The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite on line 4 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the installation of the membrane”. Note that there is no prior recitation of any installation of the membrane cover as being referred to on line 4 of the claim.
Claim 1 is further indefinite on lines 4-5 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the measured signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the acoustic transducer”. Note that there is no prior recitation of any measurement of the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the acoustic transducer as being referred to on lines 4-5 of the claim.
Claim 1 is further indefinite on lines 5-6 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the method”. Further it is not understood what one means by “as measured using the method described herein” because there is no measurement method recited in the claim so one cannot ascertain what “method” one is referring to herein.
Claim 9 is indefinite on line 1 because there is no clear antecedent basis for “the membrane”. Is one referring to the membrane cover herein?
Claim 9 is further indefinite on line 4 because there is no positive antecedent basis for “the method”. Further it is not understood what one means by “as measured using the method described herein” because there is no measurement method recited in claims 1 and 9 so one cannot ascertain what “method” one is referring to herein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9, as clear and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenaley et al. (US 2017/0006369) considered with Lucignano et al. (US 2019/0052945).
Kenaley discloses an acoustic device (see figure 3, for example) comprising an acoustic transducer 352 (microphone), an acoustic channel 348 proximate to the acoustic transducer 352 and a membrane cover 312 spanning the acoustic channel 348. Kenaley teaches that “the following method was used to test acoustic cover samples. A sample 312 was placed over a circular aperture 348 (2 mm diameter) on a sample holder plate 344 by means of an adhesive 314. …The speaker was excited to produce an external stimulus at the 1 Pa of sound pressure (94 dB SPL) over the frequency range from 100 Hz to 20 kHz. The acoustic response was measured with a … measurement microphone 46 under the following conditions: (a.) with the aperture 348 uncovered (b.) with the aperture 348 covered with an acoustic protective cover sample 312. …The difference in the response was reported in dB (at a specified frequency) as the acoustic loss due to the protective cover” (para. 0034). Kenaley further discloses that upon installation of the membrane cover 312, a measured signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the acoustic transducer 352 is reduced by 1.54 dB (i.e., the acoustical attenuation or acoustic loss due to the installation of the membrane cover was 1.54 dB) as measured using a method (e.g. measurement method) as claimed (see para. 0046, regarding “the acoustic loss of this protective acoustic cover of this Example was 1.54 dB at a frequency of 1 kHz”).
Kenaley discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach either: that upon installation of the membrane cover 312, a measured signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the acoustic transducer 352 (i.e., the acoustical attenuation or acoustic loss) is reduced by less than 1.5 dB as measured using the method as claimed; or that the SNR of the acoustic device is reduced by less than 2.0 dB after immersion of the acoustic device in water at a depth of at least 0.5 m for at least 10 minutes. Lucignano discloses an acoustic device comprising an acoustic transducer and a membrane-fabric cover (see figure 1, for example) protecting the acoustic transducer, wherein upon installation of the membrane-fabric cover the acoustical attenuation or acoustic loss due to the protective cover is less than 1.5 dB as measured using a measurement method (see fig. 2, and para. 0038-0042, regarding that the delta between the “Baseline” curve and the “Dry condition” curve is “typically below 1.5 dB”), and wherein the acoustical attenuation or acoustic loss due to the protective cover is less than 2.0 dB after immersion of the acoustic device in water at a depth of at least 0.5 m for at least 10 minutes (see fig. 2, and para. 0043-0044, regarding that the delta between the “Dry condition” curve and the “Wet condition” curve “is nearly zero, which would correspond to an optimum performance and water penetration resistance … with a water pressure of 300 mbar for thirty minutes”; note that 300 mbar equates to water depth of 3 m). Lucignano discloses such a membrane-fabric cover, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of protecting the acoustic transducer from water with very low acoustic attenuation or acoustic loss due to the installation of the protective cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kenaley, in view of Lucignano, such that the membrane-fabric cover of Lucignano is used as the protective cover 312 of Kenaley, wherein upon installation of the membrane cover, a measured signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the acoustic transducer 352 (i.e., the acoustical attenuation or acoustic loss) is reduced by less than 1.5 dB as measured using the method as claimed, and that the SNR of the acoustic device is reduced by less than 2.0 dB after immersion of the acoustic device in water at a depth of at least 0.5 m for at least 10 minutes. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of protecting the acoustic transducer 352 of Kenaley from water with very low acoustic attenuation or acoustic loss due to the installation of the protective cover of Lucignano.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the membrane cover comprises a membrane and the membrane consists of a polymer, wherein the polymer is selected from the group as claimed (e.g., PTFE material). See Lucignano, para. 0034.
Regarding claim 4, Lucignano discloses that the membrane consists of a polymer, wherein the polymer is a PTFE material (see para. 0034). Kenaley discloses that the membrane consists of a polymer, wherein the polymer is an ePTFE material (see para. 0022). It would have been at least obvious that the membrane of Kenaley, as modified by Lucignano as described above, consists of a polymer, wherein the polymer is an ePTFE material, the motivation being to improve air permeability and improved performance of the membrane cover.
Regarding claim 5, Lucignano teaches that “samples of the composite construction … have been subjected to a water intrusion test at 200 mbar for 30 minutes. At the end of the test, the sample surface is observed to detect a possible presence of water droplets susceptible to pass through the composite construction of the invention. As shown by the diagram of FIG. 3, none of the tests was interrupted before 30 minutes, since in no case it was possible to detect water” (para. 0045-0047). Note that 200 mbar is equivalent to 20 kPa, and thus Kenaley, as modified by Lucignano, discloses that the membrane cover has a water entry of at least 15 kPa as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the SNR of the acoustic device is reduced by less than 2 dB after immersion of the acoustic device in water at a depth of 2 m for a period of 20 minutes. See Lucignano, fig. 2, and para. 0038-0044, regarding that the delta between the “Baseline” curve and the “Dry condition” curve is “typically below 1.5 dB”) and that the delta between the “Dry condition” curve and the “Wet condition” curve “is nearly zero, which would correspond to an optimum performance and water penetration resistance … with a water pressure of 300 mbar for thirty minutes” (note that 300 mbar equates to water depth of 3 m).
Regarding claim 7, the acoustic device comprises a housing. The housing comprises the acoustic channel 348 extending from the acoustic transducer 352 to the exterior of the acoustic device and the membrane cover 312 spans the acoustic channel 348. See Kenaley, figure 3, for example.
Regarding claim 9, Lucignano discloses that “the membrane M (or porous film) should have … a thickness from 2 to 60 μm” (para. 0030). Kenaley discloses that the “membrane has a thickness less than 25 micron, preferably less than 15 micron, more preferably less than 5 micron … and a “mass less than 5 g/m2, preferably less than 3 g/m2, more preferably less than 2.5 g/m2, most preferably less than 1 g/m2” (para. 0025-0026). It would have been at least obvious that the membrane M of Kenaley, as modified by Lucignano as described above, has a mass per area (MPA) less than 3 g/m2 as claimed, the motivation being to reduce the mass of the membrane M, and hence the membrane cover, while preserving the optimal performance of the protective cover for the acoustic device. Further, the SNR of the acoustic transducer is reduced by less than 1.5 dB compared to the SNR of the acoustic transducer without the membrane cover as measured using the measurement method as claimed (see Lucignano, fig. 2, and para. 0038-0042, regarding that the delta between the “Baseline” curve and the “Dry condition” curve is “typically below 1.5 dB”),
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenaley et al. (US 2017/0006369) considered with Lucignano et al. (US 2019/0052945), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Branca et al. (US 5,814,405).
Kenaley, as modified and applied to claim 1 above, discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach that the membrane cover has an airflow across the membrane cover of at least 5 cm3/cm2 sec. Branca discloses an air permeable membrane, wherein the membrane has an airflow across the membrane of at least 5 cm3/cm2 sec (see TABLE 1, regarding “Frazier Air Flow”), in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of producing air permeable membranes with improved air flow qualities which when used in electronic devices for example can quickly equalize air pressure inside a sealed enclosure thereby reducing condensation and improving thermal management, for example.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Kenaley, in view of Branca, such that the membrane cover has an airflow across the membrane cover of at least 5 cm3/cm2 sec. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of producing air permeable membranes with improved air flow qualities which can quickly equalize air pressure inside a sealed enclosure thereby reducing condensation and improving thermal management, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights