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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated [See specification paragraphs 0004-0006, 0036-0037]. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 21 recite the acronym “MOFs” without providing its meaning of this acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 10 and 25 recite the acronym “SBR” without providing its meaning of this acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites the acronym “BJH” without providing its meaning of this acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The written specification does not provide a meaning of the acronyms “SBR” and “BJH”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 9-13-15, 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 1, Lembacher discloses a sound amplifying block formed of a permeable material and an air adsorbing material and having a layered structure [Figs. 2 and 4], the sound amplifying block comprising: a porous grain formed by a first porous material that is an air adsorbing material (24a) that serves to amplify sound [Figs. 2, 4 paragraphs 0035-0036, 0046-0047], a second porous material that is a permeable material (24b) and has a pore size and porosity greater than those of the first porous material [Figs. 2, 4 paragraphs 0035-0036, 0046-0047], and a binder [0014, 0035, 0037-0040]; and a structural gap formed in a process of freezing the porous grain and formed between porous grains [paragraphs 0069-72].
Lembacher does not expressly disclose the feature of wherein the second porous material has a pore size and porosity greater 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 pore size and porosity greater 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 pore size and porosity greater 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 2, Lembacher discloses wherein the porous grain has a wall structure, and the structural gap is an empty space having a size of 400 nm to 10 um formed between walls [paragraph 0047, Fig. 4]. This feature could be easily derived from the Lembacher wherein the first pores (27) have a diameter between 0.7um to 30um [paragraph 0047].
As to claim 3, Lembacher and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein a particle size of the first porous material is 200 nm to 5 um and a particle size of the second porous material is 1 um to 100 um. However, such configuration is considered obvious given the teaching of Lembacher regarding materials 24a, 24b may be granules consisting of a plurality of individual grains having a grain size between 50 μm-1.33 mm [paragraph 0048, Fig. 2] and also teaching of Lee regarding porous materials with numerous pore sizes within a wide range of pore diameters [Sauer paragraph 0054], and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the sound adsorber material can comprises pores having different particle sizes as taught by Lembacher and Lee can be used to increase acoustic properties of a loudspeaker [Lembacher paragraph 0004].
As to claim 4, Lembacher discloses wherein the first porous material is one or more materials selected from metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), zeolite, activated carbon, and magnesium silicate [paragraph 0036].
As to claim 9, Lembacher discloses wherein the second porous material is a material selected from high-porosity materials having a porosity of 50% or greater, including silica, MOFs, and a high-porosity porous metal [paragraph 0036].
As to claim 10, 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 SBR, and composite binders as a mixture of inorganic binders and organic binders [paragraph 0037].
As to claim 11, Lembacher discloses wherein an adhesive or coating is applied to a surface of the sound amplifying block or added during manufacturing to improve mechanical strength [paragraph 0069, Claim 7].
As to claim 12, Sauer discloses wherein a growth direction and the structural gap of the porous grains are arranged in a direction perpendicular to an attachment surface of the sound amplifying block [Figs. 5, 7, also see Figs. 2C-2D, paragraphs0038-39, 0054-57]. As per Sauer , 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. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 13, Sauer discloses wherein a ratio of a pore volume [cm.sup.3/g] of 6-nm pores to a pore volume [cm.sup.3/g] of 3-nm pores possessed by the sound amplifying block [paragraphs 0026, 0032-0033, 0054: porous material has pores that range from 0-2nm all the way to 50nm, also see paragraph 0056 for pore volume] satisfies (6nm Pore Volume[cm3/g] / 3nm Pore Volume[cm3/g])≥0.6 (BJH Distortion Cumulative Pore Volume) [paragraphs 0054, 0056 ]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 1.
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 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 SBR, and composite binders as a mixture of inorganic binders and organic binders [paragraph 0037].
Claims 5-8, 23 are 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 5, Lembacher and Sauer disclose the sound amplifying block of claim 1 [See rejection of claim 1].
Lembacher and Sauer do not expressly disclose the feature of wherein the second porous material is aerogel.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Lee discloses the feature of wherein the second porous material is aerogel [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 aerogel 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].
As to claim 6, Lembacher, Sauer and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein the second porous material is included in an amount of 40% or less by weight of the first porous material. However, such configuration is considered obvious and design choice options given the teaching of Sauer regarding porous materials with numerous pore sizes within a wide range of pore diameters [Sauer paragraph 0054], and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the sound adsorber material can comprises pores having different particle sizes as taught by Sauer can be configured to have different diameter to produced different weight such as the second porous material included in an amount of 40% or less by weight of the first porous material. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enhance loudspeaker performance [Sauer paragraph 0019].
As to claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the aerogel includes one or more of silica aerogel, carbon aerogel, alumina aerogel, and titania aerogel [paragraph 0095]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 8, Lembacher, Sauer and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein the aerogel has a porosity of 80% or greater. However, such configuration is considered obvious (it is also well known in the art for aerogels to exhibit 90%+ porosity for particle size of 1um to 100um) and design choice options given the teaching of Lee regarding wherein the heterogeneous porous particles which includes aerogels [Lee paragraph 0095] and porosity of the particulate can be adjusted [paragraph 0083], and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the heterogeneous porous particles which includes aerogels as taught by Lee can be configured to have different porosity such as wherein the aerogel has a porosity of 80% or greater. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain reasonable absorption and barrier performance at the same time by retaining a certain level of porosity [Lee paragraph 0149].
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 extraordinary 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 extraordinary 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 extraordinary improve the pore size and pore degree of connectivity by forming ceramic slurry under vacuum [Koh paragraph 0048].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200372890 to Gavryushin et al. (Figs. 2, 4, 6-7 and corresponding paragraphs).
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