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 . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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.
Claims 1–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0084546 (published 12 March 2020) (“Mainini”) and JP 4239404 B2 (published 18 March 2009) (“Ito”)1.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a sound output device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed device and the Mainini reference.
Claim 1
The Mainini Reference
“[Claim 1] A sound output device comprising:
The Mainini reference describes a headset 2 corresponding to the claimed sound output device. Mainini at Abs., ¶ 41, FIGs.1–7.
“a pair of ear hooking arms respectively worn on left and right ears;
Mainini’s headset 2 similarly includes left and right earloops 10 and 11. Id. at ¶¶ 41–43, FIG.1.
“a coupling band that is elastically deformable and [emphasis added]
Mainini does not describe neckband 32 as being elastically deformable.
“[the coupling band] couples the pair of ear hooking arms; and
Neckband 32 couples earloops 10 and 11. Id.
“a speaker unit coupled to at least one of the ear hooking arm or the coupling band, in which at least a portion of the speaker unit opposes a concha auriculae and is positioned in a state of being separated from an auricle,
Earloops 10 and 11 include capsules 14, 15 that include respective left and right speakers. Id. at ¶ 42, 43, 48, FIGs.1, 5. The left and right speakers are attached to earloops 10 and 11 via left and right connectors 12, 13. Id. Left and right eartips position the left and right speakers to oppose a concha auriculae and to be separated from an auricle. Id. at ¶ 42, FIG.1.
“wherein the ear hooking arm includes a front side portion positioned on a front side of the auricle and a back side portion that is positioned more toward a back side than a tragus and in which at least a portion is positioned in an auriculotemporal groove,
Mainini’s earloops 10 and 11 include behind-the-ear segments 20, 21 and connector segments 12, 13 that respectively correspond to the front side portions and back side portions. Id. at ¶¶ 43, 48–49, FIG.1. As seen in Mainini FIG.1, segments 12 and 20 are separated by apex portion 18 (which sits on the apex of the user’s ear) and segments 13 and 21 are separated by another apex portion, such that front side portions 12 and 13 are positioned on a front side of the auricle while back side portions 20 and 21 are positioned more towards a back side than a tragus. Id. at ¶ 43, FIG.1. And since back side portions 20 and 21 include surface curvature 22 that sits along and grips the backside of the user’s ear, portions 20 and 21 are positioned in an auriculotemporal groove. Compare Spec. at FIG.7 with Mainini at ¶ 43, FIG.1 (describing curvature 22).
“the front side portion is in contact with at least two points that are a first contact point that is a base of an upper portion of a helix and a second contact point that is a portion on a front side of the tragus in a temporal region,
“the back side portion is sloped in a state in which an upper end is positioned more toward a front side than a lower end and can be in contact with a third contact point and a fourth contact point positioned above and below at a base of the auricle,
“an extension line of a straight line connecting the first contact point and the second contact point is a first extension line,
“an extension line of a straight line connecting the third contact point and the fourth contact point is a second extension line, and
“an angle between the first extension line and the second extension line is an acute angle.”
A similar acute angle is described by Mainini. See Figure 1, below.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
203
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Mainini at FIG.6 (highlighting the acute angle between extension lines drawn between contact points of Mainini’s earloops.)
The table above shows that the Mainini reference describes a headset 2 that corresponds closely to the claimed device. The Mainini reference does not anticipate forming neckband in an elastically deformable manner.
The differences between the Mainini reference and the claimed invention are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed.
Mainini describes a headset 2 having a neckband 32. Id. at ¶ 57, FIGs.1, 2A, 2B. Neckband 32 is formed with a length L 44 designed to fit a large number of users. Id. Further, earloops 11 and 12 are elastic so that after they are deformed during a donning process, earloops grip and apply force to a user’s ears. Id. at ¶ 52.
The Ito reference, however, further teaches forming a neckband in several different configurations that allow for a headset to be easily folded and stored. Ito at ¶¶ 44–48, FIG.12. The natural tendency of the headset to fold creates forces
P
1
,
P
2
and
P
3
in the neckband that tend to retain the headset in place by closing openings
E
1
and
E
2
in earloops 131, 132. Id. at ¶¶ 49–55, FIGs.13, 14.
Read in light of Mainin, Ito’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Mainini’s headset 2 to alternatively include a flexible neckband that is capable of folding and unfolding through elastic deformation. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would have improved the ability of Mainini’s headset 2 to be folded for compact storage and to retain a grip on the user’s head when worn. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the angle between the first extension line and the second extension line is set from 40 degrees to 60 degrees.”
Mainini does not define an angle between first and second extension lines. It is evident from Figure 1, above, that the angle itself is subject to multiple definitions since the points defining the extension lines may be moved to multiple locations on the surface of earloops 10 and 11. Further, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the angle is a matter of design choice that seeks to optimize comfort and stability for a chosen userbase (the userbase itself is also a design choice as whether a mass market or custom design is desired). See Mainini at ¶ 51, FIG.4 (describing the choice of angle 56 as a balance between comfort and stability) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation on the relative sizes and spacings between segments 12 and 20 (and 13 and 21) in order to derive an optimally comfortable and stable fit for a chosen userbase. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein an elastic force that is a reaction force generated in the coupling band that is elastically deformed when the pair of ear hooking arms are separated in a left-right direction is a side force,
“an elastic force that is a reaction force generated in the coupling band that is elastically deformed when a slope angle of the ear hooking arm in relation to a vertical direction changes is a restoring force, and
“the pair of ear hooking arms are sloped in a vertical state or such that respective upper end portions are positioned more toward an inner side in the left-right direction than lower end portions in a non-worn state on the ear.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of modifying the Mainini headset 2 so that its neckband 32 is elastically deformable like the one taught in the Ito reference. In that case, neckband 32 will generate left-right side forces. See Ito at FIG.13 (describing forces
P
1
and
P
2
). Similarly, Mainini describes a restoring force generated by earloops 10 and 11 when they are displaced in relation to a vertical direction during donning. Mainini at ¶ 44, 52–54, FIG.5. Mainini’s earloops 10 and 11 are also formed as claimed. See Figure 2, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Marked-up version of Mainini at FIG.3 (showing relative orientation of upper and lower ends of earloops).
For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“wherein the slope angle of the ear hooking arm in relation to the vertical direction is set from 0 degrees to 20 degrees.”
Mainini does not define the angle between an ear hooking arm and a vertical direction. It is evident from Figure 2, above, that the angle itself is subject to multiple definitions since the points defining the extension lines may be moved to multiple locations on the surface of earloops 10 and 11. Further, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the angle is a matter of design choice that seeks to optimize comfort and stability for a chosen userbase (the userbase itself is also a design choice as whether a mass market or custom design is desired). See Mainini at ¶ 51, FIG.4 (describing the choice of angle 56 as a balance between comfort and stability) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation on the relative sizes and spacings between segments 12 and 20 (and 13 and 21) in order to derive an optimally comfortable and stable fit for a chosen userbase. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“wherein the restoring force is smaller than the side force in a state in which the pair of ear hooking arms are separated in the left-right direction and a distance between both is 120 mm.”
Claim 7 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“wherein the restoring force is smaller than the side force when an angle of a line segment connecting a front end and a back end of the ear hooking arm in relation to a reference line extending in a front-back direction is 16 degrees or less.”
Claims 5 and 7 similarly recite relative force profiles in different states. The obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 2, incorporated herein, show the obviousness of modifying Mainini’s headset 2 to include a flexible neckband that produces force to retain the headset in place. The rejections also show the obviousness of forming an angle between a front end and back end of earloops 10 and 11 through routine experimentation to optimize comfort and stability in a chosen userbase.
Mainini does not define a relation between a side force and a restoring force. One of ordinary skill would have understood that the relation is a matter of design choice that seeks to optimize comfort and stability for a chosen userbase (the userbase itself is also a design choice as whether a mass market or custom design is desired). See Mainini at ¶¶ 44, 52, 54 (describing the application of force on a user’s ear); Ito at ¶¶ 52–55, FIGs.13, 14 (describing the application of force on a user’s ear).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation on the relative amount of force provided by each force generating mechanism in headset 2 to derive an optimally comfortable and stable fit for a chosen userbase. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 6 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“wherein a distance between back ends of the pair of ear hooking arms is less than a distance between front ends of the pair of ear hooking arms in a state in which the pair of ear hooking arms are separated in the left-right direction and a distance between both is 120 mm.”
Similarly, the back portions 20, 21 of Mainini’s earloops 10, 11 are located closer to each other as the earloops are brought closer together. See Mainini at FIGs.1, 4 (depicting portions 20, 21 as being closer in a normal state (i.e., 250 mm separation), meaning they will still be closer when forced closer together towards 120 mm separation). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein a straight line connecting the first contact point and the third contact point is a connecting line, and an angle between the connecting line and a surface of the speaker unit opposing the concha auriculae is set from 40 degrees to 75 degrees.”
Mainini does not define the angle between a speaker surface and a line connecting first and third contact points. It is evident from Spec. at FIG.19 that the angle itself is subject to multiple definitions since the points defining the extension lines depend on the user’s anatomy. Further, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the angle is a matter of design choice that seeks to optimize comfort and stability for a chosen userbase (the userbase itself is also a design choice as whether a mass market or custom design is desired). See Mainini at ¶ 51, FIG.4 (describing the choice of angle 56 as a balance between comfort and stability). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation on the relative sizes and spacings between segments 12 and 20 (and 13 and 21) in order to derive an optimally comfortable and stable fit for a chosen userbase. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the ear hooking arm is provided with an intermediate portion between the front side portion and the back side portion,
“the intermediate portion being positioned on an uppermost side in a worn state, and
“a width in the left-right direction of the intermediate portion is set to 7 mm or less.”
Mainini’s earloops 10, 11 similarly include apex portions 18 located at the apex of the user’s ears and corresponding to the claimed intermediate portion. Mainini at ¶ 43, FIG.1. Apex portions 18 are 5 mm, or less. Id. at ¶ 47. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein a center of gravity of the speaker unit is positioned directly below the first contact point.”
Similarly, Mainini positions speaker capsules 14, 15 below contact points on portions 12, 13. Mainini at FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein a through hole of which a center axis intersects the concha auriculae is formed in the speaker unit.”
Mainini depicts eartips 30 that include a concha stabilizer with an opening, or through hole, as claimed. Mainini at FIG.1; see also Figure 3, below.
PNG
media_image3.png
304
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Marked-up version of Mainini at FIG.1 (showing location of open, or non-occluding, concha stabilizer.)
For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Mainini and the Ito references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–11 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Additional Citations
The following table lists additional references identified during searching. This Office action does not rely on these references, but they are considered relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed in this Application. Applicant is advised to consider these references carefully in planning a response to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
US 2003/0174853
Open loop concha retainer
US 2008/0219492
Dual direction restoring force
Table 2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
1/10/2026
1 Text citations to the Ito reference are made with reference to the machine translation provided by the Office. Image citations are made with reference to the original document.