DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on July 7, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 29 has been cancelled. Claims 35-37 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17-18, 24-25, 28, 30-32 and 34-37 are still pending on this application, with claims 18, 24, 31-32 and 34-35 being rejected, claims 36-37 being objected to, and claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 25, 28 and 30 being allowed. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by new claim 35. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claim(s) 18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2002/0168074 A1 to Miyamoto et al. (“Miyamoto”) in view of US Patent No 10631096 B1 to Garcia Selva et al. (“Garcia”).
As to claim 18, Miyamoto discloses an electroacoustic transducer, comprising: a first diaphragm; a first voice coil that is directly or indirectly coupled to the first diaphragm; a second diaphragm; a second voice coil that is directly or indirectly coupled to the second diaphragm (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022); and a single common magnetic circuit that is configured to provide a magnetic field in both a first magnetic circuit gap and a separate second magnetic circuit gap (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0013, ¶ 0020 - ¶ 0022); wherein the first voice coil is located at least in part in the first magnetic circuit gap and the second voice coil is located at least in part in the second magnetic circuit gap (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022), wherein the first and second diaphragms, the first and second coils, and the magnetic circuit are contained in a housing that defines at least one sound-emitting opening (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0022), wherein the first and second diaphragms each generate front side acoustic radiation from a front side thereof, and wherein the housing further defines a first front acoustic cavity that is configured to receive the front side acoustic radiation from the first diaphragm and a second front acoustic cavity that is configured to receive the front side acoustic radiation from the second diaphragm (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022), wherein the housing defines a first sound-emitting opening that is configured to emit sound from the first front acoustic cavity into an external environment and a second sound-emitting opening that is configured to emit sound from the second front acoustic cavity into the external environment (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022).
Miyamoto does not expressly disclose wherein the housing further defines a common rear acoustic cavity that is configured to receive rear side acoustic radiation from both the first and second diaphragms, and a third sound-emitting opening that is configured to emit sound from the rear acoustic cavity into the environment, and wherein the housing defines two opposed ends, and wherein the first and second sound-emitting openings are in one end of the housing and the third sound-emitting opening is in the other end of the housing.
Garcia discloses a similar electroacoustic transducer, and further discloses the housing defining a common rear acoustic cavity that receives rear acoustic radiation from both diaphragms, and a sound emitting opening in a radial direction that is configured to emit sounds from the common rear cavity into the environment (see figure 11; col. 14, lines 27-43), wherein the housing can be configured such that one side of the housing outputs sounds from the front of the diaphragms and the other side outputs sounds from the rear side of the diaphragms (side port configuration with front and back chambers acoustically isolated, see figures 5 and 11; col. 8, lines 30-49; col. 14, lines 27-43).
Miyamoto and Garcia are analogous art because they are both drawn to electroacoustic transducers.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a common rear cavity and separate openings for the front and rear cavities as taught by Garcia in the transducer as taught by Miyamoto. The motivation being to provide a shared vent coupled to the back volumes that can be used to create a tuned circuit for additional resonance (Garcia col. 14, lines 27-43), and further to provide a housing with separate output channels for front and rear volumes in order to maintain acoustic isolation of the different volumes (Garcia col. 8, lines 30-49; col. 14, lines 27-43).
As to claim 24, Miyamoto in view of Garcia further discloses wherein the first and second diaphragms are configured to move in parallel (Garcia col. 14, lines 36-41).
4. Claim(s) 31 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of US Patent Pub No 2018/0048960 A1 to Jeffery et al. (“Jeffery”).
As to claim 31, Miyamoto discloses a housing including: an electroacoustic transducer, including: a first diaphragm; a first voice coil that is directly or indirectly coupled to the first diaphragm; a second diaphragm; a second voice coil that is directly or indirectly coupled to the second diaphragm (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022); and a single common magnetic circuit that is configured to provide a magnetic field in both a first magnetic circuit gap and a separate second magnetic circuit gap (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0013, ¶ 0020 - ¶ 0022), wherein the first voice coil is located at least in part in the first magnetic circuit gap and the second voice coil is located at least in part in the second magnetic circuit gap (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022); a first opening on a front side of the housing; and a second opening on a rear side of the housing (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022), wherein the first opening allows front side sound pressure from the first diaphragm to exit to the environment at the front side of the housing, and wherein the second opening allows front side sound pressure from the second diaphragm to exit to the environment at the rear side of the housing (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022).
Miyamoto discloses the transducer as being miniaturized and for use in a portable device such as a telephone (see pg. 1, ¶ 0001), but does not expressly disclose the device being a wearable audio device, nor wherein the first and second diaphragms are configured to move in parallel, and wherein the sound pressure exiting to the environment at the front side of the housing and the rear side of the housing is out of phase, creating an acoustic dipole. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Jeffery, which discloses a similar device with two driver elements and/or diaphragms facing opposite directions (see figures 1-2 and 4), and further discloses the device being a wearable device, and wherein the diaphragms can be configured to move out of phase with each other such that the sounds exiting the housing create an acoustic dipole (see figure 4; pg. 2, ¶ 0030; pg. 3, ¶ 0035). The proposed modification is therefore considered a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when using an electroacoustic transducer as taught by Miyamoto, as such transducer elements can be used in various audio devices, and further as providing a device where the diaphragms are facing opposite directions and configured to move out of phase or in parallel can provide far-field cancellation of at least some of the radiated sound, thereby providing sound to the wearer and inhibiting sound from being heard by others (Jeffery pg. 2, ¶ 0030).
As to claim 34, Miyamoto in view of Jeffery further discloses wherein the housing includes a first front cavity acoustically coupled with the first diaphragm and the first opening on the front side of the housing and a second front cavity acoustically coupled with the second diaphragm and the second opening on the rear side of the housing (Miyamoto figure 1).
As to claim 35, Miyamoto in view of Jeffery further discloses wherein the acoustic dipole created by the out-of-phase sound pressure radiating from the front side of the housing and the rear side of the housing limits spillage in the wearable audio device (Jeffery pg. 2, ¶ 0030 - ¶ 0031).
5. Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Jeffery, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2022/0225013 A1 to Bønnelykke et al. (“Bønnelykke”).
As to claim 32, Miyamoto in view of Jeffery discloses the wearable audio device of claim 31.
Miyamoto in view of Jeffery further discloses further comprising a common back cavity behind the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm, wherein the common back cavity is sealed (Jeffery pg. 4, ¶ 0045), but does not disclose the cavity being sealed to waterproof the wearable audio device. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Bønnelykke, which discloses a similar wearable device having a speaker with two diaphragms (see figures 1-6), and further discloses the speaker enclosure is sealed to provide a waterproof enclosure (see pg. 5, ¶ 0066; pg. 8, ¶ 0083 - ¶ 0085). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being depending on the particular use of the wearable device, and specifically to provide a wearable audio device that can be used in extreme or demanding conditions (Bønnelykke pg. 1, ¶ 0002 - ¶ 0003).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant argues “it is not clear from the reference or the rejection why one would modify Miyamoto in view of the general discussion of dipoles of Jeffery to arrive at Applicant’s claimed device.” Applicant further argues “a fundamental weakness in the proposed modification” being that “the cited discussions of out-of-phase output from Jeffrey relate to a Quiet Mode operation, which is not contemplated in Miyamoto,” and Miyamoto instead “appears most concerned with maximizing volume without increasing the size of the loudspeaker.” Applicant further argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Miyamoto would be motivated to maximize volume output in a compact transducer,” whereas “the cited teachings of Jeffery relate to operating at a reduced volume (Quiet Mode), and as such, the references fail to provide a reason to modify their teachings and arrive at the Examiner’s proposed modification.” Applicant argues “the cited portion of Jeffery appears to teach away from such a modification/combination as proposed in the Office Action.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant, Miyamoto discloses a loudspeaker that may produce sufficient volume without increasing the size of the loudspeaker. This is done by independently energizing two voice coils to vibrate respective diaphragms, each diaphragm operating by a large coil driving force (see pg. 1, ¶ 0012; pg. 2, ¶ 0024). Miyamoto however is silent on the phase or specific movement direction of the diaphragms, and therefore does not disclose the first and second diaphragms being configured to move in parallel, wherein the sound pressure exiting to the environment at the front side of the housing and the rear side of the housing are out of phase, creating an acoustic dipole.
Jeffery is therefore relied on for disclosing a similar wearable device with two driver elements and/or diaphragms facing opposite directions (see figures 1-2 and 4). Like Miyamoto, the transducers are configured to be controlled independently, which allows the drivers to be used in various modes, including out of phase from each other and in phase with each other, thereby maximizing the SPL delivered to the ear and minimizing the total radiated acoustic power to the far-field (see pg. 1, ¶ 0012; pg. 2, ¶ 0031; pg. 4, ¶ 0049). When the diaphragms are moved in phase, the device is enabled to function in a Normal Mode or a Loud Mode (see pgs. 3-4, ¶ 0040 - ¶ 0041, ¶ 0046), and when the diaphragms are moved out of phase, the sounds exiting the housing create an acoustic dipole, resulting in a Quiet Mode (see figure 4; pg. 2, ¶ 0030; pg. 3, ¶ 0035). Modifying a device as taught by Miyamoto, which is already disclosed as independently energizing the voice coils and diaphragms, to make use of said independent driving and further provide various modes of operation for the device based on transducer phase, is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, providing various modes based on the individual transducer phases as taught by Jeffery, including a mode that maximizes SPL in the near field and a mode that minimizes acoustic power in the far field to limit spillage and inhibit sound from being heard by others, provides the user with a highly versatile and configurable device using the same acoustic architecture (Jeffery pg. 2, ¶ 0030 - ¶ 0031; pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0062 - ¶ 0063). Examiner therefore maintains the claimed invention as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Miyamoto and Jeffery.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues “the rejection of claim 18 misapplies Garcia (in combination with Miyamoto), ignoring Applicant’s claim language reciting the ‘rear side acoustic radiation’ and ‘third sound emitting opening’.” Applicant further argues that the Office Action “does not directly address how those features are present in the proposed modification with Garcia,” therefore the rejection “is deficient on its face.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Miyamoto discloses most of the features recited in claim 18, including a first and second sound-emitting openings configured to emit sound from the respective first and second front acoustic cavities into an external environment (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022), but does not expressly disclose wherein the housing further defines a common rear acoustic cavity that is configured to receive rear side acoustic radiation from both the first and second diaphragms, and a third sound-emitting opening that is configured to emit sound from the rear acoustic cavity into the environment. Miyamoto further does not expressly disclose wherein the housing defines two opposed ends, and the first and second sound-emitting openings are in one end of the housing and the third sound-emitting opening is in the other end of the housing.
Garcia is therefore relied on for disclosing a similar electroacoustic transducer, and specifically for disclosing the housing defining a common rear acoustic cavity that receives rear acoustic radiation from both diaphragms, and a sound emitting opening in a radial direction that is configured to emit sounds from the common rear cavity into the environment (see figure 11; col. 14, lines 27-43). In addition to one side of the housing outputting sounds from the rear side of both diaphragms, Garcia further discloses that the housing can be configured such that one side of the housing outputs sounds from the front chamber of the upper and lower diaphragms, and the front and back chambers are configured to be acoustically isolated from one another (see figure 5; col. 8, lines 30-49). Examiner respectfully maintains the claimed invention as being obvious given the combined teachings of Miyamoto and Garcia. That is, such a configuration can provide an outlet for the front volumes (Miyamoto figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022; Garcia variable positioning for the front volume outputs including on one side, see col. 8, lines 30-49), as well as a separate side outlet for the rear volumes, which can be used to create a tuned circuit for additional resonance (Garcia col. 14, lines 27-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 25, 28 and 30 are allowed.
8. Claims 36-37 are objected to as being dependent upon 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.
Conclusion
9. 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 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
