DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 8, 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-2 and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Application WO 2020/125940 A1 to Wölfl in view of International Application WO 2019/192816 A1 to Corynen.
As to claim 1, Wölfl discloses an acoustic device comprising: an enclosure; a duct in communication with an inner space in the enclosure, the duct being open toward an outer space (see figures 1A-1C; pg. 6, ¶ 0037); and a speaker unit attached in the enclosure, the speaker unit generating first sound pressure toward the outer space and also generating second sound pressure toward the inner space, the first sound pressure and the second sound pressure having mutually opposite phases (see figures 1A-1C; pg. 6, ¶ 0037; pgs. 20-21, ¶ 0064 - ¶ 0065).
Wölfl discloses wherein the duct is folded (see figure 7; pg. 10, ¶ 0044; pg. 17, ¶ 0058), but does not expressly disclose the duct being folded twice or more. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Wölfl, and further depending on factors such as the length of the duct or pipe, as well as the available space within the enclosure or housing where the acoustic device is incorporated, in order to fit the desired pipe length within the enclosure or housing shape, as already taught by Wölfl (see pg. 10, ¶ 0044; pg. 17, ¶ 0058).
Wölfl further discloses the enclosure and port volume acting as a Helmholtz resonator (see pg. 11, ¶ 0045) and further the acoustic device being configured for nearfield applications and therefore being positioned near a user’s head and/or integrated in headrests (see figures 24-27; pg. 31, ¶ 0084; pg. 31, ¶ 0106), but does not expressly disclose wherein in a state in which the speaker unit is attached in the enclosure, a resonant frequency of a vibration unit in the speaker unit is set in a frequency band lower than a resonant frequency of a Helmholtz resonator composed of the enclosure and the duct, and wherein a listening position is set at a position at which a first straight-line distance from an opening in the duct open toward the outer space to the listening position is shorter than a second straight-line distance from a diaphragm in the speaker unit to the listening position.
Corynen discloses a similar acoustic device, and further discloses wherein the frequency of a Helmholtz resonator of the speaker unit is outside and above the operational bandwidth of the speaker unit (see pg. 15, lines 26-29; pg. 16, lines 1-9), and the acoustic device can be integrated in a headrest, wherein the distance between the sound guide outputs and the ears of a user is shorter than the distance between the bass speaker diaphragm and the ears of a user (see figures 8a-8b; pg. 22, lines 27-32; pg. 35, lines 1-14).
Wölfl and Corynen are analogous art because they are both drawn to acoustic devices.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the resonance frequency and listening position elements as taught by Corynen in the device as taught by Wölfl. The motivation being to provide a maximized performance of bass frequencies via Helmholtz resonators using speakers that are more appropriate for vehicular applications, where speakers with low operational frequencies can be troublesome (Corynen pg. 17, lines 19-32; pg. 38, lines 7-12), and further to provide a personal sound cocoon via the sound guide outlet(s) so the user can clearly hear sound produced by the bass speaker unit (Corynen pg. 10, lines 16-30; pg. 15, lines 1-9; pg. 17, lines 19-25).
As to claim 2, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein the second straight-line distance from the diaphragm in the speaker unit to the listening position is twice or more than the first straight-line distance from the opening in the duct to the listening position (Corynen see figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 4, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein a ratio of a duct length of the duct to a radius of the duct is at least 20 and at most 30 (Corynen varying dimensions for tuning Helmholtz resonance; examples with 50cm length and 20cm² tube area resulting in a radius of 2.5cm and a ratio of 20, see pg. 38, lines 1-13 and 30-34; pg. 39, lines 1-5).
As to claim 5, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein a duct sound generation direction, in which the opening in the duct is oriented toward the outer space, and a unit sound generation direction, in which the speaker unit is oriented toward the outer space, are mutually opposite (Wölfl figures 1A-1C).
As to claim 6, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein the enclosure, the duct, and the speaker unit are accommodated in a head restraint (Wölfl pg. 31, ¶ 0084; pg. 31, ¶ 0106; Corynen figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 7, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein: the acoustic device comprises two ducts provided so that the duct sound generation direction for each duct is oriented toward a different one of the ears of a listener, the ears being positioned ahead of the head restraint; and the unit sound generation direction is oriented backward (Wölfl figures 5A-5C; Corynen figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 8, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein a second speaker unit is mounted in the head restraint so as to be oriented in a direction that is the same as the duct sound generation direction (Wölfl pg. 31, ¶ 0106; Corynen pg. 35, lines 13-18; figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 9, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein a duct sound generation direction, in which the opening in the duct is oriented toward the outer space, and a unit sound generation direction, in which the speaker unit is oriented toward the outer space, are mutually opposite (Wölfl figures 1A-1C).
As to claim 10, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein the enclosure, the duct, and the speaker unit are accommodated in a head restraint (Wölfl pg. 31, ¶ 0084; pg. 31, ¶ 0106; Corynen figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 11, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein: the acoustic device comprises two ducts provided so that the duct sound generation direction for each duct is oriented toward a different one of the ears of a listener, the ears being positioned ahead of the head restraint; and the unit sound generation direction is oriented backward (Wölfl figures 5A-5C; Corynen figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 12, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein a duct sound generation direction, in which the opening in the duct is oriented toward the outer space, and a unit sound generation direction, in which the speaker unit is oriented toward the outer space, are mutually opposite (Wölfl figures 1A-1C).
As to claim 13, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein the enclosure, the duct, and the speaker unit are accommodated in a head restraint (Wölfl pg. 31, ¶ 0084; pg. 31, ¶ 0106; Corynen figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 14, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein: the acoustic device comprises two ducts provided so that the duct sound generation direction for each duct is oriented toward a different one of the ears of a listener, the ears being positioned ahead of the head restraint; and the unit sound generation direction is oriented backward (Wölfl figures 5A-5C; Corynen figures 8a-8b).
As to claim 15, Wölfl in view of Corynen further discloses wherein the enclosure, the duct, and the speaker unit are accommodated in a head restraint (Wölfl pg. 31, ¶ 0084; pg. 31, ¶ 0106; Corynen figures 8a-8b), but does not expressly disclose the folded portion of the duct is positioned in a narrow region of the head restraint. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Wölfl in view of Corynen, and further depending on the specific size and shape of the head restraint and the duct, as well as available space within the head restraint, since it has been held that changes or variations in shape are within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as is the rearrangement of parts. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, Wölfl in view of Corynen already disclose various shapes and sizes for the head restraint (Corynen figures 3a-6b and 8a-8b). The head restraint having a narrow region on which the folded portion of the duct is positioned is therefore merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select, as long as the enclosure, the duct, and the speaker unit are all accommodated within a head restraint, as already taught by Wölfl in view of Corynen.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues “there is no discussion or suggestion to folding the duct multiple times.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Wölfl discloses wherein the duct can be bent or folded along its length (see figure 7; pg. 10, ¶ 0044; pg. 17, ¶ 0058). It does not expressly disclose any specific number of folds, however it does disclose the duct or pipe can be folded in order to fit into a desired enclosure shape, particularly when accommodating long pipes or ducts (see pg. 17, ¶ 0058). The specific number of folds to fit a duct within an enclosure can therefore be considered a matter of design depending on the size and shape of the particular enclosure, available space within said enclosure, as well as the length of the duct. The duct being folded twice or more as claimed is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Wölfl.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No 6411721 B1 to Spindler discloses a speaker enclosure having a labyrinth duct with multiple folds to conserve space (see figures 14, 19 and 41; col. 1, lines 55-60)
6. 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
