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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed on 8/14/26 has been entered. Claims 1,7-8, 10, 13, 21 and 25 have been amended. Claims 4-6, 9, 12 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 13-25 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 14 being independent.
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 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 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 14-15, 17, 20-22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190058935 to Lembacher et al. (“Lembacher”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210144465 to Sauer et al. (“Sauer”).
As to claim 14, Lembacher discloses a method of manufacturing a sound amplifying block having a layered structure [Figs. 2 and 4], the method comprising: a first operation of preparing a slurry by mixing a first porous material [24a, paragraphs 0050], which is an air adsorbing material that serves to amplify sound [Figs. 2, 4 paragraphs 0035-0036, 0046-0047], a second porous material [Figs. 2, 4: 24b], which is a permeable material [Figs. 2, 4 paragraphs 0035-0036, 0046-0047], a binder [paragraphs 0014, 0035, 0037-0040], a solvent [paragraph 0035, 0037-0040, 0050-51], and an additive [paragraphs 0050-0051]; a second operation of injecting the slurry into a mold (Fig. 6: 61], bringing the mold containing the slurry into contact with a freezing plate maintained at a temperature below a freezing point of the slurry [paragraphs 0056-59], growing grains in a direction of a temperature gradient, and freeze-casting the grains to form a layered structure, and a third operation of sublimating water, while freeze-drying the freeze-cast block, to form a structural gap [paragraphs 0047, 0050-52, 0072 and Figs. 2, 4, 6].
Lembacher does not expressly disclose the feature of wherein the second porous material has a larger pore size and porosity than those of the first porous material. However, Lembacher discloses regarding first pores (27) have a diameter between 0.7um to 30um [paragraph 0047, Fig. 4]. It would have been extremely obvious to have feature of wherein the second porous material has a pore size and porosity greater than those of the first porous material based on teaching of Lembacher regarding first pores (27) have a diameter between 0.7um to 30um.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Sauer discloses the feature of wherein the second porous material has a larger pore size and porosity than those of the first porous material [Sauer paragraph 0054, Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lembacher to have the feature of wherein the second porous material has a larger pore size and porosity than those of the first porous material as taught by Sauer. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve loudspeaker sound quality and loudspeaker performance by using the coating in their back volumes [Sauer paragraph 0001].
As to claim 15, Sauer discloses wherein, in the first operation, the second porous material is mixed in an amount of 12 to 72 wt% of the first porous material, the binder is mixed in an amount of 0 to 10 wt% of the first porous material, the solvent is mixed in an amount of 80 to 150 wt% of the first porous material, and the additive is mixed in an amount of 0 to 10 wt% of the first porous material [Sauer paragraphs 0041, 0044-45, 0054]. Sauer discloses different binder weight of 5-10% [paragraph 0044] and 90-95% of an adsorptive/desorptive substance[Sauer paragraph 0044]. Further, Sauer discloses porous materials with numerous pore sizes within a wide range of pore diameters [Sauer paragraph 0054]. It would have been obvious and design choice to have second porous material is mixed in an amount of 12 to 72 wt% of the first porous material, the binder is mixed in an amount of 0 to 10 wt% of the first porous material, the solvent is mixed in an amount of 80 to 150 wt% of the first porous material, and the additive is mixed in an amount of 0 to 10 wt% of the first porous material to mix to improve loudspeaker sound quality and loudspeaker performance by using the coating in their back volumes [Sauer paragraph 0001]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 14.
As to claim 17, Lembacher discloses the feature of freeze-dried method using mold with contour corresponding to the 26a and 26b [Lembacher Figs. 3, 6 and corresponding paragraphs], Further, Sauer discloses when the adsorptive coating is applied to the wall of the adsorption cavity [see Figs. 2c-2d], the growth direction and structural gap of the porous grains are arranged in a direction perpendicular to an attachment surface of the sound amplifying block [Sauer Figs. 5, 7, also see Figs. 2C-2D, paragraphs0038-39, 0054-57, also see rejection of claim 12].It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Lembacher teaching of freeze drying with freezing plate/mold with Sauer teaching of growth direction and structural gap of the porous grains are arranged in a direction perpendicular to an attachment surface of the sound amplifying block [see rejection of claim 12] to come up with features of claim 17. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 14.
As to claim 20, Lembacher discloses wherein, in the second operation, freeze-casting is performed using the enclosure case of the microspeaker, as a mold [paragraph 0072, Figs. 2-3, 8]. As per Lembacher, the materials (24a, 24b) are made of providing the plurality of porous particles, the binder, and the mold (61) whose contour (62) corresponds to the contour (26a, 26b) of the first and second sub-enclosure (23a, 23b) [See paragraph 0072 and Figs. 2-3 and 6].
As to claim 21, Lembacher discloses wherein the first porous material is one or more materials selected from metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), zeolite, activated carbon, and magnesium silicate [paragraphs 0006 (zeolite), 0036 (MOFs), Fig. 2].
As to claim 22, Sauer discloses wherein the second porous material has a porosity of 50% or greater and a density of 1.2 kg/m3 or less [paragraphs 0044, 0056, Fig. 8].
As to claim 24, Lembacher discloses wherein the solvent is one or more alcohols selected from water, methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropyl alcohol, butanol, pentanol, hexanol, heptanol, and octanol [paragraph 0050].
As to claim 25, Lembacher discloses wherein the binder is one of inorganic binders including sodium silicate, silica sol, and phosphate binders, organic binders including epoxy, polystyrene, polyvinyl alcohol, ethyl silicate, and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), and composite binders as a mixture of inorganic binders and organic binders [paragraph 0037].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lembacher and Sauer (as applied above) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210375251 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 23, Lembacher and Sauer disclose the sound amplifying block of claim 14 [See rejection of claim 14].
Lembacher and Sauer do not expressly disclose the feature of wherein the second porous material is one or more materials selected from aerogel, mesoporous silica, and a mesoporous carbon structure.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Lee discloses the feature of wherein the second porous material is one or more materials selected from aerogel, mesoporous silica, and a mesoporous carbon structure [Lee paragraph 0095].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lembacher and Sauer to have the feature of wherein the second porous material is one or more materials selected from aerogel, mesoporous silica, and a mesoporous carbon structure as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide acoustic articles, which can be particularly suitable for reducing noise in automotive and aerospace applications [Lee paragraph 0001].
Claims 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lembacher and Sauer (as applied above) in further view of Foreign Application Publication No. KR20130038701 (English translation is provided) to Koh et al. (“Koh”).
As to claim 16, Lembacher and Sauer disclose the method of claim 14 [See rejection of claim 14].
Lembacher and Sauer do not expressly disclose the freezing plate is maintained at -26 0C to 0 0C, and one surface of the mold is in contact with the freezing plate.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Koh discloses the freezing plate is maintained at -26 0C to 0 0C, and one surface of the mold is in contact with the freezing plate [Saiki paragraph 0050].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lembacher and Sauer to have the feature of maintaining the freezing plate at -26 0C to 0 0C, and one surface of the mold is in contact with the freezing plate as taught by Koh. The suggestion/motivation would have been to extraordinarily improve the pore size and pore degree of connectivity by forming ceramic slurry under vacuum [Koh paragraph 0048].
As to claim 18, Koh discloses wherein, in the second operation, the freeze-casting of the slurry is completed within 40 minutes [paragraph 0067]. Koh discloses wherein ceramic slurry is rapidly cooled at -70 0C, the freezing point (0 0C) of the freezing medium (water) or lower, for about 1 hour [paragraph 0067]. It would have been extremely obvious and a matter of design choice to perform the freeze-casting of the slurry is completed within 40 minutes. The suggestion/motivation would have been to extraordinarily improve the pore size and pore degree of connectivity by forming ceramic slurry under vacuum [Koh paragraph 0048].
As to claim 19, Koh discloses wherein, in the third operation, freeze-drying is performed within 36 hours in a vacuum state of 1 Torr or less [paragraphs 0065, 0067]. Koh discloses wherein after forming a frozen ceramic green body, the specimen is subjected to freeze-drying process for about a day [paragraph 0067]. It would have been extremely obvious and a matter of design choice to perform freeze-drying within 36 hours in a vacuum state of 1 Torr or less. The suggestion/motivation would have been to extraordinarily improve the pore size and pore degree of connectivity by forming ceramic slurry under vacuum [Koh paragraph 0048].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 13 are allowed over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 8/14/26, with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 and it’s dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant doesn’t make any arguments with respect to claims 14-25 and thus the rejection of claims 14-25 has been maintained. To expedite the prosecution, Examiner tried to reach out to the applicant’s representative (Mark R. Bilak) twice (on 9/3/26 and also on 9/11/26) via telephone calls and left voice messages. No response from Applicant’s representative has been received.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Foreign Application Publication WO 2020109794 A1 to Coakley et al. (Abstract, Fig. 1 Pages 1-5, 14).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights