Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/389,265

Open-Ear Headphone

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Examiner
DABNEY, PHYLESHA LARVINIA
Art Unit
2694
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
BOSE CORPORATION
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
604 granted / 793 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
812
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§102
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 793 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20-25 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller et al (US Patent No. 11140469). The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches an open-ear headphone, comprising: an acoustic module (fig. 3A) configured to be located at least in part in a concha of an outer ear of a user, wherein the acoustic module comprises a housing (fig. 5) that contains an acoustic transducer (82), a first sound-emitting opening (100) in the housing and that is configured to emit sound produced by the acoustic transducer, and a second sound-emitting opening (102) in the acoustic module housing; wherein the acoustic module defines a central longitudinal axis (an axis is any line drawn between any 2 arbitrary points, thus the reference anticipates this requirement) the bisects the acoustic module housing, and wherein the acoustic module housing defines a front face that is configured to be spaced from and proximate the user’s ear canal opening (fig. 3A, spaced apart; 63 ear canal opening) and is curved relative to the central longitudinal axis, wherein the first sound emitting opening (100) is in the housing front face; and wherein the first sound-emitting opening is offset from the central longitudinal axis such that the first sound-emitting opening only partially overlaps the central longitudinal axis (fig. 6; 100). Regarding claim 3, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 1 further comprising a body (fig. 4; 18) coupled to the acoustic module and comprising a first portion configured to pass over an outer side of at least one of an anti-helix and a helix and a lobule of the outer ear, and a second portion configured to be located behind the outer ear, wherein the central longitudinal axis bisects the first portion of the body. Regarding claim 6, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 1 wherein the acoustic module housing defines first and second internal acoustic cavities (fig. 6; area of 96, 98) that are on opposite sides of the acoustic transducer (82). Regarding claim 7, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 6 wherein the first sound-emitting opening (100) is a sound outlet for the first acoustic cavity and the second sound-emitting opening (102) is a sound outlet for the second acoustic cavity. Regarding claim 8, The open-ear headphone of claim 7 wherein acoustic energy from the first sound emitting opening (100) combines with the acoustic energy from the second sound emitting opening (102) to provide an acoustic dipole. Regarding claim 9, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 7 wherein the second sound-emitting opening (102) is on the opposite side of the central longitudinal axis than is the first sound-emitting opening (100). Regarding claim 10, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 9 wherein the acoustic module housing defines a front face, and a side that is rearward of the front face, and wherein the first sound-emitting opening (100) is in the front face of the acoustic module housing and the second sound-emitting opening (102) is in the side of the acoustic module housing. Regarding claim 11, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 10 wherein the acoustic module housing is configured to be located at least in part in a cavum conchae (fig. 3A) of the outer ear, wherein the first sound-emitting opening (fig. 5; 100 relative to fig. 3) is configured to be substantially closer to the ear canal opening than is the second sound-emitting opening (102). Regarding claim 13, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 9 further comprising a first microphone opening (71, 72). Regarding claim 14, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 13 further comprising a second microphone opening (71, 72), wherein the first microphone opening (fig. 3A) is on the same side of the central longitudinal axis as is the first sound-emitting opening, and wherein a bisecting line of the first and second microphone openings (71, 72) is configured to point toward an expected location of a mouth of a person wearing the open ear headphone. Regarding claim 16, Miller teaches an open-ear headphone, comprising: an acoustic module configured to be located at least in part in a concha of an outer ear of a user (fig. 3A), wherein the acoustic module comprises a housing that contains an acoustic transducer (82), a first sound-emitting opening (100) in the housing and that is configured to emit sound produced by the acoustic transducer, and a second sound-emitting opening (102) in the acoustic module housing, wherein the acoustic module housing defines first and second internal acoustic cavities that are on opposite sides of the acoustic transducer, wherein the first sound-emitting opening (100) is a sound outlet for the first acoustic cavity and is in the front face of the acoustic module housing, and the second sound-emitting opening (102) is a sound outlet for the second acoustic cavity, and wherein acoustic energy from the first sound emitting opening combines with the acoustic energy from the second sound emitting opening to provide an acoustic dipole; wherein the acoustic module defines a central longitudinal axis (an axis is any line drawn between any 2 arbitrary points, so the reference anticipates this requirement) that bisects the acoustic module housing, wherein the second sound-emitting opening (102) is on the opposite side of the central longitudinal axis than is the first sound-emitting opening (100), and wherein the first sound-emitting opening (100) is fully offset from the central longitudinal axis (an axis is any line drawn between any 2 arbitrary points, so the reference anticipates this requirement) such that the first sound-emitting opening (100) does not overlap the central longitudinal axis. Regarding claim 17, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 16 wherein the acoustic module housing defines a front face, and a side that is rearward of the front face, and wherein the first sound-emitting opening (100) is in the front face of the acoustic module housing and the second sound-emitting opening (102) is in the side of the acoustic module housing. Regarding claim 18, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 17 wherein the acoustic module housing is configured to be located at least in part in a cavum conchae (fig. 3A) of the outer ear, and wherein the first sound- emitting opening (100) is configured to be closer to the ear canal opening(63) than is the second sound- emitting opening (102). Regarding claim 20, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 1 wherein while worn by a user, the first sound-emitting opening (100) is about 2 millimeters closer to the ear canal opening than a reference opening centered on the central longitudinal axis (an axis is any line drawn between any 2 arbitrary points, so the reference anticipates this requirement). Regarding claim 22, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 1 wherein while worn by a user, the front face (13) generally points toward a back of a cavum conchae (60) of the user (figs. 3A, 5). Regarding claim 23, Miller teaches the open-ear headphone of claim 22, wherein the first sound-emitting opening (100) is located off center of the front face (figs. 5, 13). Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 24-25 is/are allowed. Claim(s) 21 is/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. Examiner’s Note The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner’s rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 USC 102 (a1) has been changed to 35 USC 102 (a2). The Patent was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLESHA DABNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday and Friday 10:30-4:30PM. 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 5712727547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For general questions such as application status, Monday–Friday, 8:30AM -5:00PM, inquiry to: Local: 571-272-1000 Toll-Free: 800-786-9199 TTY: 800-877-8339 Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks P O Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Or faxed to: (703) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for informal or draft communications, please label "Proposed" or "Draft" when submitting an informal amendment. Hand-delivered responses should be brought to: Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 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. March 21, 2026 /PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Oct 14, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 29, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604142
Multifunctional Sounding Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598432
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF HEARING DEVICE OUTPUT BASED ON PHYSICAL COUPLING TO DEVICE UNDER SIMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593158
LISTENING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587797
METHOD FOR OPERATING A HEARING SYSTEM AND HEARING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574688
METHOD FOR OPERATING A HEARING INSTRUMENT AND HEARING SYSTEM WITH SUCH A HEARING INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 793 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month