DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on May 7, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 20 have been amended. Claim 19 has been cancelled. Claim 40 has been added. Claims 1-18, 20 and 40 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-18, 20 and 40 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 1, 3 and 20, and new claim 40. 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) 1-15, 17-18, 20 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2023/0061686 A1 to Wolfl.
As to claim 1, Wolfl discloses an acoustic output device, comprising: a loudspeaker configured to convert an audio signal into a sound signal (loudspeaker 20, see figures 6-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0053; pg. 15, ¶ 0110); a housing configured to carry the loudspeaker and include an outlet hole in acoustic communication with the loudspeaker (body 40 with nozzle 41, see figures 6-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0053); and a fixing mechanism configured to support the housing such that the outlet hole is placed near an ear of a user and the housing does not block an earhole of the user (neckband 52 with ear-hook 51, see figures 9 and 12-13; pg. 5, ¶ 0055), wherein on a sagittal plane, a projection of the outlet hole is within a target region with a projection of the earhole of the user as a center and a radius of 20 mm (outlet hole closely aligned with earhole, see figures 8-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0055 - ¶ 0056).
Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein, on the sagittal plane, an angle between a line connecting the projection of the outlet hole and the projection of the earhole and a negative direction of a sagittal axis is within a range of 60° to 90°. However such a configuration is considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Wolfl, and further as it has been held that changes in shape and relative dimensions are a matter of design and within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, providing an angle between a line connecting the projection of the outlet hole and the projection of the earhole on the sagittal plane and a negative direction of a sagittal axis as being within a range of 60° to 90° in particular can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the housing and outlet hole, as well as the size and shape of the user’s ear, as long as the housing is configured in such a way to provide sound towards the concha or the earhole, as already taught Wolfl (see figures 8-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0055; pg. 7, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 2, Wolfl further discloses wherein the housing includes a contact surface configured to contact a face of the user when the user wears the acoustic output device (see figures 9-10 and 13; pg. 5, ¶ 0055 - ¶ 0056).
As to claim 3, Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of an area of a portion of the contact surface that is in contact with the face of the user to a total area of the contact surface is within a range of 0.2 to 0.8. However it does disclose variations in the main body structure, including the use of an external tragus alignment section, the tragus alignment section being configured in different sizes and not necessarily making contact with the tragus (see figures 16-17; pg. 7, ¶ 0066; pg. 8, ¶ 0068). The proposed modification is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Wolfl, depending on the size and shape of the tragus alignment section, as long as an alignment surface is provided for positional guidance of nozzle with respect to the tragus, and a gap between the nozzle and the tragus alignment section is provided to provide a good fit for securing the device in the ear (see pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0066 - ¶ 0068).
As to claim 4, Wolfl further discloses wherein the contact surface includes a recessed portion, and the recessed portion is configured such that at least a portion of the housing bypasses a tragus of the user such that the projection of the outlet hole is within the target region (recessed tragus alignment section 44 forming tragus gap 43, see figures 10 and 16-17; pg. 4, ¶ 0053; pg. 7, ¶ 0066 - ¶ 0067).
As to claim 5, Wolfl further discloses wherein the recessed portion includes a chamfer structure or an arc structure (curved section 44, see figures 10 and 16-17).
As to claim 6, Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein an arc degree corresponding to the chamfer structure or the arc structure is within a range of 80° to 120°. However Wolfl teaches the size and shape of the tragus alignment portion can be adapted to provide a better fit for the user (see figures 10-11 and 16-17; pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0067 - ¶ 0069). The proposed arc degree being within a range of 80° to 120° is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wolfl, and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design and within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, providing the curved housing portion with an arc degree within a range of 80° to 120° in particular can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the housing, as well as the tragus of the user, as long as the housing is configured in such a way to accommodate the tragus and provide a good fit, as already taught Wolfl (see pg. 8, ¶ 0068 - ¶ 0069).
As to claim 7, Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the recessed portion along the sagittal axis direction is greater than 7 mm. However Wolfl teaches the size and shape of the tragus alignment portion can be adapted to provide a better fit for the user (see figures 10-11 and 16-17; pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0067 - ¶ 0069). The proposed width of the recessed portion along a sagittal axis direction being greater than 7 mm is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wolfl, and further as it has been held that changes in shape and relative dimensions are a matter of design and within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, such a configuration can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the housing, as well as the tragus of the user, as long as the housing is configured in such a way to accommodate the tragus and provide a good fit, as already taught Wolfl (see pg. 8, ¶ 0068 - ¶ 0069).
As to claim 8, Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein a depth of the recessed portion along a coronal axis direction is greater than 4.4 mm. However Wolfl teaches the size and shape of the tragus alignment portion can be adapted to provide a better fit for the user (see figures 10-11 and 16-17; pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0067 - ¶ 0069). The proposed depth of the recessed portion along a coronal axis direction being greater than 4.4 mm is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wolfl, and further as it has been held that changes in shape and relative dimensions are a matter of design and within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, such a configuration can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the housing, as well as the tragus of the user, as long as the housing is configured in such a way to accommodate the tragus and provide a good fit, as already taught Wolfl (see pgs. 8, ¶ 0068 - ¶ 0069).
As to claim 9, Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein when the user wears the acoustic output device, a pressure of the contact surface on a tragus of the user is within a range of 0 to 2 kPa. However it does disclose minimal clamping force for the device when worn (see figure 10; pg. 5, ¶ 0056; pg. 6, ¶ 0059). Configuring a pressure of the contact surface on a tragus of the user as being within a range of 0 to 2 kPa is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wolfl, the motivation being to provide minimal pressure on the tragus when the device is being worn, particularly the extreme lateral portion of the tragus, thereby improving long-term wearing comfort (see pg. 6, ¶ 0059).
As to claim 10, Wolfl further discloses wherein the housing includes a body and a sound guide tube, a projection of the body on the sagittal plane is outside a projection of an auricle of the user on the sagittal plane, the loudspeaker is disposed within the body, and the outlet hole is in acoustic communication with the loudspeaker through the sound guide tube (body 40 with nozzle 41, see figures 6-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0053).
As to claim 11, Wolfl further discloses wherein the sound guide tube is configured to bypass a tragus of the user such that the outlet hole is within the target region (see figure 10).
As to claim 12, Wolfl further discloses wherein a length of the sound guide tube is within a range of 1 mm to 30 mm (sound canal length between 5 mm and 20 mm, see figure 21B; pg. 9, ¶ 0078).
As to claim 13, Wolfl further discloses wherein a minimum cross-sectional area of the sound guide tube is greater than 2 mm2 (see pg. 8, ¶ 0073).
As to claim 14, Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein a vibration direction of the loudspeaker is parallel to an orientation of the outlet hole. However such a configuration is considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as it has been held that rearranging parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, configuring a vibration direction of the loudspeaker as parallel to an orientation of the outlet hole can depend on various factors, including the size and shape of the loudspeaker, as well as the size, shape, and available space within the housing, and the overall design of the acoustic output device, as long as the loudspeaker can produce sound that can be output via the outlet hole, as already taught by Wolfl.
As to claim 15, Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein a vibration direction of the loudspeaker is perpendicular to an orientation of the outlet hole. However such a configuration is considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as it has been held that rearranging parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, configuring a vibration direction of the loudspeaker as perpendicular to an orientation of the outlet hole can depend on various factors, including the size and shape of the loudspeaker, as well as the size, shape, and available space within the housing, and the overall design of the acoustic output device, as long as the loudspeaker can produce sound that can be output via the outlet hole, as already taught by Wolfl.
As to claim 17, Wolfl further discloses wherein the outlet hole faces the earhole of the user (see figure 10; pg. 5, ¶ 0055).
As to claim 18, Wolfl further discloses wherein the outlet hole faces a concha cavity of the user (see figures 8-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0055; pg. 7, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 20, Wolfl discloses an acoustic output device, comprising: a loudspeaker configured to convert an audio signal into a sound signal (loudspeaker 20, see figures 6-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0053; pg. 15, ¶ 0110); a housing configured to carry the loudspeaker and include an outlet hole in acoustic communication with the loudspeaker (body 40 with nozzle 41, see figures 6-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0053); and a fixing mechanism configured to support the housing such that the outlet hole is placed near an ear of a user and the housing does not block an earhole of the user (neckband 52 with ear-hook 51, see figures 9 and 12-13; pg. 5, ¶ 0055), wherein at least a portion of the housing bypasses a tragus of the user and includes the outlet hole (see figures 8-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0055 - ¶ 0056).
Wolfl does not expressly disclose wherein, on a sagittal plane, an angle between a line connecting a projection of the outlet hole and a projection of the earhole and a negative direction of a sagittal axis is within a range of 60° to 90°. However such a configuration is considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Wolfl, and further as it has been held that changes in shape and relative dimensions are a matter of design and within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, providing an angle between a line connecting the projection of the outlet hole and the projection of the earhole on the sagittal plane and a negative direction of a sagittal axis as being within a range of 60° to 90° in particular can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the housing and outlet hole, as well as the size and shape of the user’s ear, as long as the housing is configured in such a way to provide sound towards the concha or the earhole, as already taught Wolfl (see figures 8-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0055; pg. 7, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 40, Wolfl does not expressly wherein along a thickness direction of the housing, a distance between a center point of the outlet hole and an apex of the recessed portion is within a range of 0.5 mm to 10 mm. However Wolfl teaches the size and shape of the tragus alignment portion can be adapted to provide a better fit for the user (see figures 10-11 and 16-17; pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0067 - ¶ 0069). The proposed distance between a center point of the outlet hole and an apex of the recessed portion as being within a range of 0.5 mm to 10 mm is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wolfl, and further as it has been held that changes in shape and relative dimensions are a matter of design and within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, such a configuration can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the housing, as well as the tragus of the user, as long as the housing is configured in such a way to accommodate the tragus and provide a good fit, as already taught Wolfl (see pgs. 8, ¶ 0068 - ¶ 0069).
4. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfl in view of US Patent Pub No 2021/0168483 A1 to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”).
As to claim 16, Wolfl discloses the acoustic output device of claim 1.
Wolfl does not expressly disclose further comprising: a power supply assembly configured to provide electrical power to the acoustic output device; and a circuit board configured to connect two or more components of the acoustic output device, wherein projections of the power supply assembly and the circuit board on the sagittal plane are outside a projection of an auricle of the user on the sagittal plane. However such components are known in the art of acoustic output devices, as taught by Zhang, which discloses a similar device, and further discloses the device comprising a battery and circuit board configured to be housed away from the user’s auricle (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0004; pg. 4, ¶ 0063 - ¶ 0064). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide the electrical components necessary to power and drive the acoustic device to generate sound (Zhang pg. 4, ¶ 0064).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Applicant argues “this specific angular range is not a result of routine design choice” as it is “a functional configuration designed to position the sound outlet hole in a specific proximity to the auricle” and “significantly increases the sound pressure level directed into the user’s ear while suppressing high-frequency sound leakage from the acoustic output device,” which “achieves a critical balance between enhanced acoustic delivery and leakage reduction, providing an optimized listening experience that is not suggested by the cited references.” Applicant further argues “amended claim 1 leverages the spatial relationship with the auricle (including the concha area) within the 60° to 90° range to optimize SPL and reduce leakage” and Wolfl “teaches away from the invention,” as it teaches “the external opening 34 is located directly above the ear-canal entry 307, and the external opening 34 and the ear-canal entry 307 substantially coincide in the sagittal plane,” therefore “Wolfl does not disclose or suggest an offset configuration that would form the specific ‘line connecting the projection of the outlet hole and the projection of the earhole’ in amended claim 1.”
Applicant further argues “the design philosophy of Wolfl is diametrically opposed to that of amended claim 1” because “Wolfl aims to maximize direct acoustic coupling by having the external opening 34 directly face, or even extend into, the ear-canal entry 307,” therefore “a person of ordinary skill in the art following Wolfl’s teachings would be discouraged from—and would have no motivation to—position the outlet hole according to the angular angle in amended claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the angular positioning significantly increasing the sound pressure level directed into the user’s ear while suppressing high-frequency sound leakage from the acoustic output device) are not 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). In this case, Wolfl discloses the housing being configured in such a way to provide sound towards the concha or the earhole (see figures 8-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0055; pg. 7, ¶ 0066). Wolfl further discloses variations in the angle between the support surface of the main body and the nozzle output of the nozzle oriented towards the concha (see figure 11; pg. 6, ¶ 0057).
That is, Wolfl discloses the nozzle being positioned to provide sounds towards the earhole, as argued by Applicant, however it also discloses the nozzle being positioned to provide sounds towards the concha, and the angle of the nozzle can be wider or narrower with respect to the main body. Variations in the housing including the nozzle are therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wolfl, as long as the nozzle remains slim and positioned close to both the tragus and the ear canal entry such that sounds radiated from the nozzle can enter the ear canal directly and via reflections, and the pinna remains unobstructed, which keeps the pinna transfer function intact for ambient sounds (Wolfl pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0056 - ¶ 0057). Examiner maintains the invention as obvious in view of the teachings of Wolfl.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues “the tragus gap 43 may appear similar to the recessed portion in claim 4, but the structure, position, and design concept of the tragus gap 43 of Wolfl and the recessed portion of claim 4 are completely different” because “the main body 40 and the external tragus alignment section 44 do not extend above the tragus 301,” and “the component that achieves avoidance of the tragus 301 is the nozzle 41, not a recessed portion on the main body.” Applicant further argues that in the present application, “the purpose of providing the recessed portion is to avoid interference of the tragus 210 on the sound when the tragus 210 is higher than the outlet hole 142,” whereas Wolfl “clearly shows that the height of the external opening 34 of Wolfl is significantly lower than the tragus 301,” therefore it “does not have a structure where the tragus is higher than the external opening.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the recessed portion avoids interference of the tragus on the sound when the tragus is higher than the outlet hole) are not 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). In this case, Wolfl discloses a gap in the housing for providing space for the tragus, therefore is considered to teach at least a portion of the housing bypasses a tragus of the user such that the projection of the outlet hole is within the target region, as recited in the claim (see figures 10 and 16-17; pg. 4, ¶ 0053; pg. 7, ¶ 0066 - ¶ 0067). In addition, Wolfl does teach the tragus being positioned higher than the external opening, as the nozzle portion of the housing is designed to go around and follow the curvature of the tragus in order to provide the necessary nozzle orientation towards the concha or the ear canal, and allow the external opening of the nozzle to be positioned in close proximity to the ear canal (see figure 10).
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. 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