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 1-20 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Struzik et al (US Patent No. 10951970).
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 is configured to hang between a rear side of an ear of a user and a head of the user, the holding component is configured to contact a front side of the ear, wherein a core (50, transducer) including a diaphragm (54, diaphragm) configured to generate a sound is set in a housing of the holding component, and the holding component (52, housing) does not cover an ear canal of the ear, and the connecting component (20, body portion) is configured to connect the hook-shaped component and the holding component, wherein an inner side surface of the housing facing an auricle is provided with a sound outlet (figs. 3-4; 14, opening) that is configured to transmit a sound generated at a front side of the diaphragm to the ear canal; at least another side surface of the housing is provided with a pressure relief hole (fig. 3; 15, opening) that is configured to guide a sound generated at a rear side of the diaphragm out of the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Struzik teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein the connecting component (20) is further configured to extend from the head towards an outside of the head to cooperate with the hook-shaped component (18 with arm 28) to provide the holding component with a pressing force on the front side of the ear.
Regarding claim 3, Struzik teaches the earphone of claim 1, a distance between a center of the sound outlet and a midpoint of an upper boundary of the inner side surface (fig. 3; depicts distance A, wherein a distance can be established between the opening 14 and the inner end of housing, 70) and a distance between a center of the pressure relief hole and the midpoint of the upper boundary of the inner side surface (depicts distance B, wherein a distance can be established between the opening 15 and the inner end of housing, 70).
Struzik fails to teach that distance A is greater than distance B.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to create the distance since Applicant's has not disclosed that having the particular ratio solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well depiction as disclosed by Struzik [In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Regarding claim 14, Struzik teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein the holding component (fig. 6; 52, housing) has a thickness direction, a length direction, and a height direction orthogonal to each other, the thickness direction is configured as a direction in which the holding component is close to or away from the ear in the wearing state, and the height direction is configured as a direction in which the holding component is close to or away from a top of the head in the wearing state, wherein in the natural state, and viewed from a side of the earphone facing the top of the head in the wearing state, the holding component (fig. 1; 12, housing) is at least spaced apart from a section of the hook-shaped component (18, body) close to the connecting component (20 body portion) in the thickness direction; and the connecting component is arranged in a shape of an arc and connected between the holding component and the hook-shaped component.
Regarding claim 18, Struzik teaches the earphone of claim 14, wherein the inner side surface includes a first region and a second region, wherein the first region is configured with the sound outlet (fig. 4; 14, opening); and the second region is farther away from the connecting component than the first region and is more protruding toward the ear than the first region, so as to allow the sound hole to be spaced from the ear in the wearing state.
Regarding claim 19, Struzik teaches the earphone of claim 1, wherein the holding component (52, housing) is in contact with an antihelix of the ear.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struzik.
Regarding claim 11, Struzik fails to specifically teach 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 teaches 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 length (major axis) and diameter (minor axis) used inside the hook shaped component of an audio device to supply electric power and/or signal to the audio 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-10, 12-13, 15-17, 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 1 that Struzik does not teaches each and every element set forth in amended claim1, the Examiner disagrees.
Although it is noted that that the features upon which applicant relies:
Arguments, page 9-10: “Firstly, the acoustic module 12 of D1 is disposed on the front side along the sagittal axis direction of the user and is not in contact with the auricle, and it provides no structural contribution to stable wearing of the open audio device. In contrast, the holding component in the amended claim 1 is disposed on the front side along the coronal axis direction of the user and comes into contact with the auricle. The holding component cooperates with the hook-shaped component arranged on the rear side of the ear to form an elastic clamping structure crossing the auricle.”
Arguments, page 10: “…amended claim 1 adopts the front- and-rear clamping mechanical structure to achieve stable wearing of the earphone and prevent it from falling off. Meanwhile, by contacting the front side of the ear away from the ear, the holding component fits against the auricle to form an auxiliary cavity for gathering sound waves and improving in-ear sound volume.”
The Examiner would like to point out that these limiting factors are 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
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.
August 3, 2026
/PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights