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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation of “number average molecular weight” in claim 1 and 3 is rendered indefinite. It is unclear how the number average molecular weight of the side chain of the distortion improving agent is measured.
The recitation of “mass percentage” in claim 1, line 2 and line 9 are rendered indefinite. It is unclear what is the basis for the mass percentages. The examiner invites the applicant to clarify. For purposes of examination, then mass percentage of the distortion improving agent is interpreted to be based on the total weight of the composition and the mass percentage of the specific chemical crosslinking points is interpreted to be based on the total mass of the macromolecule polymer.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A rubber voice diaphragm, comprising
a distortion improving agent with a mass percentage of 1% to 40%,
wherein the distortion improving agent is a macromolecule polymer with a -Si-O- structure in a main chain, and comprises a side group and/or a side chain, a number-average molecular weight of the side chain of the distortion improving agent is 60 to 20000,
an end group and the side group of the distortion improving agent each comprise at least one of methyl group, ethyl group, propyl group, butyl group, phenyl group, naphthyl group, hydroxyl group, amino group, ester group, and amide group, and
wherein at least one of the end group, the side group and the side chain of the distortion improving agent has specific chemical crosslinking points with a mass percentage of 0.03% to 30%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 113490128).
The examiner refers to the English machine translation of Wang et al. provided in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. disclose a diaphragm comprising polysiloxane as a base polymer, thereby reading on a rubber voice diaphragm of the instant claim, and 1-50 wt% of a modified siloxane based on the total weight of the base polymer, modified siloxane, filler, structure control agent, and crosslinking agent, the modified siloxane having the formula shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R is one of
PNG
media_image2.png
251
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and -C3H6NH2, x, y, z are all positive integers, and x is 1 to 1000, y is 1 to 1000, and z is 1 to 1000 (claim 1 and 2), thereby reading on a distortion improving agent is a macromolecule polymer with a -Si-O- structure in a main chain and comprises a side group that comprises an methyl group.
Furthermore, Wang et al. teach the additive may be end capped with methyl [0036], thereby reading on an end group comprising at least one methyl group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an end group as a methyl group as broadly taught by Wang et al.
Wang et al. do not disclose the amount of specific chemical crosslinking points as recited in the instant claim.
However, the amount of crosslinking points are related to the amount of crosslinking that a polymer can undergo. The amount of crosslinking affects the physical properties of the final composition such as tensile strength, hardness, and tear strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance the amount of crosslinking with the physical properties of the final composition. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of chemical crosslinking points cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of specific chemical crosslinking points in the distortion improving agent of Wang et al. to reach the desired physical properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. disclose the distortion improving agent comprises the specific chemical crosslinking points is an amino group and a double bond (see formula 1 above), thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. teach the molecular weight of the distortion improving agent is 5,000 to 200,000 [0034], thereby lying within the claimed range of 1000-1,000,000. In the case where the claimed ranges “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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Wang et al.
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. do not teach the method for preparing the distortion improving agent as recited in the instant claim.
However, the present claims are product-by-process claims. “[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." (MPEP § 2113 (quoting In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).) If the prior art teaches the same product as the product formed by the process recited in the claims at issue, the claims are unpatentable. However, if the process of the claims at issue results in a product that is different from the product taught by the prior art, then the prior art does not teach the invention recited in the claims at issue.
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Wang et al. disclose a rubber voice diaphragm comprises a main rubber that is polysiloxane, fillers, crosslinking agent, and structure control agents (claim 1), thereby reading on instant claim 5 and the main rubber of instant claim 6.
Furthermore, Wang et al. teach the crosslinking agent includes compounds comprising platinum, hydrogen-containing silicone oil, and one or more alkynol inhibitors, thereby reading on a vulcanizing agent and vulcanizing aid [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the vulcanizing aid to the rubber voice diaphragm as taught by Wang et al.
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. disclose a sound generating device comprising the rubber voice diaphragm (claim 13), thereby reading on the acoustic generator of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al. teach the product using the acoustic generator is a loudspeaker [0059], thereby reading claim wherein the product is a speaker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an acoustic generator in a product that is a speaker as taught by Wang et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights