cumulative pore volume vs diameter 0.02μm between 3-6mL/g; Para. 0089; Fig. 12).
Zhang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a pore diameter of the block, dV/dlog(D) (Graph Fig. 12 labeled as Log (dD/dV). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of exaggerating smaller diameters within a graph, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, Zhang et al. fails to explicitly disclose a porous material manufactured by blocking porous particles including silicon, aluminum, and an aerogel. However, Hui et al. teaches a porous material manufactured by blocking porous particles including silicon, aluminum, and an aerogel (Hui: Silicon and aerogel; Para. 0014,0026,0052). Hui et al. and Zhang et al. are in similar fields comprising porous materials for acoustic devices with small pore diameters. Modifying Zhang et al. with teachings of Hui et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a porous material manufactured by blocking porous particles including silicon, aluminum, and an aerogel for the purpose of being sound-absorbing material to reduce resonant frequency of a sound generating device (Hui: Para. 00031-0032,0044).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. disclose the block of claim 1, wherein the porous particles further include one or more of zeolite, activated carbon, a metal-organic framework (MOE), and porous silica (Zeolite material block 100 includes zeolite particles 108; Para. 0071; Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. disclose the block of claim 1, wherein at least one surface of the block has one or more air passages that increase a contact area with air and help circulation of air (Surface has pores/passages; Para. 0004,0047,0069).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. disclose the block of claim 1. Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein a width of the block and a length of the block are 1.5 times or more of a thickness of the block. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of increasing surface area for greater adsorption probability (Para. 0069) , since 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a block formed of a porous material (Para. 0028-0031) and configured to be mounted together with a microspeaker in an enclosure case to adsorb air to serve as a virtual back volume (Zeolite material block 100 mounted with speaker 3 in case 202 with back volume 204; Para. 0003-0004,0077,0095,0098 Fig. 14), the method comprising:
blocking porous particles including silicon and aluminum (Zeolite particles 108 of silicon and aluminum; Para. 0010-0013,0071; Fig. 4,14),
wherein in a pore diameter of the block pore volume at 20 nm (0.02 μm) is 0.1cm3/g (0.1mL/g) or more (In Fig. 12: Cumulative pore volume vs diameter 0.02μm between 3-6mL/g; Para. 0089; Fig. 12).
Zhang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a pore diameter of the block, dV/dlog(D) (Graph Fig. 12 labeled as Log (dD/dV). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of exaggerating smaller diameters within a graph, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, Zhang et al. fails to explicitly disclose a porous material manufactured by blocking porous particles including silicon, aluminum, and an aerogel. However, Hui et al. teaches a porous material manufactured by blocking porous particles including silicon, aluminum, and an aerogel (Hui: Silicon and aerogel; Para. 0014,0026,0052). Hui et al. and Zhang et al. are in similar fields comprising porous materials for acoustic devices with small pore diameters. Modifying Zhang et al. with teachings of Hui et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a porous material manufactured by blocking porous particles including silicon, aluminum, and an aerogel for the purpose of being sound-absorbing material to reduce resonant frequency of a sound generating device (Hui: Para. 00031-0032).
Regarding Claims 9-11, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claims 2-4. Claims 9-11 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-4, respectively; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein blocking the porous particles including silicon and aluminum comprises:
mixing the porous particles including silicon and aluminum; and then blocking the porous particles including silicon and aluminum (Zeolite comprising silicon and aluminum mixed with binder; Para. 0029-0031)
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the porous particles are mixed at a mass ratio of silicon to aluminum in a range of 150:1 to 400:1 (At least 150, 250, or 350 ratio; Para. 0011-0012)
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 113041993) in view of Hui et al. (CN 109678392) and Choi et al. (KR 101788111).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. disclose the microspeaker enclosure of claim 5. Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein a film is attached to one surface of the block formed of the porous material (100; Fig. 14). However, Choi et al. teaches wherein a film is attached to one surface of the block formed of the porous material (Choi: Film 243 attached to bottom surface of porous block 300 within enclosure 120; Fig. 3,7; Translation Pg. 6,9). Choi et al., Hui et al., and Zhang et al. are in similar fields comprising adsorption blocks for speakers. Modifying Zhang et al. and Hui et al. with teachings of Choi et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a film is attached to one surface of the block formed of the porous material for the purpose of adhering the block within the enclosure (Choi: Translation Pg. 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang et al. as modified by Hui et al. and Choi et al. disclose the microspeaker enclosure of claim 6, wherein the block formed of the porous material is installed by attaching the surface, to which the film is attached, to the enclosure case (Choi: Film 243 attached to bottom surface of porous block 300 within enclosure 120; Fig. 3,7; Translation Pg. 6,9).
Regarding Claim 12, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 6. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
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 JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837