Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/30/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18334401 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12-13, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struzik et al (US Patent No. 10951970) in view of Van Hook et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345036, filed 4/15/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Struzik teaches an earphone, comprising: a hook-shaped component (18, body), a connecting component (20, body portion), and a holding component (52, housing), wherein when the earphone is in a wearing state, the hook-shaped component (18) is configured to hang between a rear side of an ear of a user and a head of the user, the holding component (52, housing) is configured to contact a front side of the ear, wherein a core (50, part of housing) including a diaphragm (54, diaphragm) configured to generate a sound is set in a cavity enclosed by a housing of the holding component (52), and the holding component does not cover an ear canal of the ear (fig. 1), and the connecting component (20) is configured to connect the hook-shaped component (18) and the holding component (52), wherein an inner side surface of the housing facing an auricle is provided with a sound outlet (14, opening) that is configured to transmit a sound generated at a front side of the diaphragm to the ear canal; other side surfaces of the housing are provided with a first pressure relief hole (fig. 3; 15, opening).
Struzik does not teach having a second pressure relief hole that are configured to guide sounds generated at a rear side of the diaphragm out of the housing.
Van Hook teaches a second pressure relief hole that are configured to guide sounds generated at a rear side of the diaphragm out of the housing (figs. 5, 7, 10, multiple rear holes configurations, such as 84, 92).
Struzik as a whole discloses the claimed invention except for another rear side hole. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include an additional hole since applicant has not disclosed that this limitation solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and appears that the invention would perform equally well with the combination of Struzik and Van Hook as shown [In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein the connecting component (20) is further configured to extend from the head along a coronal axis of the user towards an outside of the head to cooperate with the hook-shaped component to provide the holding component with a pressing force on the front side of the ear (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein an area of the first pressure relief hole is larger than an area of the second pressure relief hole.
Although the combination does not specifically teach an area of one hole is larger than the other hole, Van Hook does additionally allow placement of a resistance (figs. 5, 7, 10, such as 88, 92) in at least one of the holes to change the resonance which effectively reduces the airflow area of the hold applying a resistive element.
The combination as further modified by Van Hook as a whole discloses the claimed invention except for different area of the holes. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the airflow area by any means since applicant has not disclosed that hole size solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and appears that the invention would perform equally well with the combination of Struzik and Van Hook as shown [In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein the first pressure relief hole is provided on an upper side surface of the housing and the second pressure relief hole is provided on a lower side surface of the housing (figs. 5, 7, 10, such as 84, 92).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook does not specifically teach the earphone of claim 1, wherein a ratio of an area of the sound outlet to a total area of the first pressure relief hole and the second pressure relief hole is in a range of 0.1 to 0.99.
Although the combination does not specifically teach an area of one hole relative to another hole, Van Hook does additionally allow placement of a resistance (figs. 5, 7, 10, such as 88, 92) in at least one of the holes to change the resonance which effectively reduces the airflow area of the hold applying a resistive element.
The combination as further modified by Van Hook as a whole discloses the claimed invention except for different area of the holes. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the airflow area by any means since applicant has not disclosed that hole size solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and appears that the invention would perform equally well with the combination of Struzik and Van Hook as shown [In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Regarding claims 10 and 13, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook teaches the earphone of claims 9 and 12, wherein the diaphragm divides the cavity into a front cavity and a rear cavity corresponding to the front side and the rear side of the diaphragm (Struzik, fig. 3; Van Hook, fig. 2, 4-6) respectively
The combination of Struzik and Van Hook fails to specifically teach a ratio of a volume of the rear cavity to a volume of the front cavity is in a range of 0.1 to 10.
The combination as further modified by Van Hook as a whole discloses the claimed invention except for ratio of the volume. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the range of volume since applicant has not disclosed that the volume solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and appears that the invention would perform equally well with the combination of Struzik and Van Hook as shown [In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein a ratio of an area of the sound outlet to a total area of the first pressure relief hole and the second pressure relief hole is in a range of 1 to 10.
Although the combination does not specifically teach an area of one hole relative to another hole, Van Hook does additionally allow placement of a resistance (figs. 5, 7, 10, such as 88, 92) in at least one of the holes to change the resonance which effectively reduces the airflow area such that an area range is attainable.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to limit the ratio of an area between 1 to 10 since applicant has not disclosed that the area solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with range as depicted in the figures.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein an acoustic resistance net (fig. 4, 5, 7; screens such as item 66) is provided at a position of at least one of the sound outlet, the first pressure relief hole, and the second pressure relief hole.
The combination does not specifically teach a thickness of the acoustic resistance net is in a range of 40 pm to 150pm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to limit the thickness range between 40 pm and 150pm since applicant has not disclosed that the thickness range solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with range as depicted in the figures.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook fails to specifically teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein an elastic metal wire is arranged inside the hook-shaped component, the elastic metal wire has a major axis direction and a minor axis direction orthogonal to each other on a cross section of the elastic metal wire, and a size of the elastic metal wire in the major axis direction is greater than a size of the elastic metal wire in the minor axis direction.
Although Struzik teaches the device can be wired (col. 3 lines 52-60, it does not teach the specifics of the wire.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art how a wire is shaped such that there is a length (major axis) and a diameter (minor axis) used inside the hook shaped component of a device to supply electric power and/or signal to the device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known wire shape would have yielded a predictable result.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Struzik and Van Hook fails to teach the earphone of claim 19, wherein a ratio of the size of the elastic metal wire in the major axis direction to the size of the elastic metal wire in the minor axis direction is between 4:1 and 6:1.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to limit the ratio of an size of the wire since applicant has not disclosed that the wire ratio solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the combination of Struzik and Van Hook as shown [In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 6-8, 11, 14-16, 18 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.
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 10, 2026
/PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694