DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 17 – 20 were added. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in the application.
The Applicant’s amendment has overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection on record and they have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference being used in the current rejection.
Please see the current rejections below for further details.
Applicant's newly amended claim limitations necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0181303).
Regarding Claim 1, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
A vent assembly (430) comprising a first connecting layer (432), a spacer (438), and a protective element (436), the connecting layer (423) comprising a first aperture (the aperture along 442 in which 438/436 is located, as located within Figure 13), wherein the spacer (438) comprises a spacer aperture (aperture within 438 in which 436 is located, as illustrated in Figure 13) and the protective element (436) is located within (as illustrated in Figure 13) the spacer aperture (aperture within 438 in which 436 is located, as illustrated in Figure 13) and occludes (as illustrated in Figure 13) the first aperture (the aperture along 442 in which 438/436 is located, as located within Figure 13) such that the spacer (436) surrounds (as illustrated in Figure 1) the protective element (436), and wherein the spacer (438) and the protective element (436) are contacted by (as illustrated in Figure 13, 432 is in contact with an upper portion of both 438 and 436) the first connecting layer (423).
Regarding Claim 5, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The protective element (436) comprises a porous membrane (“membrane is designed as an air-permeable membrane that allows air to pass into and out of the membrane… the membrane includes a stretched PTFE, causing the membrane to include small pores of varying sizes”, Paragraph 0030).
Regarding Claim 8, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The protective element (436) is positioned substantially within (as illustrated in Figure 13) the center (the center of the spacer aperture) the spacer aperture (aperture within 438 in which 436 is located, as illustrated in Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 12, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The vent assembly (430) further comprises a second connecting layer (“enclosure 102 may include a compartment used to receive the bracket assembly”, Paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 13, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The first connecting layer (432) is substantially planar across (as illustrated in Figure 13, 432 extends in the horizontal plane across 436 and 438) at least the spacer (438) and the protective element (436).
Regarding Claim 14, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The vent assembly (430) further comprises a membrane (140) connected to (as illustrated in Figure 5) the first connecting layer (432).
Regarding Claim 15, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
An electronic device (100) comprising a housing (102) and vent assembly (430) according to Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein the housing (102) comprises at least one aperture (116) and the vent assembly (430) covers (as illustrated in Figure 5, the vent assembly covers 116) the at least one aperture (116).
Regarding Claim 16, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The vent assembly (430) is connected to (as illustrated in Figure 5, the bracket of the vent assembly is connected to 102) the housing (102) via the first connecting layer (bracket 432).
Regarding Claim 17, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
An inner edge (the inner vertical edge of 438 which is in contact with the vertical edge of 436, as illustrated in Figure 13) of the spacer (438) defines an outermost boundary (as illustrated in Figure 13, the inner vertical edge of 438 which is in contact with the vertical edge of 436 defines the outermost boundary of the spacer aperture) of the spacer aperture (aperture within 438 in which 436 is located, as illustrated in Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 18, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The inner edge (the inner vertical edge of 438 which is in contact with the vertical edge of 436, as illustrated in Figure 13) of the spacer (438) surrounds (as illustrated in Figure 13, the inner vertical edge of 438 which is in contact with the vertical edge of 436 surrounds the vertical edge of 436) an outer edge (the vertical edge of 436, as illustrated in Figure 13) of the protective element (436).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0181303), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Furuuchi (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0228826).
Regarding Claim 2, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The protective element (436) comprises a porous membrane (“membrane is designed as an air-permeable membrane that allows air to pass into and out of the membrane… the membrane includes a stretched PTFE, causing the membrane to include small pores of varying sizes”, Paragraph 0030).
However, Li lacks showing the protective element comprises a mesh layer.
In the same field of endeavor of electronic ventilation members, Furuuchi teaches (Figure 1):
The protective element (11) comprises a mesh layer (“membrane 11 may be comprised of two or more layers including a stretched porous PTFE membrane… examples of other types of membranes that may be added include gas-permeable supporting materials such as a mesh”, Paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protective element shown by Li to include a mesh layer, as taught by Furuuchi, to add a support material to the PTFE membrane.
Regarding Claim 7, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The protective element (436).
However, Li lacks showing the protective element has a thickness of from about 10µm to about 200µm.
In the same field of endeavor of electronic ventilation members, Furuuchi shows (Figure 1):
The protective element (11) has a thickness of from about 10µm to about 200µm (“the stretch porous PTFE membrane had a thickness of 20µm”, Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protective element shown by Li to have a thickness of 20µm, as taught by Furuuchi, for structural stability of the membrane, since this is a thickness that is known in the art for a PTFE membrane.
Regarding Claim 9, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The spacer (438) is an adhesive (as recited in Paragraph 0060).
However, Li lacks showing the adhesive is a water resistant polymer material.
In the same field of endeavor of electronic ventilation members, Furuuchi shows (Figure 1):
The spacer (30) comprises a water resistant polymer material (“the type of adhesive 81 of the first double-faced tape 31 is not particularly limited… a composition containing a polymer”, Paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the spacer adhesive shown by Li to be a water resistant polymer material, as taught by Furuuchi, by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 10, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The spacer (438) is an adhesive (as recited in Paragraph 0060).
However, Li lacks showing the spacer has a thickness of from about 10µm to about 200µm.
In the same field of endeavor of electronic ventilation members, Furuuchi shows (Figure 1):
The spacer (30) has a thickness of from about 10µm to about 200µm (“the preferred thickness of 31 inclusive of the adhesive 81 is 100µm, Paragraph 0027; accordingly the thickness of 31 is less than 100 µm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protective element shown by Li to have a thickness of 100µm, as taught by Furuuchi, for structural stability of the adhesive, since this is a thickness that is known in the art for an adhesive.
Regarding Claim 11, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The spacer (438) and the protective element (436).
However, Li lacks showing the spacer and protective element are the same thickness or substantially the same thickness.
In the same field of endeavor of electronic ventilation members, Furuuchi shows (Figure 1):
The spacer (30) and the protective element (1!) are substantially the same thickness (the stretch porous PTFE membrane had a thickness of 20µm”, Paragraph 0032; “the preferred thickness of 31 inclusive of the adhesive 81 is 100µm, Paragraph 0027; accordingly the thickness of 31 is less than 100 µm; accordingly, the thickness are substantially the same).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the spacer and the protective element shown by Li to have a substantially the same thickness, as taught by Furuuchi, for structural stability of the vent assembly, since this is a thickness that is known in the art for an adhesive spacer and a protective element.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0181303) and Furuuchi (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0228826), as recited in Claim 2 above, further in view of Sylvester, II (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0002930).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Li (Figures 5 and 13) and Furuuchi (Figure 1) teaches:
The mesh layer (“membrane 11 may be comprised of two or more layers including a stretched porous PTFE membrane… examples of other types of membranes that may be added include gas-permeable supporting materials such as a mesh”, Paragraph 0018) comprises a weave (it is inherent that mesh is a weave of materials).
However, the combination lacks teaching the weave is of polymer fibers.
In the same field of endeavor of protective elements, Sylvester teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the protective element (10) art for mesh (26) to be a weave of polymer fibers (synthetic polymer or polymers, Paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify that the mesh layer taught by the combination of Li and Furuuchi to be a weave of synthetic polymer or polymers, as taught by Sylvester, by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4, Sylvester teaches (Figure 1):
The polymer fiber (synthetic polymer or polymers, Paragraph 0027) comprises polyethylene (polyethylene is a synthetic polymer).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0181303), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Kenaley et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant No. 2021/0127185).
Regarding Claim 6, Li shows (Figures 5 and 13):
The protective element (436) is water resistant (“an air-permeable, liquid-resistant membrane”, Paragraph 0030).
However, Li lacks showing the protective element comprises a water resistant coating.
In the same field of endeavor of electronic device protective covers, Kenaley teaches (Figure 5):
It is known in the vent assembly (10) art for a protective element (104) to comprise a water resistant coating (“the porous expanded membraned may be PTFE… the porous expanded membranes are hydrophobic, but may be hydrophilic by adding a coating”, Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the protective element shown by Li to comprise a water resistant coating, as taught by Kenaley, to make the protective element hydrophilic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 19, Li shows the claimed invention except the protective element is spaced apart from the spacer such that a gap is formed therebetween.
There is no teaching or motivation in the prior art to modify Li accordingly.
Claim 20 depends from Claim 19.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Helena Kosanovic, can be reached on 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
