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 . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Continued Examination
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 on 09 April 2026 after a Final Rejection (12 January 2026). 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 August 2026 has been entered.1
Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s Reply 04 August 2026 presents claims that are consonant with the Restriction Requirement included in the paper filed 11 June 2026. No currently pending claims are withdrawn.
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 25–28, 31, 33 and 122–125 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0014595 (published 14 January 2021) (“Li”); US Patent Application Publication 2020/0396529 (published 17 December 2020) (“Thomas”); Sharanbasappa R. Japatti et al., Anthropometric Assessment of the Normal Adult Human Ear, 2018 Annals Maxillofacial Surgery 42 (June 2018) (“Japatti”); US Patent Application Publication 2012/0087519 (published 12 April 2012) (“Emilsson”) and US Patent 6,999,732 (patented 14 February 2006) (“Fukuda II”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li; Thomas; Japatti; Emilsson; Fukuda II and US Patent Application Publication 2014/0274229 (published 18 September 2014) (“Fukuda”).
Claims 34, 35 and 126 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li; Thomas; Japatti; Emilsson; Fukuda II and US Patent Application Publication 2009/0116676 (published 07 May 2009) (“Welsh”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a headphone.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed headphone and the Thomas reference.
Claim 1
The Thomas Reference
“1. A headphone, comprising
The Thomas reference similarly describes a bone conduction headset 10, or headphone. Thomas at Abs., ¶¶ 5, 50, FIG.1.
“a core module, a battery…and a main board, the battery and the main board are coupled to the core module,
Headset 10 includes a first earpiece 14, a second earpiece 16 and a headband 28. Id. at ¶ 50, FIGs.1, 2. Each earpiece includes a number of audio elements 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 36, 37, 39 configured as bone conduction transducers (BCT), or core modules. Id. at ¶¶ 50–53, FIGs.1, 2, 5, 6. And at least one earpiece includes a battery and circuitry, or main boards, to provide power and audio signals (e.g., Bluetooth audio) to the BCT audio elements. See id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, 74.
“…an adapter housing…
Thomas does not describe a corresponding adapter housing.
“wherein the core module includes a core housing and a transducer device provided in an accommodating cavity of the core housing,
Thomas’s audio elements are BCT elements, such that they include a transducer device. Id. at ¶ 57.
Thomas, however, does not describe the audio elements in more detail. Thomas does not describe the claimed core housing and transducer provided in an accommodating cavity of the core housing.
“the core module transmits a mechanical vibration generated by the transducer device through bone conduction,
Thomas’s audio elements are BCT elements. Id. They transmit a mechanical vibration generated by a transducer to the user’s ears through the user’s bones. Id. at ¶¶ 53–55.
“the battery is configured to supply power to the main board, and
Thomas powers its BCT audio elements and Bluetooth circuitry with a battery. See id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, 74.
“the main board is configured to control the transducer device to convert an electrical signal into the mechanical vibration,
Thomas uses a Bluetooth circuit, or mainboard, to control BCT audio elements to transduce electrical Bluetooth audio signals into mechanical vibrations. See id. at ¶¶ 64, 65, 74.
“wherein the headphone comprises a header-beam assembly configured to wrap around a top of a head of a user to allow the core module to be located at a front side of an ear of the user,
Thomas’s headset 10 includes a headband 18 corresponding to the claimed header-beam assembly. Id. at ¶ 50, FIG.1. Headband 18 wraps around the top 12 of the user’s head, positioning at least some of Thomas’s BCT audio devices in front of the user’s ears. Id. at ¶ 50, FIGs.1, 2, 5, 6.
“in a wearing state, the header-beam assembly and the top of the head form a first contacting point,
Thomas describes headband 18 as contacting the top of the head. Id. at ¶¶ 50, 52, FIG.1.
“the core module and a cheek of the user form a second contacting point, and
Similarly, Thomas’s BCT elements contact the wearer’s cheek in order to vibrate the skin of the cheek. Id. at ¶ 53, FIGs.2, 5.
“a spacing between the second contacting point and the first contacting point along a sagittal axis of the user is between 20mm and 30mm [[and]] …
Headband 18 is situated in the middle of a user’s ear while angled portions 20 and 32 project forward and backward to position audio elements 22, 25, 34 and 39 in front/behind a user’s ear canal opening. Id. at FIGs.1, 2. In other words, elements 22, 25, 34 and 39 are displaced from headband 18 (i.e., a sagittal reference point) to avoid the ear. Id. Thomas does not describe the distance between the top of the user’s head (and the contact point of headband 18) and audio elements 22, 35, 34 and 39 along a sagittal axis of the headset user.
“
“
“
N/A
“…the adapter housing encloses an accommodating space configured to accommodate an electronic component, and connects the core housing with the head-beam assembly…
“the core housing is configured to rotate relative to the adapter housing around a first central axis of the adapter housing, and in the wearing state, the first central axis is parallel to the sagittal axis of the user.”
As noted above Thomas does not describe the claimed adapter housing. Specifically, Thomas’s headset 10 includes a horseshoe-shaped housing 20 that connects to headband 18. Thomas at ¶ 64, FIGs. 3, 4. Thomas describes that housing 20 is connected to a tongue 110 that allows housing 20 to be retracted towards or extended away from headband 18.
However, Thomas does not describe an adapter housing that encloses an accommodating space to accommodate housing 20 and connect housing 20 to headband 18 while also allowing rotation relative between the adapter housing and housing 20 around a central axis of the adapter housing that is parallel to a user’s sagittal axis.
Table 1
The table above shows that the Thomas reference describes a headset that corresponds closely to the claimed headphones. The Thomas reference does not anticipate the claimed headphones, however, because the Thomas reference does not describe the structural details of its BCT audio elements. In particular, Thomas does not describe the claimed core housing and the position of a transducer device in an accommodating cavity of the core housing. Thomas does not describe that a spacing between the second contacting point and the first contacting point along a sagittal axis of the user is between 20mm and 30mm. Thomas also does not describe the claimed adapter housing.
Core Module Structure
The differences between the claimed invention and the Thomas reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Thomas reference does not describe the structure of its BCT audio devices. Thomas instead describes using any known BCT audio device, such as those marketed under the Shokz tradename. Thomas at ¶¶ 4, 57, 58. The Li reference teaches and suggests one known type of BCT suitable for fulfilling the role of Thomas’s BCT audio devices. And like the claimed core module, Li’s BCT includes a core housing 2019 that forms an accommodating cavity for a transducer. Li at ¶¶ 145–148, 151, 173, 176, FIGs.11, 14, 16, 24, 26. Viewing these teachings together, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably embodied Thomas’s BCT audio devices with Li’s BCT device that includes the claimed core housing and transducer device received in an accommodating cavity of the housing.
Spacing Between First and Second Contacting Points
One of ordinary skill would have understood that Thomas’s elements 22, 25, 34 and 39 should be located between 20mm and 30mm from headband 18 given the average size of a human ear. Male, human ear width ranges between 29 mm and 37 mm. See Japatti at Table 7. This distribution of ear width sizes indicates that BCT audio devices 22, 25, 34 and 39 should be spaced from the middle of the ear by a distance of at least 20 mm to accommodate very large ears and an offset location of audio devices within horseshoe-shaped housings 20 and 32. See Thomas at FIGs.1, 2, 5, 6.
Adapter Housing
Thomas describes a headset 10 that includes a horseshoe-shaped housing 20 that carries BCT audio devices 22–25 that are placed into contact with the user’s head in front of and behind the user’s ear. Thomas at ¶ 51, FIGs.1, 2. Thomas describes including a tongue 110 that connects to housing 20 to reposition housing 20 through retraction and extension relative to headband 18. Id. at ¶ 64, FIGs.3, 4.
The Emilsson reference is related to Thomas because it also describes a headset with two earpieces 2, 5 connected by a headband 12, where each earpiece has a horseshoe-shaped housing (formed by arms 3a, 3b, 6a, 6b and bridge 8) that carries and places BCTs against the head of the user in front of and behind the ears. Emilsson at ¶¶ 22, 23, FIGs.1, 2. Rather than connecting each earpiece 2, 5 directly to headband 12, Emilsson teaches providing lugs 11a, 11b on arms 3a, 3b, 6a, 6b. Id. at ¶ 25, FIGs.1, 3. Lugs 11a, 11b are provided with an axis along the length of bridge portion 8 (i.e., parallel to a user’s sagittal axis when Emilsson’s headset is being worn by the user). See id. Emilsson further teaches a structure that corresponds to the claimed adapter housing—namely, the two arms extending from band 12 and connecting to lugs 11a, 11b. See id. The horseshoe-shaped housing is accommodated in the space defined by the adapter housing’s arms and connects to the adapter housing via lugs 11a, 11b. Id. Emilsson explains that this configuration allows for adjustment of headband 12 to fit the wearer. Id. Emilsson’s description of using lugs to allow adjustment to form a comfortable fit would have immediately conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that lugs 11a, 11b allow for rotation along their axis (i.e., an axis parallel to a user’s sagittal axis). Cf. Fukuda II at col. 2 l. 50 to col. 3 l. 17, FIGs.1, 2 (describing a BCT 3 rotatably mounted in a housing 5 to allow for adjustment to a user’s head).
The teachings of Thomas and Emilsson (and Fukuda) taken collectively reasonably suggest modifying Thomas’s headset to include the claimed adapter housing and to connect Thomas’s horseshoe-shaped housings 20 and 32 in a rotatable manner as claimed. See MPEP § 2143(I) (using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way). For example, one of ordinary skill would have applied Emilsson’s teachings concerning an adapter housing and lugs to rotatably connect Thomas’s horseshoe-shaped BCT housings 20 and 32 to headband 18 in the same manner that Emilsson teaches using an adapter housing and lugs 11a, 11b to connect earpieces 2 and 5 to headband 12. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably predicted that doing so would allow the user more freedom in adjusting Thomas’s headset 10 to fit a user’s head—rather than simply providing the ability to retract/extend housings 20, 32 relative to headband 18, a user would also be able to pivot/rotate housings 20, 32. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the core module includes a first vibration plate and a vibration panel, the transducer device is suspended within the accommodating cavity of the core housing through the first vibration plate, and the vibration panel is connected with the transducer device and is configured to contact a skin of [[a]] the user.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of implementing Thomas’s BCT audio devices with a known BCT audio device, such as the Li BCT audio device. Li’s BCT audio device, like the claimed core module, includes a first vibration plate 2216 that supports the BCT in the accommodating space of housing 2219. Li at ¶¶ 151, 152, 173, FIGs.16, 24. Li’s device further includes a vibration panel 2213 connected to and driven by the BCT and in contact with a user’s skin through a vibration transmission layer 2320. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“
Thomas’s headset 10 includes housings 20 and 32 corresponding to the claimed adapter housing and connected to headband 18, corresponding to the claimed header-beam assembly. Thomas at ¶ 51, FIGs.1, 2, 5, 6. One of ordinary skill would have understood that the housings include accommodating spaces to house BCT audio devices 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 36, 37, 39. See id. The Fukuda reference teaches and suggests that vibrations produced by a BCT may vibrate the housing of the electronic device including the BCT. Fukuda at ¶¶ 1–8. To minimize these unwanted vibrations, Fukuda teaches and suggests elastically connecting the BCT’s housing to the electronic device housing, or adapter housing, with a buffering member 4. Id. at ¶¶ 30–33, FIG.4. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Thomas’s headset 10 so that Li’s BCT is elastically connected, or mounted, by a buffering member to housings 20 and 32. For example, assuming one of ordinary skill had added Emilsson’s lugs to housings 20 and 32, one of ordinary skill would have added buffering members (e.g., rubber) to the lugs to prevent vibration from the BCTs being passed to headband 18. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson, the Fukuda II and the Fukuda references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the transducer device includes a magnetic circuit system and a coil, and the coil is rigidly connected with the core housing such that the coil drives the core housing to vibrate.”
Li’s BCT audio device similarly includes a magnetic circuit formed by magnet 2211, yoke 2212 and top plate 2210. Li at ¶¶ 151, 152, FIG.16. Li’s BCT also includes a coil 2215 connected with housing 2219 via elements 2213, 2214 and 2216. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and further requires the following:
“wherein the transducer device further includes a frame and a second vibration plate, the frame is rigidly connected with the core housing, the second vibration plate connects the frame and the magnetic circuit system to suspend the magnetic circuit system inside the accommodating cavity, and the coil is connected with the frame and extends into a magnetic gap of the magnetic circuit system along a vibration direction of the transducer device.”
Li’s BCT audio device further includes a frame 2214 connected to housing 2219 via element 2216. Li at ¶¶ 151, 152, FIG.16. Li’s BCT audio device includes a second vibration plate 2217 that connects frame 2214 to yoke 2212, such that yoke 2212 is suspended in the cavity formed by housing 2219. Id. Coil 2215 is connected to the underside of frame 2214 and extends into the gap formed between magnet 2211 and yoke 2212 along the vibration direction of the BCT audio device. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the adapter housing is provided in layers with the core housing along a vibration direction of the transducer device and is located on a side of the core housing away from the vibration panel;
“wherein the adapter housing has a first projection area on a reference plane perpendicular to the vibration direction, the core housing has a second projection area on the reference plane, and a ratio between the first projection area and the second projection area is within a range of 0.2 to 1.5; and/or
“along the vibration direction of the transducer device, a gap between the core housing and the adapter housing is within a range of 1 mm to 10 mm.”
This claim recites three conditions. The conditions are alternatives, indicated by the term “and/or”. To establish anticipation, the cited prior art only needs to disclose one of the conditions.
The Thomas reference describes a housing 20 corresponding to the claimed adapter housing. Thomas at ¶ 51, FIGs.1, 2, 5, 6. Housing 20 contains at least one BCT audio device that projects forward from the interior of housing 20 in order to contact the skin of the user. See Li at ¶ 173, FIG.24. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 25 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the header-beam assembly includes an arcuate header-beam member and an adapter member, the arcuate header-beam member is configured to wrap around the top of the head of the user, and two ends of the adapter member are connected with the arcuate header-beam member and the core module, respectively; and
“in the wearing state, the arcuate header-beam member is located above the ear of the user, and when viewed along a coronal axis of the user, the arcuate header-beam member is inclined relative to a [[the]] vertical axis of the user.”
Thomas’s headband 18 terminates in a housing 20 and a housing 32. Thomas at ¶¶ 50, 51, FIGs.1, 2. The left/right terminal portions of headband 18 and the beginning portions of housings 20 and 32 form an assembly that corresponds to the claimed adapter member. The remaining portion of headband 18 that wrap around the top of the user’s head corresponds to the claimed arcuate header-beam member.
The portion of headband 18 corresponding to the claimed arcuate head-beam member is not inclined relative to the vertical axis of the user when viewed along a coronal axis of the user. However, the angle of headband 18 is a design choice that relates to aesthetic design choices and the mere relative positioning of headband 18 and housings 20 and 32. See MPEP § 2144.04(I); § 2144.04(VI)(C). For example, Applicant’s Specification at FIGs.13–16 depicts several different embodiments, including an embodiment with an angled arcuate head-beam member and another embodiment with a vertical arcuate head-beam member. The corresponding passages of the Specification at ¶ 578 indicate that these are alternative embodiments that do not possess any known advantage over each other. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine experimentation to move headband 18 and housings 20 and 32 in corresponding manner to produce an overall design that meets the designer’s desired aesthetical appearance while maintaining contact with the top of the user’s head for support and contact with the user’s cheeks for vibration. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 26 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the header-beam assembly includes an arcuate header-beam member and an adapter member,
“the arcuate header-beam member is configured to wrap around the top of the head of the user,
“the adapter member includes a first connecting section, an intermediate transition section, and a second connecting section,
“the intermediate transition section connects the first connecting section and the second connecting section,
“the first connecting section and the second connecting section are respectively bent relative to the intermediate transition section and extend along opposite directions,
“the first connecting section is connected with the arcuate header-beam member, and the second connecting section is connected with the core module;
“wherein viewed along a coronal axis of the user, the intermediate transition section is inclined relative to the [[a]] vertical axis of the user.”
Thomas’s headband 18 corresponds to the claimed arcuate head-beam member. Thomas at ¶ 50, 51, FIGs.1, 2, 5, 6. As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to modify Thomas’s headset 10 to include an adapter housing like the one described by Emilsson, to rotatably connect Thomas’s headband 18 to housings 20 and 32. Emilsson’s adapter housing includes the claimed adapter member as seen in the annotated Figure 1, below. See Emilsson at FIG.1.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated version of Thomas at FIG.1 (annotated to show correspondence with the claim elements).
For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 27 depends on claim 26 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first connecting section is bent at an angle greater than or equal to
90
°
and less than
180
°
relative to the intermediate transition section; and/or
“the second connecting section is bent at the angle greater than or equal to
90
°
and less than
180
°
relative to the intermediate transition section.”
Emilsson depicts an adapter member having the claimed first connecting section being bent from an intermediate transition section at the claimed angle. See Emilsson at FIG.1; Figure 1, above. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 28 depends on claim 26 and further requires the following:
“wherein in the wearing state and viewed along the coronal axis of the user, the first connecting section is parallel to the second connecting section, and
“a spacing between the first connecting section and the second connecting section is between 20 mm and 30 mm.”
Emilsson similarly describes parallel connecting portions. See Emilsson at FIG.1; Figure 1, above. Further, the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of offsetting BCT audio devices away from a center of a user’s ears by 20 mm to 30 mm. This would require similarly positioning a first and second connecting section by 20 mm to 30 mm since the first connecting section is in line with headband 18 and a second connecting section is positioned in front of a user’s ear. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 31 depends on claim 26 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first connecting section is capable of extending from or retracting into the arcuate header beam member under an action of an external force
“
“
Thomas describes forming a portion of housings 20/32 with a tongue 110 that may retract and extend from within headband 18. Thomas at ¶ 64, FIGs.3, 4. Thomas further describes the ability of positioning housings 20 and 32 between a fully retracted state and a fully extended state. In the fully retracted state, housings 20/32 extend a minimum distance from headband 18. In the fully extended state, housings 20/32 extend a maximum distance from headband 18. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 34 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein
“the core housing includes a first core housing connected with the adapter housing,
“the first core housing includes an inner cylinder wall, an outer cylinder wall, and a transition wall,
“the inner cylinder wall is disposed at a periphery of the transducer device,
“the outer cylinder wall is disposed at a periphery of the inner cylinder wall and is provided at intervals from the inner cylinder wall along a direction perpendicular to a vibration direction of the transducer device,
“the transition wall is connected between the inner cylinder wall and the outer cylinder wall,
“the outer cylinder wall, the inner cylinder wall, and the transition wall enclose an acoustic cavity,
“the acoustic cavity is in flow communication with the accommodating cavity to absorb an acoustic energy of a sound wave generated by vibrations of air in the accommodating cavity vibrating with the transducer device.”
Claim 35 depends on claim 34 and further requires the following:
“wherein a frequency response curve of the sound wave has a resonant peak, and the acoustic cavity is a Helmholtz resonance cavity to attenuate a peak resonance intensity of the resonant peak;
“
Claims 34 and 35 are drawn to adding a Helmholtz resonator to a BCT to attenuate a resonate peak in the BCT’s natural response. The Thomas reference does not describe the claimed Helmholtz resonator. The Welsh reference, however, teaches and suggests adding a Helmholtz resonator 70 to an existing transducer to minimize its resonate peak. Welsh at Abs., ¶¶ 13, 21, 33, 34, FIGs.4. Welsh’s resonator 70 is formed to the rear of a transducer housing as a cavity 72 by a cylindrical wall and transitional wall having a port 74. Id. Air pressure generated by the rearward movement of the transducer excites resonator in 70 order to reduce the natural resonance of the transducer. Id. One of ordinary skill would have expected a decrease in a resonance peak at 1000 Hz on the order of 10 dB. See id. at ¶ 32, FIG.2; Li at ¶ 149, FIGs.15, 17, 18 (depicting potential resonance peaks of different BCTs between 500 Hz and 4000 Hz). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson, the Fukuda II and the Welsh references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 122 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“further comprising a supporting member connected to the header-beam assembly, wherein the battery or the main board is disposed within the supporting member, in the wearing state, the supporting member and the core module are spaced apart along the sagittal axis of the user, and the core module is closer to a front side of the head of the user relative to the supporting member.”
Claim 123 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“further comprising a supporting member connected to the header-beam assembly, wherein the battery or the main board is disposed within the supporting member, in the wearing state, the supporting member and the core module are spaced apart along a vertical axis of the user, and the core module is farther away from the top of the user's head relative to the supporting member.”
Claims 122 and 123 are analyzed together. Thomas further describes front portion 26 as being closer to a front side of a user’s head than crest 28 and located farther away from the top of the user’s head relative to the crest 28. Thomas at ¶ 51, FIG.5.
Thomas describes providing a battery in housings 20, 32 without any specificity. Id. at ¶ 65. The Emilsson reference teaches and suggests locating a battery in a bridging portion 8 (i.e., a supporting member) between two arms 3a, 3b. This reasonably suggests locating a battery in a similar portion of Thomas, such as crest 28 between front portion 26 and rear portion 30. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 124 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein a side of the core housing away from the adapter housing forms a contact surface configured to contact a skin of the user.”
Similarly, Thomas’s housings 20, 32 include a side (i.e., the side with BCTR 22–25) that would face away from Emilsson’s adapter housing (see Figure 1, above) and contact the user’s skin. Thomas at ¶ 53, FIG.5. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 125 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein each of both ends of the arcuate header-beam member is provided with the adapter member and the core module, and the header-beam assembly provides a first pressing force for the core module in a first using state and provides a second pressing force for the core module in a second using state, and an absolute value of a difference between the second pressing force and the first pressing force is between 0 and 0.1 N;
“wherein in the first using state, each adapter member of two adapter members at the both ends of the arcuate header-beam member has a first extension relative to the arcuate header-beam member and two core modules at the both ends of the arcuate header-beam member have a first spacing between each other, in the second using state, the each adapter member has a second extension relative to the arcuate header-beam member and the two core modules have a second spacing between each other, the second extension is greater than the first extension, and the second spacing is greater than the first spacing.”
One of ordinary skill would have reasonably chosen to design the pressing force in each state to be substantially the same (a force difference between states between 0 and 0.1 N) so that the headset 10 operates with the same comfort level in each state. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti and the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 33 depends on claim 125 and further requires the following:
“wherein a pressing force of the core module applied on the cheek of the user is between 0.4 N and 0.8 N.”
The Li reference teaches and suggests adjusting clamping force in order to produce a desired vibration response in the user’s bones. Li at ¶¶ 133–137, 156, 157, 171, 177. This would have reasonably suggested conducting routine experimentation in clamping force to determine a desired clamping force that produces adequate sound and wearer comfort. Absent any evidence to the contrary, this process would have reasonably produced the claimed pressing force of between 0.4 N and 0.8 N. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti and the Emilsson and the Fukuda II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 126 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein a peak resonance frequency of the resonant peak is within a range of 500 Hz to 4 kHz, and a difference between a peak resonance intensity of the resonant peak when an opening for realizing a flow communication between the Helmholtz resonance cavity and the accommodating cavity is in an open state and a peak resonance intensity of the resonant peak when the opening for realizing the flow communication between the Helmholtz resonance cavity and the accommodating cavity is in a closed state is greater than or equal to 3 dB.”
This claim is drawn to adding a Helmholtz resonator to a BCT to attenuate a resonate peak in the BCT’s natural response. The Thomas reference does not describe the claimed Helmholtz resonator. The Welsh reference, however, teaches and suggests adding a Helmholtz resonator 70 to an existing transducer to minimize its resonate peak. Welsh at Abs., ¶¶ 13, 21, 33, 34, FIGs.4. Welsh’s resonator 70 is formed to the rear of a transducer housing as a cavity 72 by a cylindrical wall and transitional wall having a port 74. Id. Air pressure generated by the rearward movement of the transducer excites resonator in 70 order to reduce the natural resonance of the transducer. Id. One of ordinary skill would have expected a decrease in a resonance peak at 1000 Hz on the order of 10 dB. See id. at ¶ 32, FIG.2; Li at ¶ 149, FIGs.15, 17, 18 (depicting potential resonance peaks of different BCTs between 500 Hz and 4000 Hz). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Thomas, the Li, the Japatti, the Emilsson, the Fukuda II and the Welsh references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–5, 7, 25–28, 31, 33–35 and 122–126 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is objected to for reciting allowable subject matter while depending on rejected base claims. The claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of their base claim and any and all intervening claims.
Claim 29 depends on claim 26 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first connecting section and the second connecting section are respectively provided with a wiring cavity,
“the intermediate transition section is provided with an opening slot,
“the wiring cavity of the first connecting section and the wiring cavity of the second connecting section are in flow communication via the opening slot such that a wiring of the headphone extends from the core module to the arcuate header-beam member through the adapter member,
“the header-beam assembly further includes a sealing member embedded in the opening slot, and the sealing member covers the wiring.”
While the Thomas and Emilsson references describe the provision of wiring cavities, they do not describe providing cavities in connecting sections of an adapter member as specifically claimed. See Thomas at ¶ 65; Emilsson at ¶ 29, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the claim recites allowable subject matter.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (04 August 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 10–18 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the Final Rejection (12 January 2026). These comments have been considered, but are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection included herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
9/3/2026
1 Applicant initially filed a submission on 09 April 2026. The Examiner denied entry of that submission because it did not comply with an election by original presentation. (Paper filed 11 June 2026).
Prosecution Insights