DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 5, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 28 and 30 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 Pub No 2012/0070022 A1 to Saiki.
As to claim 1, Miyamoto discloses 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).
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 comprising a housing, and a set of at least two openings on a front side of the housing, wherein the set of at least two openings allow front side sound pressure from the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm, respectively, to exit the housing at the front side. However the use of speakers in wearable audio devices is known in the art and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Saiki discloses a similar miniaturized speaker that can be used in various devices such as a portable device or a wearable audio device (see figures 10-12; pg. 9, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0156), and further discloses the wearable audio device having a housing where the transducer is installed (see figures 1-2, 4-5 and 8-11; pg. 3, ¶ 0055 - ¶ 0056), and wherein the housing can include at least two front sound holes for radiating sound from respective front sides of first and second diaphragms (see figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0015 - ¶ 0016; pg. 6, ¶ 0111 - ¶ 0113). 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 housing with at least two openings on a front side may allow the sounds radiated from both diaphragms to be separated from each other until they are output from the housing to a user via the front port (Saiki pg. 7, ¶ 0118 - ¶ 0120).
Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the housing further includes an opening at a side of the housing for releasing sound from the rear of the diaphragm(s) (Miyamoto back holes 21a, see figure 1; Saiki figures 2 and 9-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0067; pg. 8, ¶ 0135), but does not disclose the opening being at a rear side of the housing. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Miyamoto in view of Saiki, and further as it has been held that a rearrangement or repositioning of parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, Miyamoto in view of Saiki already teaches the use of an additional opening for outputting sounds from the back of the diaphragms. Changing the positioning of the opening from the side of the housing to the rear side of the housing can depend on various design factors such as the size and shape of the housing, and further would not significantly alter the operation of the device, as long as an opening is provided that can output sounds from the back of the diaphragms to an outside of the housing (Saiki pg. 4, ¶ 0067).
As to claim 2, Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the first and second diaphragms are both configured to move back and forth along a common axis (Miyamoto axially aligned, see figure 1).
As to claim 3, Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the first and second diaphragms are round and both centered on the common axis (Miyamoto figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0020), and wherein the first and second voice coils are annular and are located at different radii from the common axis (Miyamoto figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022).
As to claim 5, Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the single common magnetic circuit comprises a permanent magnet with an outer extent that is closer to the common axis than are both of the voice coils (Miyamoto central magnet, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0021).
As to claim 6, Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the single common magnetic circuit further comprises a generally annular magnet located farther from the common axis than are both of the voice coils (Miyamoto annular magnet, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0020).
As to claim 7, Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the permanent magnet and the generally annular magnet are generally co-planar (Miyamoto figure 1).
As to claim 28, Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the opening at the rear side allows rear side sound pressure from the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm, respectively, to exit the housing at the rear side (Miyamoto back holes 21a, see figure 1; Saiki figures 2 and 9-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0067; pg. 8, ¶ 0135).
As to claim 30, Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the housing includes a first front cavity acoustically coupled with the first diaphragm and a first one of the at least two openings on the front side of the housing and a second front cavity acoustically coupled with the second diaphragm and a second one of the at least two openings on the front side of the housing (Saiki figure 5; pg. 6, ¶ 0111 - ¶ 0113).
4. Claim(s) 8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Saiki, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2008/0044044 A1 to Madaffari et al. (“Madaffari”).
As to claim 8, Miyamoto in view of Saiki discloses the wearable audio device of claim 6.
Miyamoto in view of Saiki further discloses wherein the single common magnetic circuit further comprises plates on two sides of the permanent magnet, one plate between the permanent magnet and the first diaphragm and the other plate between the permanent magnet and the second diaphragm (Miyamoto plate 26 and pole 22b, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0021), and wherein the single common magnetic circuit further comprises generally annular plates on two sides of the annular permanent magnet, one generally annular plate between the generally annular magnet and the first diaphragm and the other generally annular plate between the generally annular magnet and the second diaphragm (Miyamoto plate 24 and flange 22a, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0020), but does not expressly disclose the plates being ferromagnetic plates. However the use of ferromagnetic materials for magnetic circuits is known in the art, as taught by Madaffari, which discloses an electromagnetic transducer, and further discloses the magnet having upper and lower pole pieces made of ferromagnetic material (see figures 1 and 5a; pg. 6, ¶ 0056; pg. 8, ¶ 0074). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide the pole pieces as magnetically permeable elements for the conduction of magnetic flux in the magnetic circuit structure (Madaffari pg. 6, ¶ 0056; pg. 8, ¶ 0074).
As to claim 10, Miyamoto in view of Saiki and Madaffari further discloses further comprising a support between one ferromagnetic plate and one generally annular ferromagnetic plate (Miyamoto 22c, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022; Madaffari pg. 6, ¶ 0056; pg. 8, ¶ 0074), wherein one voice coil is located between the support and the permanent magnet and the other voice coil is located between the support and the generally annular permanent magnet (Miyamoto figure 1).
As to claim 12, Miyamoto in view of Saiki and Madaffari further discloses wherein the first magnetic circuit gap is between a first ferromagnetic plate and a first generally annular ferromagnetic plate and the second magnetic circuit gap is between a second ferromagnetic plate and a second generally annular ferromagnetic plate (Miyamoto figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0015; Madaffari pg. 6, ¶ 0056; pg. 8, ¶ 0074).
As to claim 13, Miyamoto in view of Saiki and Madaffari further discloses wherein the single common magnetic circuit further comprises a ferromagnetic plate on a first side of the permanent magnet between the permanent magnet and the first diaphragm, a generally annular ferromagnetic plate on a second side of the generally annular magnet between the generally annular magnet and the second diaphragm, and a ferromagnetic yoke member comprising a first portion on the second side of the permanent magnet, a second portion on the first side of the generally annular magnet, and a connecting portion located between both voice coils that connects the first and second portions (Miyamoto figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0020 - ¶ 0022; Madaffari pg. 6, ¶ 0056; pg. 8, ¶ 0074).
As to claim 14, Miyamoto in view of Saiki and Madaffari further discloses wherein the single common magnetic circuit further comprises ferromagnetic plates on two sides of the permanent magnet, a first ferromagnetic plate between the permanent magnet and the first diaphragm and a second ferromagnetic plate between the permanent magnet and the second diaphragm, and a ferromagnetic yoke member located at least in part outside of the first voice coil, wherein the yoke member comprises a first portion spaced from the first ferromagnetic plate, a second portion spaced from the second ferromagnetic plate, and a connecting portion that connects the first and second portions (Miyamoto figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0020 - ¶ 0022; Madaffari pg. 6, ¶ 0056; pg. 8, ¶ 0074).
As to claim 15, Miyamoto in view of Saiki and Madaffari further discloses wherein the first and second diaphragms are configured to move in opposition, wherein a total mechanical moving mass of the first diaphragm and voice coil is approximately equal to that of the second diaphragm and voice coil (Saiki figure 2; pg. 2, ¶ 0018; pg. 5, ¶ 0086; Madaffari substantially identical masses and configured to move in mirrored or opposite directions, see pg. 2, ¶ 0016, ¶ 0018; pg. 6, ¶ 0062; pg. 10, ¶ 0084).
As to claim 17, Miyamoto in view of Saiki and Madaffari further discloses wherein the first and second diaphragms are generally rectangular (Madaffari figures 9a-12b; pg. 3, ¶ 0027; pg. 11, ¶ 0089).
As to claim 25, Miyamoto in view of Saiki and Madaffari further discloses wherein the first voice coil is indirectly coupled to the first diaphragm by a first bobbin, and the second voice coil is indirectly coupled to the second diaphragm by a second bobbin (Madaffari pg. 2, ¶ 0019).
5. Claim(s) 18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
6. Claim(s) 31 and 34 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).
7. 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
8. Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues “Examiner fails to demonstrate the requisite ‘convincing line of reasoning’ necessary to sustain a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) using the doctrine of design choice,” and further that Applicant’s specification “demonstrates the claimed location of the opening ‘at a rear side of the housing’ combined with the ‘at least two openings allow[ing] front side sound pressure from the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm, respectively, to exit the housing at the front side’ serves a particular purpose, that is, providing ‘a low spillage wearable audio device’ and/or reducing ‘undesirable feedback instability,’” therefore “claim 1 includes features neither taught nor suggested by the proposed combination of Miyamoto and Saiki.”
Regarding claim 28, Applicant argues “Saiki does not teach rear side sound pressure from a first and second diaphragm exiting at a rear side of a housing,” and “the recited claim features are not merely a matter of rearranging parts, as noted with respect to claim 27.” Applicant further argues “the cited ‘back holes 21a’ in Miyamoto are not located at a ‘rear side’ of the case 21,” and “at best, the holes 21a in Miyamoto are located on a lateral side (or flank) of the case 21.” Applicant further argues that claim 26 specifies “the opening… allows rear side sound pressure from the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm, respectively, to exit the housing at the rear side,” whereas Miyamoto “illustrates multiple back holes 21a which are ‘formed in the case in radial directions.’”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First in response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed opening arrangement serves a particular purpose in “providing ‘a low spillage wearable audio device’ and/or reducing ‘undesirable feedback instability,” it is noted that such features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Miyamoto already discloses the use of openings to release sound from the rear of the diaphragm(s) in the form of back holes 21a (see figure 1). Saiki also discloses the use of openings to release sound from the rear of the diaphragm(s), and discloses various arrangements for said openings depending on the arrangement of the speaker units within the housing, including a single side opening for in-ear devices (see figures 2 and 9-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0067; pg. 8, ¶ 0135). It is further noted that Saiki in particular discloses other designs for the wearable device, including devices that are not in-ear and/or include a cord positioned on the side instead of the back of the housing (see figures 11 and 13). That is, Saiki teaches variations in the housing design depending on the specific type of wearable device.
Examiner maintains the claimed configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Miyamoto in view of Saiki regarding additional opening(s) for rear sounds of the diaphragm(s), and further as it has been held that a rearrangement or repositioning of parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The proposed modification involves changing the positioning of the opening from the side of the housing, as already taught Miyamoto in view of Saiki, to the rear side of the housing. As noted, Miyamoto in view of Saiki teaches various embodiments for the housing depending on the particular wearable device being designed; such a configuration can therefore depend on various design factors such as the size and shape of the housing, and further would not significantly alter the operation of the device, as long as an opening is provided that can output sounds from the back of the diaphragm(s) to an outside of the housing, as already taught by Miyamoto in view of Saiki (Saiki pg. 4, ¶ 0067).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues the opposing movement of the diaphragms “can beneficially balance forces on the housing, e.g., reducing vibration and undesirable feedback instability,” therefore “these features are clearly not a matter of mere design choice, and the additionally cited reference to Madaffari fails to remedy the above-noted shortcoming in the combination of Miyamoto and Saiki.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that the opposing movement of the diaphragms “can beneficially balance forces on the housing, e.g., reducing vibration and undesirable feedback instability,” it is noted that such features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is further noted that Miyamoto, Saiki and Madaffari all disclose similar arrangements for a transducer device including first and second diaphragms, with Saiko and Madaffari in particular expressly disclosing the moving elements having the same structure (Saiko pg. 3, ¶ 0051 - ¶ 0052; Madaffari pg. 2, ¶ 0016) and the diaphragms being configured to move in opposite directions so that they mirror each other (Saiki figure 2; pg. 2, ¶ 0018; pg. 5, ¶ 0086; Madaffari pg. 2, ¶ 0016, ¶ 0018; pg. 6, ¶ 0062; pg. 10, ¶ 0084).
Madaffari further discloses the directions of motion for the diaphragms can be configured as either substantially identical or opposite, and to support in-phase or out-of-phase motions (see pg. 2, ¶ 0018). The mirror symmetrical arrangement of the transducer in Madaffari, including the diaphragm motions, materials and parts, as well as the matching masses of the movable assemblies, allows for a transducer arrangement that can achieve a vibration and mass balanced design, which allows for the cancelling or significant reduction of vibration output (see pg. 1, ¶ 0003; pg. 2, ¶ 0016; pg. 6, ¶ 0062; pg. 10, ¶ 0084). Examiner respectfully maintains the claim as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Miyamoto, Saiki and Madaffari.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant argues “it is not clear from the reference or the rejection how one would modify Miyamoto in view of the general discussion of dipoles in Jeffery to arrive at Applicant’s claimed device,” as it “simply does not address a fundamental weakness in Miyamoto; that the ‘back holes 21a’ do not allow sound pressure to exit ‘at the rear side of the housing.’”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the rejection of claim 31 does not rely on Miyamoto’s teachings regarding the back holes 21a, and instead relies on Miyamoto teaching a first opening on a front side of the housing and a second opening on a rear side of the housing (discharge holes 36 and 37, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022), wherein the first opening allows front sound pressure from the first diaphragm to exit to the environment at the front side of the housing, and the second opening allows front sound pressure from the second diaphragm to exit to the environment at the rear side of the housing (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0022). As noted in the rejection, while Miyamoto teaches front and rear openings for outputting front sound pressure from the first and second diaphragms, it does not expressly disclose the sound pressure exiting from the front and rear holes as being out of phase, thereby creating an acoustic dipole.
Jeffery is therefore relied on for teaching a similar device with two driver elements and/or diaphragms facing opposite directions (see figures 1-2 and 4), and further for teaching the diaphragms can be configured to move out of phase with each other such that the sounds exiting the housing in front and rear portions of 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).
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… emit[ting] sound from the rear acoustic cavity into the environment,’” and further argues “the rejection does not acknowledge or directly address Applicant’s claimed, ‘third sound-emitting opening’ and the features related thereto.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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).
9. Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed January 5, 2026, with respect to claim 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 29 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 29 is 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
11. 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
Prosecution Insights