DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed March 4th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 8 have been amended. Claims 9-11 have been cancelled.
The claim objections made in the Office action mailed December 12th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections made in the Office action mailed December 12th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, and 8 in the Office action mailed December 12th, 2026 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive. The Section 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, and 8 in the Office action mailed December 12th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are nearly identical to the pervious arguments made in the response filed September 9th, 2026. The Examiner’s response will therefore largely be replicated from the previous Office action mailed December 12th, 2026.
Applicant mischaracterizes Kenaley stating that Kenaley merely discloses pores or a porous substrate as a method of venting air (for pressure relief/equalization). The Examiner disagrees.
While Kenaley certainly emphasizes pores as a means of venting air, the breathable layer, which can be a breathable adhesive or a breathable adhesive tape [0046], it is more broadly taught that the equilibration rate of a breathable layer is tuned by selecting certain material properties of the breathable adhesive (tape) layer such as porosity, surface area, and/or thickness and/or by the structure of the breathable layer independent of any porosity, surface area, and/or thickness such as including a channel or void through which air can vent [0033], wherein Zhao provides an explicit teaching of a structured adhesive (tape) comprising a vent for pressure equalization (as explained further below) tuned, its venting pathway being provided by structuring independent of its porosity, surface area, and/or thickness.
Furthermore, in the event to use Zhao to provide a structured adhesive (tape) layer for venting to equalize pressure is not fully motivated: Vetrovec teaches that a breathable adhesive sheet comprising a structured sheet is improved over a porous adhesive sheet (substrate and/or adhesive) because having to choose only from materials that have the capability of being natural porous (or made porous) is too limiting and restricts the construction of adhesive films and also limits the types of available adhesives to those that will not fill the interstices of the porous substrate [0011], and therefore would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art to structure the substrate and/or adhesive with holes/passages.
Applicant further mischaracterizes Zhao stating that Zhao merely provides a vent for airflow between the inside and the outside of the device and does not teach separating the adhesive layer into first and second parts. The Examiner disagrees.
Zhao explicitly teaches the concept of pressure relief and equalization, even mentioning an “eardrum” phenomenon [0004] and explicitly teaches this build-up (in this case caused by a microphone cavity) will be discharged within the device housing [0017], but also teaches that this build-up can be caused from outside air pressure, the discharge preventing bulging of the waterproof membrane [0032]. This is nearly (if not exactly) identical to the function of the breathable pathways in Kenaley and those of the current invention.
Zhao also teaches that multiple ventilation channels can be formed extending from the opening [0013] when it is difficult to balance the air pressure with a single ventilation channel alone [0048], wherein the number of ventilation channels can be specifically two and can be in the set in the same adhesive layer, symmetrically, in order to reduce manufacturing difficulty and ensure that the ventilation channels have a good consistency [0048]. While not depicted in Zhao, the Examiner has depicted below a modified depiction of Zhao’s taught and motivated modification for Applicant’s appreciation. It is unclear how this would not inherently provide an adhesive (tape) layer with at least first and second parts defining an opening with two communication grooves (extending through the thickness of the adhesive layer) facing each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
226
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, in the event that first and second parts are not considered explicitly taught: Furuuchi teaches an adhesive layer having a portion dug out to form at least one venting channel therein, wherein multiple venting channels can be formed by providing at least two separate/distinct sections of each of the layers of the adhesive (tape) (as desired by Zhao), such as a the channel being provided in a cross-shape in plan view [0047] (both as provided with Examiner modified depictions below) OR Engel teaches a venting channel for pressure equalization as provided by two (separate/distinct) adhesive rails (as desired by Zhao) [depicted in Figs. 1-2] or a single adhesive rail [depicted in Fig. 6] [0016-0018], both going entirely through an adhesive (tape) layer (as further explained below).
PNG
media_image2.png
280
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
280
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant states that secondary/tertiary references (Vetrovec, Furuuchi, or Engel) do not teach certain concepts of the primary invention. The Examiner disagrees.
First, each of these references is optional as the Examiner believes that Kenaley in view of Zhao sufficiently teaches the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, when a secondary/tertiary reference is used as teaching reference, it is not necessary for the secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather a reference can teach a certain concept, such as preferring to structure an adhesive sheet for air permeability as opposed to providing a porous substrate/adhesives as taught in Vetrovec OR separate/distinct sections of adhesive (tape) defining a plurality of (two or more) venting channels (communication grooves) as taught in Furuuchi [0047] OR Engel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0050437 A1) [0016-0018, Figs. 1 & 6] OR the breaking of the adhesive layer into parts and optionally in combination with the primary rejection of Kenaley in view of Zhao, discloses the presently claimed invention.
For instance, Applicant argues that Furuuchi does not teach the build-up of pressure requiring venting. However, Furuuchi is only used to demonstrate how one could modify an adhesive layer to provide a first part and a second part separated by communication grooves. Furthermore, the pressure aspect of the invention is not claimed until claim 3. If Applicant intended to rely on this functional feature for traversing prior art, then it should be located in the independent claim. The venting channels are capable of moving air and thus are relevant to the invention of forming air channels in adhesives.
Applicant also argues that Engel does not teach an adhesive layer being divided into two parts but merely providing two adhesive parts that are separated from each other. Not only does the claim language not support this distinction, but the Examiner does not see a structural difference between an adhesive layer being provided as two parts and one being divided into two parts, even as a product-by-process type limitation, which again is not claimed. Furthermore, the adhesive rails of Fig. 1, as applied to the circular shape of Fig. 6, would form the invention as disclosed and the invention as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
164
154
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
170
146
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 1, 3, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenaley et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0329289 A1) (hereinafter “Kenaley”) in view of Zhao (CN 110505556 A) (hereinafter “Zhao”), and optionally Vetrovec et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0083894 A1) (hereinafter “Vectrovec”) AND/OR Furuuchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0083894 A1) (hereinafter “Furuuchi”) OR Engel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0050437 A1) (hereinafter “Engel”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 8, Kenaley teaches a pressure equalizing construction for a nonporous acoustic/sound-transmitting membrane used in electronics, improved over and replacing porous/permeable membranes [0003-0004, 0011], while preventing pressure-build up by venting air from the acoustic cavity to outside the acoustic cavity to prevent deformation/stress in the non-porous membrane [0014, 0034], the construction comprising a waterproof nonporous acoustic/sound-transmitting membrane (All Figs. [20]) having a first surface having an (first) adhesive (tape) layer (All Figs. [30]) facing/attached to an opening in the housing (All Figs. [16]) and a breathable layer (All Figs. [24]) on a second, opposing surface attached to an acoustic device (module) (All Figs. [14/18]), wherein the breathable layer comprises an opening defining the acoustic cavity (inner space) (All Figs. [12]) extending through the entire thickness of layer, the breathable layer being a breathable adhesive layer or breathable adhesive tape layer [0046], wherein the pressure equilibration rate of a breathable adhesive (tape) layer can be tuned by selecting certain material properties of the breathable adhesive (tape) layer such as porosity, surface area, and/or thickness and/or by the structure of the breathable layer independent of any porosity, surface area, and/or thickness such as including a channel or void through which air can vent [0033] from the acoustic cavity in both directions to the interior environment of the housing (All Figs. [22]) outside the acoustic cavity (outer space) such that it prevents the deformation and/or stress of the nonporous membrane [0034].
However, the void or channel as comprising two communication grooves facing each other across the acoustic cavity and extending through the entire thickness of the second adhesive (tape) layer such that the breathable adhesive layer is in a first part and a second part separated by the communication groove (and acoustic cavity) is not taught.
Zhao teaches an acoustic sealing structure comprising a waterproof, essentially nonporous membrane (All Figs. [3]) adhesively attached to the acoustic device cavity (All Figs. [4]) via an adhesive (tape) layer, wherein in order to prevent the sealed acoustic cavity (All Figs. [51]) from causing the nonporous membrane to deform/bulge upon external or internal increases in pressure [0031-0032] a ventilation channel is added an adhesive (tape) layer that adheres the waterproof membrane to the acoustic device cavity or to a support layer that is bonded to an acoustic device cavity by digging out at least a portion of the tape extending from a hole opened over the acoustic cavity [0009-0011, 0024, 0038-0039, Fig. 5], wherein the ventilation channel may be multiple channels in the same adhesive layer from the acoustic cavity, provided when it is difficult to balance the air pressure with a single ventilation channel alone, such as specifically two symmetrically arranged channels (facing each other across the opening, as depicted below), the symmetrical arranged channels being provided in order to reduce manufacturing process difficulty and ensure good ventilation channel consistency [0048]
PNG
media_image1.png
226
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form a void or channel through an adhesive (tape) layer as two communication grooves facing each other across the acoustic cavity and extending through the entire thickness of the second adhesive (tape) layer such that the breathable adhesive layer is in a first part and a second part separated by the communication groove (and acoustic cavity). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for possible void/channel containing adhesive structures that provide an equilibrium rate to prevent the deformation of a nonporous membrane due to a pressure imbalance [0032-0033], wherein a high desired equilibrium rate would have resulted in the claimed channel arrangement in order to reduce manufacturing process difficulty and ensure good ventilation channel consistency [0048].
In the event that using a void/channel in the adhesive (tape) layer over a porous adhesive (tape) layer is not motivated: Vetrovec teaches that an air-permeable adhesive sheet comprising a structured sheet is improved over a porous substrate because having to choose only from materials that have the capability of being natural porous (or made porous) is too limiting and restricts the construction of adhesive films and also limits the types of available adhesives to those that will not fill the interstices of the porous substrate [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for non-porous breathable adhesive structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide more broadly unlimited choice for adhesive (and substrate) materials.
In the event that the two communication grooves resulting in the breathable adhesive layer comprising first and second separated parts are not seen as explicitly taught by Zhao:
Furuuchi teaches an adhesive tape layer for an electronic device, having a portion removed from the entire thickness to form at least one venting channel therein, wherein multiple venting channels can be formed by providing at least two separate/distinct sections of adhesive tape [0047].
OR
Engel teaches a venting channel for pressure equalization [0002] provided by two (separate/distinct) adhesive rails [Fig. 1] [0016-0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the desired digging out over the entire thickness of the adhesive (tape) layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the art for adhesive venting arrangements having portions removed (i.e. “dug out”) that would have fulfilled the desired structural qualities.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 March 27th, 2026