DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on November 3, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-9 and 14-16 being rejected, claims 10-13 being objected to, and claims 17-18 and 21-22 being allowed. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claim 1. 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 § 102
3. Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub No 2024/0357280 A1 to Corynen et al. (“Corynen”).
As to claim 1, Corynen discloses an acoustic output device comprising: at least one acoustic driver; and a first cavity and a second cavity acoustically coupled to opposite sides of the at least one acoustic driver, respectively, the first cavity being provided with a first acoustic hole, the second cavity being provided with a second acoustic hole (see figures 1a-4b, 35, 37a-37c and 38c; pg. 2, ¶ 0026 - ¶ 0029; pgs. 6-7, ¶ 0105 - ¶ 0106; pg. 16, ¶ 0285; pg. 19, ¶ 0357; pg. 20, ¶ 0363 - ¶ 0368), and the at least one acoustic driver radiating sounds with a phase difference to an outside environment through the first acoustic hole and the second acoustic hole (see pg. 1, ¶ 0009; pg. 14, ¶ 0246 - ¶ 0247), wherein within a target frequency band, a near-field sound radiated from the first acoustic hole and a near-field sound radiated from the second acoustic hole have a near-field sound pressure level difference, the near-field sound pressure level difference being less than 6 dB (see figure 8b; pg. 22, ¶ 0411 - ¶ 0412); and within the target frequency band, the sound radiated by the acoustic output device to a far-field has directivity, which is manifested in that the sounds radiated from the first acoustic hole and the second acoustic hole have a far-field sound pressure level difference of not less than 3dB in at least one pair of opposite directions (see pg. 4, ¶ 0067; pg. 22, ¶ 0413).
As to claim 3, Corynen further discloses wherein the near-field sound pressure level difference is less than 3dB, and/or, the far-field sound pressure level difference is not less than 6dB (see pg. 4, ¶ 0067; pg. 22, ¶ 0413).
As to claim 7, Corynen further discloses wherein the target frequency band includes target frequencies of 500Hz, 1kHz, 2kHz, and 4kHz (see pg. 4, ¶ 0051).
As to claim 14, Corynen further discloses wherein the at least one acoustic driver has a front side and a rear side defined by a diaphragm, the at least one acoustic driver radiates the sounds to the first cavity and the second cavity through the front side and the rear side respectively (see figures 1a-2b, 18a-18b and 37c; pg. 2, ¶ 0026 - ¶ 0029).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. Claim(s) 2, 4-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corynen.
As to claim 2, Corynen discloses the acoustic output device of claim 1.
Corynen does not expressly disclose wherein the target frequency band is 200Hz-5000Hz. However it does disclose various ranges for the frequency band, including 300 Hz - 3kHz, or 300 Hz - 20 kHz (see pg. 4, ¶ 0051). Selecting a range of 200 Hz - 5kHz is therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select given the teachings of Corynen, and further as it has been held that claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art have been held to be obvious over the prior art. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the selection of 200Hz-5000Hz as the target frequency band can depend on factors such as the speaker structure and design, as well as the desired sound output of the speaker and its preferred directivity.
As to claims 4-5, Corynen does not expressly disclose wherein in a frequency range of 1 kHz-8 kHz, a change rate of the phase difference is less than 30°/oct or less than 20°/oct. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Corynen, which discloses the front and rear sounds being out of phase and in balance in order to provide perfect backwards cancellation (see figures 8b-8c; pg. 22, ¶ 0412). The proposed configuration is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Corynen, the motivation being to provide slow, minimal, or zero phase difference changes within the desired frequency range, thereby ensuring a cancellation effect that results from the out of phase radiation within said frequency range (see pg. 22, ¶ 0412).
As to claim 6, Corynen does not expressly disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference between the phase differences of the near-field sound radiated from the first acoustic hole and the near-field sound radiated from the second acoustic hole at 1 kHz and the phase difference of the near-field sound radiated from the first acoustic hole and the near-field sound radiated from the second acoustic hole at 2 kHz is less than 30°. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Corynen, which discloses directivity patterns where near-field and far-field sound radiations are out of phase in order to provide attenuation in specific directions (see figures 8a-8b; pg. 14, ¶ 0246 - ¶ 0247; pg. 22, ¶ 0411 - ¶ 0412). The proposed configuration is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Corynen, the motivation being to provide slow, minimal, or zero phase difference changes within the desired frequency range, thereby ensuring a cancellation effect that results from the out of phase radiation within said frequency range (see pg. 14, ¶ 0246 - ¶ 0247; pg. 22, ¶ 0411 - ¶ 0412).
As to claims 8-9, Corynen does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of an area of the first acoustic hole to an area of the second acoustic hole is in a range of 0.5-2, and further in a range of 0.8-1.25. However it does disclose the openings having different sizes and areas (see figures 2a-2b, 5-6 and 7b), as well as different resistance (see pg. 3, ¶ 0041; pg. 16, ¶ 0285, ¶ 0288; pg. 20, ¶ 0369). A ratio of an area of the first acoustic hole to an area of the second acoustic hole being in a range of 0.5-2 or 0.8-1.25 is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Corynen, as such a ratio is dependent on the size or area of the acoustic holes, and changes in size or relative dimensions are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill and therefore obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this case, changes in size and by extension airflow resistance for the acoustic holes can be useful when tuning or adjusting the speaker response, in particular the directivity of a speaker. Such a configuration is therefore considered an obvious variation depending on the particular use of the speaker, and therefore the desired directivity or response of the speaker being designed (see pg. 10, ¶ 0193 - ¶ 0194; pg. 20, ¶ 0372 - ¶ 0373; pg. 22, ¶ 0410 - ¶ 0415).
5. Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corynen in view of US Patent No 2018/0048960 A1 to Jeffery et al. (“Jeffery”).
As to claim 15, Corynen discloses the acoustic output device of claim 1.
Corynen does not disclose wherein the at least one acoustic driver includes two acoustic drivers, the two acoustic drivers radiating the sounds to the first cavity and the second cavity respectively. However the use of two acoustic drivers to provide first and second radiating sounds with a phase difference is known in the art, as taught by Jeffery, which discloses a similar acoustic output device, and further discloses the use of first and second drivers for radiating sounds having a phase difference and forming different listening modes, including a dipole effect for far-field cancellation (see pg. 1, ¶ 0012; pg. 3, ¶ 0035). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, as the use of two drivers for creating a dipole effect is known in the art, and further as the use of separate drivers allows for independent control of first and second radiating sounds and allows for modifications based on a variety of inputs or operating environments (Jeffery pg. 1, ¶ 0007; pg. 2, ¶ 0031; pg. 4, ¶ 0049).
As to claim 16, Corynen in view of Jeffery further discloses wherein the acoustic output device further comprises: a support structure configured to hang on a head or an upper torso of a user and configured to place the acoustic output device at a position on an ear of the user without blocking an ear canal (Jeffery figure 7; pg. 2, ¶ 0030).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Corynen is only concerned with the loudspeaker that has a rear cavity on the back side of the diaphragm, leaving the front side of the diaphragm directly exposed to the environment,” thus Corynen “does not have a front cavity, nor does Corynen have any acoustic hole corresponding to the front cavity as recited in claim 1.” Applicant further argues the porous material of Corynen “belongs to the shell of the loudspeaker that encloses the second radiating surface,” therefore “the acoustic holes of the porous material radiate the sounds generated from the same side of the loudspeaker,” and thus the sounds radiated “shall have the same phase.” Applicant further argues “the near-field sound pressure level difference in amended claim 1 is the sound pressure difference between the sounds derived from the different acoustic holes in the near field,” therefore “the directivity in Corynen and the near-field sound pressure level difference of two acoustic holes in the near field in amended claim 1 are different concepts.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Corynen discloses a speaker having a frame and further configured to be mounted in a cabinet or other structure, such as a headrest, for providing audio output to a user. Corynen discloses the speaker having a diaphragm, and the diaphragm having forward and rearward radiating surfaces, the forward and rearward radiating surfaces radiating to front and rear cavities formed by the speaker frame and/or headrest, and the speaker further including openings for outputting front and rear radiated sounds to the environment such that the sound reaches the user (see figures 1a-4b, 35, 37a-37c and 38c; pg. 2, ¶ 0026 - ¶ 0029; pgs. 6-7, ¶ 0105 - ¶ 0106; pg. 16, ¶ 0285; pg. 19, ¶ 0357; pg. 20, ¶ 0363 - ¶ 0368).
That is, the speaker as taught by Corynen provides sound via front and rear surfaces of the diaphragm, and said sound is output via apertures formed in the frame and/or headrest in order to reach the user (see figures 1a-4b, 35, 37a-37c and 38c; pg. 19, ¶ 0357; pgs. 6-7, ¶ 0105 - ¶ 0106; pg. 20, ¶ 0368). In particular, the rear aperture can be provided via one or more openings in the rigid frame of the speaker, including a rear opening along axis 103 as well as in regions 135, both of which can be covered by a material having a specific airflow resistance (see figures 3a-3c; pg. 20, ¶ 0365, ¶ 0368). The front and rear radiated sounds or lobes are provided out of phase, resulting in speakers with a cardioid response as shown in figures 4a-4b, and therefore providing directivity to the speaker, and the use of a cloth covering the rear openings in particular can further define the cardioid pattern by tuning the airflow resistance without generating unpleasant noises in the near-field (see figure 8c; pg. 1, ¶ 0009; pg. 4, ¶ 0063; pg. 20, ¶ 0373; pg. 21, ¶ 0390 - ¶ 0391, ¶ 0397; pg. 22, ¶ 0412).
7. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10 of Applicant’s remarks, filed November 3, 2025, with respect to claims 10, 12, 17 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 10-13, 17-18 and 21-22 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 17-18 and 21-22 are allowed.
9. Claims 10-13 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
10. 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.
11. 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