DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on January 23, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-21 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-21 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by new claim 21. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2024/0171898 A1 to Ovalle in view of US Patent Pub No 2019/0189106 A1 to Hull et al. (“Hull”).
As to claim 1, Ovalle discloses an open back headphone, comprising: an earcup configured to be disposed over or on an ear of a user during use of the headphone (earcup 12, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0001, ¶ 0015), the earcup including a front plate (plate 38, see figure 1; pg. 2, ¶ 0016); an acoustic driver mounted to the earcup, the acoustic driver having a front side and a back side (speaker 34, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0015); and wherein the earcup does not include a rear acoustic cavity adjacent the back side of the acoustic driver, and the earcup is configured to allow ambient noise outside the earcup to pass through the earcup to the ear of the user without substantial passive isolation of sound generated by the acoustic driver during use of the headphone (inherent of open back configuration, vents and openings allow ambient air and sound to pass through, see pgs. 1-2, ¶ 0015 - ¶ 0016).
Ovalle does not disclose the earcup including a tactile vibration driver mounted to the earcup, the tactile vibration driver having a front side and a back side. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Hull, which discloses a similar headphone, the headphone further comprising a tactile vibrator 134 mounted within the earcup, and the vibrator having front and back sides (see figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0016). The claimed configuration is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to incorporate a driver that is particularly suited for bass playback and configured to produce playback in response to bass components of input audio signals (Hull pg. 2, ¶ 0016).
As to claim 2, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the earcup further comprises a back plate coupled to the front plate, the front plate and the back plate defining an interior region within the earcup, the acoustic driver and the tactile vibration driver disposed within the interior region of the earcup (Ovalle wall 14, see figure 1; Hull back plate 138/160, figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0021; pg. 3, ¶ 0025).
As to claim 3, Ovalle in view of Hull does not expressly disclose wherein the back plate is removably coupled to the front plate. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ovalle in view of Hull, and further as it has been held that making elements removable or separable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, configuring the headphone as taught by Ovalle in view of Hull to have the back plate removably coupled to the front plate can be advantageous as it can enable the back plate and/or the front plate to be exchanged or replaced, and further allow access to the electronic components within the earcup for testing, maintenance and/or replacement.
As to claim 4, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the back plate includes a plurality of apertures extending through the back plate (Ovalle vents 28, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0015).
As to claim 5, Ovalle in view of Hull does not expressly disclose wherein the apertures of the plurality have a combined cross-sectional area equal to at least twenty-five percent of an area encompassed by a peripheral edge of the back plate. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ovalle in view of Hull, and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or proportions involve only routine skill and are therefore generally not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, the apertures having a combined cross-sectional area equal to at least twenty-five percent of an area encompassed by a peripheral edge of the back plate is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when designing a headphone as taught by Ovalle in view of Hull, particularly as the number and shape of the back plate vents or openings is not limited, as long as air and sound can flow into and out of the earcup through the back plate (Ovelle pg. 1, ¶ 0015).
As to claim 6, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the tactile vibration driver is mounted to the back plate (Hull figure 5; pg. 4, ¶ 0029).
As to claim 7, Ovalle in view of Hull does not expressly disclose wherein the apertures are cylindrical in shape. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ovalle in view of Hull, and further as it has been held that changes in shape are generally a matter of design choice and therefore involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, configuring the apertures to be cylindrical in shape is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when designing a headphone as taught by Ovalle in view of Hull, particularly as the number and shape of the back plate vents or openings is not limited, as long as air and sound can flow into and out of the earcup through the back plate (Ovelle pg. 1, ¶ 0015).
As to claim 8, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the front plate of the earcup includes at least one aperture extending through the front plate (Ovalle figure 1; pg. 2, ¶ 0016).
As to claim 9, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the front plate of the earcup includes a plurality of apertures extending through the front plate (Ovalle figure 1; pg. 2, ¶ 0016).
As to claim 10, Ovalle discloses an open back headphone, comprising: a headband; a first earcup located at a first end of the headband; a second earcup located at a second end of the headband (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0001, ¶ 0015); and wherein each of the first earcup and the second earcup comprises: a front plate (plate 38, see figure 1; pg. 2, ¶ 0016); an acoustic driver mounted to the earcup, the acoustic driver having a front side and a back side (speaker 34, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0015); and wherein each of the first earcup and the second earcup is configured to be disposed over or on an ear of a user during use of the headphone (see figure 1), each of the first earcup and the second earcup does not include a rear acoustic cavity adjacent the back side of the acoustic driver, and each of the first earcup and the second earcup is configured to allow ambient noise outside the earcup to pass through the earcup to the ear of the user without substantial passive isolation of sound generated by the acoustic driver during use of the headphone (inherent of open back configuration, vents and openings allow ambient air and sound to pass through, see pgs. 1-2, ¶ 0015 - ¶ 0016).
Ovalle does not disclose the earcup including a tactile vibration driver mounted to the earcup, the tactile vibration driver having a front side and a back side. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Hull, which discloses a similar headphone, the headphone further comprising a tactile vibrator 134 mounted within the earcup, and the vibrator having front and back sides (see figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0016). The claimed configuration is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to incorporate a driver that is particularly suited for bass playback and configured to produce playback in response to bass components of input audio signals (Hull pg. 2, ¶ 0016).
As to claim 11, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the tactile vibration driver is configured to vibrate at frequencies below 250 Hz (Hull pg. 3, ¶ 0026).
As to claim 12, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein each of the first earcup and the second earcup further comprises a back plate coupled to the front plate, the front plate and the back plate defining an interior region within the earcup, the acoustic driver and the tactile vibration driver disposed within the interior region of the earcup (Ovalle wall 14, see figure 1; Hull back plate 138/160, figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0021; pg. 3, ¶ 0025).
As to claim 13, Ovalle in view of Hull does not expressly disclose wherein the back plate is removably coupled to the front plate. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ovalle in view of Hull, and further as it has been held that making elements removable or separable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, configuring the headphone as taught by Ovalle in view of Hull to have the back plate removably coupled to the front plate can be advantageous as it can enable the back plate and/or the front plate to be exchanged or replaced, and further allow access to the electronic components within the earcup for testing, maintenance and/or replacement.
As to claim 14, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the back plate includes a plurality of apertures extending through the back plate (Ovalle vents 28, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0015).
As to claim 15, Ovalle in view of Hull does not expressly disclose wherein the apertures of the plurality have a combined cross-sectional area equal to at least twenty-five percent of an area encompassed by a peripheral edge of the back plate. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ovalle in view of Hull, and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or proportions involve only routine skill and are therefore generally not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, the apertures having a combined cross-sectional area equal to at least twenty-five percent of an area encompassed by a peripheral edge of the back plate is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when designing a headphone as taught by Ovalle in view of Hull, particularly as the number and shape of the back plate vents or openings is not limited, as long as air and sound can flow into and out of the earcup through the back plate (Ovelle pg. 1, ¶ 0015).
As to claim 16, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein the tactile vibration driver is mounted to the back plate (Hull figure 5; pg. 4, ¶ 0029).
As to claim 17, Ovalle in view of Hull does not expressly disclose wherein the apertures are cylindrical in shape. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ovalle in view of Hull, and further as it has been held that changes in shape are generally a matter of design choice and therefore involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, configuring the apertures to be cylindrical in shape is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when designing a headphone as taught by Ovalle in view of Hull, particularly as the number and shape of the back plate vents or openings is not limited, as long as air and sound can flow into and out of the earcup through the back plate (Ovelle pg. 1, ¶ 0015).
As to claim 18, Ovalle discloses a method of forming an open back headphone (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0001), the method comprising: providing an earcup configured to be disposed over or on an ear of a user during use of the headphone (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0015), the earcup including a front plate (plate 38, see figure 1; pg. 2, ¶ 0016); mounting an acoustic driver to the earcup, the acoustic driver having a front side and a back side (speaker 34, see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0015); configuring the earcup so as not to include a rear acoustic cavity adjacent the back side of the acoustic driver; and configuring the earcup to allow ambient noise outside the earcup to pass through the earcup to the ear of the user without substantial passive isolation of sound generated by the acoustic driver during use of the headphone (inherent of open back configuration, vents and openings allow ambient air and sound to pass through, see pgs. 1-2, ¶ 0015 - ¶ 0016).
Ovalle does not disclose mounting a tactile vibration driver to the earcup, the tactile vibration driver having a front side and a back side. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Hull, which discloses a similar headphone, the headphone further comprising a tactile vibrator 134 mounted within the earcup, and the vibrator having front and back sides (see figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0016). The claimed configuration is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to incorporate a driver that is particularly suited for bass playback and configured to produce playback in response to bass components of input audio signals (Hull pg. 2, ¶ 0016).
As to claim 19, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses further comprising mounting a back plate to the earcup (Ovalle wall 14, see figure 1; Hull back plate 138/160, figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0021).
As to claim 20, Ovalle in view of Hull further discloses wherein providing the earcup comprises providing a first earcup and a second earcup (Ovalle figure 1; Hull figure 5).
4. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2021/0235182 A1 to Ricci in view of Hull.
As to claim 21, Ricci discloses an open back headphone, comprising: an earcup configured to be disposed over or on an ear of a user during use of the headphone, the earcup including a front plate (earcup 1 with cover 21a, see figures 1-4; pg. 1, ¶ 0018 - ¶ 0022); an acoustic driver mounted to the earcup, the acoustic driver having a front side and a back side (transducer 8b, see figures 1-3; pg. 1, ¶ 0023); and wherein the earcup does not include a rear acoustic cavity adjacent the back side of the acoustic driver, and the earcup is configured to allow ambient noise outside the earcup to pass through the earcup to the ear of the user without substantial passive isolation of ambient sound or sound generated by the acoustic driver during use of the headphone (inherent of open back configuration, air-permeable cover with opening 40 allows ambient air and sound to freely enter and exit the earcup, see figures 1-3; pg. 1, ¶ 0002 - ¶ 0004, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0022), wherein a back plate is absent, resulting in a substantially unobstructed open back; or when a back plate is present, apertures have a combined cross-sectional area equal to at least seventy-five percent or substantially one hundred percent of an area encompassed by a peripheral edge of the back plate, and wherein the earcup reduces the intensity level of incoming sound by about 15 dB or less (no back plate, cover with opening 40 forms open back allowing free flow of sound and air, see figures 1-2; pg. 1, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0022).
Ovalle does not disclose the earcup including a tactile vibration driver mounted to the earcup, the tactile vibration driver having a front side and a back side. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Hull, which discloses a similar headphone, the headphone further comprising a tactile vibrator 134 mounted within the earcup behind the audio driver, and the vibrator having front and back sides (see figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0016). The claimed configuration is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being depending on the type of audio characteristics and use of the headphone, and in particular to incorporate a driver in the earcup that is more suited for bass playback and configured to produce playback in response to bass components of input audio signals (Hull pg. 2, ¶ 0016).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 18, Applicant argues “Hull’s tactile/ANC architecture depends on the presence of discrete cavities and structural features expressly opposite to Applicant’s design,” and further that “if one were to combine the teachings of Hull into the open-back headphone of Ovalle, it destroys the very operating conditions Hull requires for its feedback ANC and cavity-dependent SPL control.” Applicant further argues that “the pending claims expressly exclude a rear cavity adjacent the acoustic driver (and may be completely open),” whereas “Hull’s microphone 176 and feedback circuit must sense and cancel within a defined internal acoustic environment,” and further “combining this system with Ovalle would prevent this function and operation.” Regarding the combination of Ovalle and Hull, Applicant further argues “the combination asks the skilled artisan to eliminate Hull’s cavities and isolation while expective Hull’s tactile/ANC solution to work the same way,” and would “dismantle Hull’s control architecture and is thus non-workable,” therefore the combination cannot be considered obvious.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that Hull is not relied on for the “feedback ANC and cavity-dependent SPL control” as argued by Applicant, and is instead relied on for the use of a tactile vibration driver mounted to the earcup, the tactile vibration driver having a front side and a back side (see figure 5; pg. 2, ¶ 0016). Hull discloses a headphone that can include multiple audio drivers, or at least one audio driver and at least one tactile vibrator (see pg. 1, ¶ 0001). As taught by Hull, the addition of a second audio driver or tactile vibrator can enable the headphone to have a dedicated driver that is particularly suited for bass components of an audio signal (Hull pg. 2, ¶ 0016). Examiner respectfully maintains the proposed combination would not “destroy the very operating conditions Hull,” as the proposed combination does not rely on Hull’s ANC control architecture as argued by Applicant.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Applicant argues that “Applicant’s specification identifies and ties the aperture area to the unique open-back structure and the claimed lack of substantial isolation,” and “explicitly teaches and exemplifies the threshold,” as well as the performance rationale, which “shows the aperture area is not arbitrarily but rather, it is selected to ensure an open-back with minimal isolation and controlled resonance/pressure release.” Applicant further argues that “neither Ovalle nor Hull recognizes ‘aperture open-area percentage’ as a result-effective variable, let alone teaches any threshold value,” therefore “the cited art neither identifies nor suggests that selecting a ≥25% open-area is a recognized tuning variable for the intended open-back performance,” and “under DuPont, the optimization presumption does not apply where the variable was not recognized to affect the result; and under Iron Grip, Applicant can rebut with evidence of criticality/unexpected performance at or above the threshold.”
Applicant further argues that “Applicant’s claimed threshold is tied to achieving the claimed ‘without substantial passive isolation’ behavior, not any type of aesthetic dimension,” and further “the 25%+ open-area specification differentiates an earcup that behaves acoustically as open-back (venting pressure and ambient) from one that still functions like a semi-closure” therefore “the ‘design choice’ rationale collapses.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is firstly noted that Examiner’s rationale does not rely on routine optimization, nor does the art teach away from the claimed invention. Ovalle teaches an open-back type headphone, the headphone having a number of vents so that air can flow into the earcup and enable the open-back type configuration. As taught by Ovalle, the number and shape of the vents is not particularly limited, as long as air flows into the earcup and sound and air can escape the earcup, i.e. as long as the open-back configuration is achieved (see pg. 1, ¶ 0015). Given Ovalle’s teachings regarding the openings allowing air to flow into the earcup and sound and air to escape the earcup, the openings are therefore such that they “allow ambient noise outside the earcup to pass through the earcup to the ear of the user without substantial passive isolation of sound generated by the acoustic driver” as claimed. The claimed invention is therefore not considered to achieve a new and unexpected result relative to the prior art.
Regarding the claimed selection of a ≥25% open-area, it is noted that Ovalle does not particularly limit the number and shape of the vents, as long as the headphone performs in the open-type configuration, i.e. the flow of ambient air to flow into the earcup and sounds and air to escape the earcup is achieved. As noted by Applicant, it is known that a higher open-area allows an earcup to behave acoustically as open-back, particularly when compared to lower open-area, which would still function like a semi-closure. As the headphone of Ovalle is explicitly described as an open-back headphone, Ovalle is considered to implicitly teach the vents and openings as having a high enough open-area to allow the earcup to behave as an open-back configuration. That is, though Ovalle does not expressly recite the open-back area being equal to at least a specific threshold number as claimed, it does teach the headphone as functioning in the open-back configuration, therefore is it understood that the vents can vary in shape and number as long as they are configured sufficiently open to allow the flow of ambient air to into the earcup and sounds and air to escape the earcup, enabling the earcup to behave acoustically as open-back, and not as a semi-closure. Examiner respectfully maintains the claimed invention as obvious in view of the teachings of Ovalle in view of Hull.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. 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