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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US 20210037312).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a speaker box, comprising: a housing (450, fig 4, [0061]); a speaker unit (420); and a sound-absorbing foam sheet (500); wherein the housing defines an accommodating space (fig 4), the speaker unit is accommodated in the accommodating space (420 is in the first space 460, fig 4, [0068]), the speaker unit is enclosed with the housing to define a rear cavity (first space 460, fig 4), and the sound-absorbing foam sheet is adhered to an inner wall of the rear cavity (fig 4), and the sound-absorbing foam sheet comprises a foam block and sound-absorbing powders adhered in the foam block (air adsorption member 500 may be filled with a homogeneous or heterogeneous powder, fig 4, [0100]).
Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 1, wherein the foam block is adhered to the inner wall of the rear cavity through an adhesive component (Referring to FIG. 10, the air adsorption member 500 may be adhered, for example, to an adhesive tape 447 provided on an inner side of the second housing 440 (e.g., the lower housing) and thereby disposed in the first space 46, [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 1, wherein the sound-absorbing powders are zeolite materials (zeolite, [0079]).
Although Cho does not go into the details of the structuring of the zeolite materials, it would have been obvious to choose from any known structures having one or more of an MFI structure, an MEL structure, and an FER structure of which a Si/M ratio is greater than 100 and a particle size is less than 10 m, and the M comprises one or more of Al, Fe, B, and Ga with the motivation of improving acoustic absorption.
Regarding claim 10, Cho teaches an electronic device, comprising the speaker box according to claim 1 (abstract).
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)3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho and Harris (US 20190222920).
Regarding claim 3, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 1.
Although Cho does not teach wherein the foam block is an open-cell foam, and cells of the foam block are exposed in the rear cavity, Harris teaches an acoustic enclosure with open-cell foam in an acoustic cavity (Harris, [0038]) and it would have been obvious to implement open-cell foam since doing so is the use of a known te4chnieu to improve a similar device in the same way.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho and Casati (US 20200029144).
Regarding claim 4, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 1.
Although Cho does not teach wherein a density of the foam block ranges from 10-100
m
g
/
c
m
3
and/or, a thickness of the foam block ranges from 0.2-5 mm, Casati teaches a privacy mask for a phone where a foam is used as a sound absorber (Casati, [0017]) and the foam can have a thickness of 2 mm and a density of 5 to 150
k
g
/
m
3
(Casati, [0053]). The examiner notes that
1
m
g
/
c
m
3
=
1
k
g
/
m
3
, i.e. they are the same unit.
It would have been obvious to implement those claimed density and thickness since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Regarding claim 5, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 1.
Although Cho does not teach wherein the foam block is selected from one of melamine foam and polyurethane foam, Casati teach melamine or polyurethane foams (Casati, [0024]) and it would have been obvious to implement those foams since doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way.
Although Cho and Casati do not teach the foam block contains more than 90% of cells with an aperture less than 0.5 mm, it would have been obvious to use a small aperture for most of the cells with the motivation of improving the acoustic absorption.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding claim 6, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 2, wherein the adhesive component is a double-sided adhesive tape ([0091]).
Although Cho does not teach that a thickness of the double-sided adhesive tape ranges from 0.02-0.2 mm, it would have been obvious to use thin tape with the motivation of saving space in the enclosure.
Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 1.
Although Cho does not teach wherein the sound-absorbing powders and adhesives are blended to form a water-based emulsion, and the foam block is impregnated with the water-based emulsion and dried, so that the sound-absorbing powders are connected to a surface of a support of the foam block, it would have been obvious to use a water based emulsion with the motivation of improving adhesive qualities.
Regarding claim 8, Cho teaches the speaker box according to claim 7.
Although Cho doesn’t teach wherein the adhesives are one or more of polyacrylate, styrene-butadiene emulsion, polystyrene acrylate, polystyrene acetate, polyurethane resin, and polyethylene vinyl acetate salt, it would have been obvious to use one of the known adhesives with the motivation of improving adhesive qualities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691