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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 1, 8, 10-11, 13, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 112399289 A submitted in the IDS filed 7/17/2023 with citations from the machine translation provided by the Examiner) and in further view of Dai et al (US 2020/0037062) . Zhang teaches a microspeaker module comprising a sound-absorbing block composed of several molecular sieve particles containing heat-conducting additive (auxiliary agent) by adhesive bonding; where the adhesive comprises an organic and/or inorganic binder; wherein in the preparation process of the sound-absorbing block a dispersing auxiliary agent is added. Zhang further teaches: t he content of the organic binder or inorganic binder is 5 to 20 % or 4 to 15% based on 100 % of the total weight of the sound absorbing block ; the content of the heat-conducting additive is 0.5 to 10%; t he content of the dispersing agent is 0.5% to 3.0 % by weight of the molecular sieve particles (see Contents of Invention, Pages 2-4) . Zhang therefore discloses where the content of molecular sieve is at least [100% / (100% + 20% + 10% + 3%)] or 75% of the acoustic material. Zhang does not teach the sound-absorbing material comprising an iron-modified molecular sieve and where the content of iron is 0.004 to 1.7% of the iron-modified acoustic material. Dai teaches a sound absorbing material comprising a zeolite molecular sieve framework comprising SiOt and a metal oxide MxOy comprising a metal element M where M includes Fe (see [0013]). Regarding the concentration of iron, Dai teaches the zeolite molecular sieve that is a ZSM-5 with Si/Fe = 400 atomic ratio (see [0026]). The wt% of iron in the molecular sieve is therefore 0.2315 wt5 since t he framework structure for ZSM-5 is Si 96 O 192 contains 2 O for each metal framework atom ( Si+Fe ) and therefore there are 400 mol of Si; 1 mol of Fe; 802 mol of O2; the Mass Si = 28.082; Mass Fe = 55.845; Mass O = 15.999 so that the wt% of iron in the molecular sieve = ( 1 x 55.845 ) /(400 x 28.085 + 1 x 55.845 + 802 x 15.999) * 100 = 0.2315 wt%. In the acoustic material disclosed by Zhang containing 75% of molecular sieve the composition suggested by Dai would have a wt% of 0.002315 * 75 = 0.17 wt% of the total iron-modified acoustic material. Dai further teaches that the sound absorbing material comprising Fe, improves the low frequency performance of the speaker by having excellent oxygen adsorption capacity, good water repellency, and stability (see [0012-0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the sound absorbing material as taught by Zhang where the molecular sieve is an iron-modified molecular sieve as taught by Dai to improve the oxygen adsorption capacity, water repellency, and stability of the sound absorbing material. Regarding the iron-modified acoustic material prepared by homogenously mixing the molecular sieve, binder, dispersant, and an auxiliary agent, then shaping the mixture, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown , 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann , 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). Here, the Zhang and Dai teach a composition that is mixed and comprise the same compositional parts of an iron-modified molecular sieve, a binder, a dispersant, and an auxiliary agent since Zhang also teaches a composition formed by mixing (see Page 4-6 and Examples). The instant claim implies the identical structure. In the event any slight differences can be shown between the two acoustic materials , the burden is on Applicant to provide concrete evidence that the difference exhibits unexpected properties compared to the prior art acoustic material suggested by Zhang and Dai. See Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922. Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses an acoustic material where the content of the binder is in a range of 4% / (100% + 4% + 10% + 3%) to 20% / (100% + 20% + 0.5% + 0.5%) or 3.4% to 16% of the acoustic material. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the acoustic material as taught by Zhang and Dai where the binder concentration is in any workable or optimum overlapping with 3.4 to 16% including the claimed range. Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the binder comprising an organic and/or inorganic binder; wherein the organic binder comprise the acrylate based binders of polyphenylene acrylic emulsion, polystyrene acetic acid emulsion, polystyrene acrylate emulsion and polyacrylate emulsion and one of the inorganic binder comprises one of kaolin, silica sol, aluminum sol (see Page 4) . Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the dispersant comprising glycerol (i.e., glycerin) (see Page 7) . Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the acoustic material comprising kaolin (see Page 4) . Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the acoustic material in the form of blocks (see Page 3) . Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses a method for preparing a sound absorbing block comprising the molecular sieve, binder, dispersant and auxiliary agent as applied above in claim 1, where the method comprises homogeneously mixing the molecular sieve, binder, dispersant, and auxiliary agent to obtain a s lurry , and mould extruding, pressing or spraying (i.e., shaping the suspension ) (see Page s 4 -5 ) . Regarding claim s 18 -20 , Zhang discloses a speaker in an electronic device such as a smart mobile phone where the sound absorbing material is in a back cavity (see Abstract and Background). Zhang further discloses the speaker comprising a housing and a transducer for converting electric signal to audible sound (i.e. an acoustic sensor) (see Background). Claim (s) 2 -7 , 9, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in further view of Fu et al (US 2020/0298217) and in further view of Dai. Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches a microspeaker module comprising a sound-absorbing block composed of several molecular sieve particles containing heat-conducting additive (auxiliary agent) by adhesive bonding; where the adhesive comprises an organic and/or inorganic binder; wherein in the preparation process of the sound-absorbing block a dispersing auxiliary agent is added. Zhang further teaches: the content of the organic binder or inorganic binder is 5 to 20 % or 4 to 15% based on 100 % of the total weight of the sound absorbing block; the content of the heat-conducting additive is 0.5 to 10%; the content of the dispersing agent is 0.5% to 3.0 % by weight of the molecular sieve particles (see Contents of Invention, Pages 2-4). Zhang therefore discloses where the content of molecular sieve is at least [100% / (100% + 20% + 10% + 3%)] or 75% of the acoustic material. Zhang teaches the molecular sieve particles are ZSM-5 where the Si/Al ratio is more than 200 and therefore teaches a molecular sieve containing silicon and aluminum elements in the framework (see Page 4 , Top). Zhang does not teach the sound-absorbing material comprising an iron-modified molecular sieve and where the content of iron is 0.004 to 1.7% of the iron-modified acoustic material. Fu teaches iron (III) exchanged zeolites prepared by combining a zeolite with iron (III) cations at elevated temperatures in a range of 10°C to 150°C for a time 45 minut e s or more (see [0093]). Fu further teaches a method where following the ion exchange the iron-exchanged zeolite can be subjected to one or more steps of filtering in combination of washing and where washing is until the filtrate has a conductivity of 200 µmhos or less (i.e., 200 µS or less) (see [0094-0095]). Fu further teaches methods comprising (1) mixing zeolites with water and heated; (adding iron salt to the mixture and reacting at the time and temperature; and upon completion, subjecting the solution to washing and filtration; and dried (see Examples). Dai teaches that the sound absorbing material comprising Fe, improves the low frequency performance of the speaker by having excellent oxygen adsorption capacity, good water repellency, and stability (see [0012-0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the sound absorbing material where the ZSM-5 having silicon and aluminum element s in the framework as taught by Zhang is modified with iron as taught by Fu to improve the oxygen adsorption capacity, water repellency, and stability of the sound absorbing material as suggested by Dai . Regarding claim 3, Fu teaches iron (III) exchanged zeolites prepared by combining a zeolite with iron (III) cations at elevated temperatures in a range of 10°C to 150°C for a time 45 minutes or more (see [0093]). Fu further teaches a method where following the ion exchange the iron-exchanged zeolite can be subjected to one or more steps of filtering in combination of washing and where washing is until the filtrate has a conductivity of 200 µmhos or less (i.e., 200 µS or less) (see [0094-0095]). Fu further teaches methods comprising (1) mixing zeolites with water and heated; (adding iron salt to the mixture and reacting at the time and temperature; and upon completion, subjecting the solution to washing and filtration; and dried (see Examples). Regarding the product by process limitations, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown , 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann , 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). Here, Zhang , Fu and Dai teach a composition that is mixed and comprise the same compositional parts of a n iron- exchanged Si/Al molecular sieve (i.e., containing silicon, aluminum , and iron in the framework) , a binder, a dispersant, and an auxiliary agent since Zhang also teaches a composition formed by mixing (see Page 4-6 and Examples). The instant claim implies the identical structure. In the event any slight differences can be shown between the two acoustic materials , the burden is on Applicant to provide concrete evidence that the difference exhibits unexpected properties compared to the prior art acoustic material suggested by Zhang , Fu and Dai. See Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922. Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the molecular sieve where the molar ratio of Si to Al is more than 200 :1 (see Page 4, Top). Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the molecular sieve where the molar ratio of Si to Al is more than 200:1 (see Page 4, Top). Regarding claim 6, Fu teaches a method where the iron source is iron (III) sulfate (i.e., ferric sulfate), Iron (III) acetate (i.e., ferric acetate), and iron (III) halides (see [0089]). Dai teaches the zeolite molecular sieve that is a ZSM-5 with Si/Fe = 400 atomic ratio (see [0026]). The wt% of iron in the molecular sieve is therefore 0.2315 wt5 since the framework structure for ZSM-5 is Si 96 O 192 contains 2 O for each metal framework atom ( Si+Fe ) and therefore there are 400 mol of Si; 1 mol of Fe; 802 mol of O2; the Mass Si = 28.082; Mass Fe = 55.845; Mass O = 15.999 so that the wt% of iron in the molecular sieve = (1 x 55.845)/(400 x 28.085 + 1 x 55.845 + 802 x 15.999) * 100 = 0.2315 wt%. Regarding claim 7, Fu teaches a method where the iron source is iron (III) sulfate (i.e., ferric sulfate), Iron (III) acetate (i.e., ferric acetate), and iron (III) halides (see [0089]). Dai teaches the zeolite molecular sieve that is a ZSM-5 with Si/Fe = 400 atomic ratio (see [0026]). The wt% of iron in the molecular sieve is therefore 0.2315 wt5 since the framework structure for ZSM-5 is Si 96 O 192 contains 2 O for each metal framework atom ( Si+Fe ) and therefore there are 400 mol of Si; 1 mol of Fe; 802 mol of O2; the Mass Si = 28.082; Mass Fe = 55.845; Mass O = 15.999 so that the wt% of iron in the molecular sieve = (1 x 55.845)/(400 x 28.085 + 1 x 55.845 + 802 x 15.999) * 100 = 0.2315 wt%. Regarding claim 9 , Zhang discloses an acoustic material where the content of the binder is in a range of 4% / (100% + 4% + 10% + 3%) to 20% / (100% + 20% + 0.5% + 0.5%) or 3.4% to 16% of the acoustic material. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the acoustic material as taught by Zhang and Dai where the binder concentration is in any workable or optimum overlapping with 3.4 to 16% including the claimed range. Regarding claim 12 , Zhang discloses the dispersant comprising glycerol (i.e., glycerin) (see Page 7). Regarding claim 1 4 , Zhang discloses the acoustic material comprising kaolin (see Page 4). Regarding claim 1 6 , Zhang discloses the acoustic material in the form of blocks (see Page 3). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5833 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally A Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6297 . 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. /MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738