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
“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 , wherein each ear hooking arm of the pair of ear hooking arms is wearable on a respective ear of a pair of ears, and the pair of ears includes a left ear and a right [[ears]] ear;
Mainini’s headset 2 similarly includes left and right earloops 10 and 11 that correspond to the claimed pair of ear hooking arms. Id. at ¶¶ 41–43, FIG.1.
“a coupling band that is elastically deformable [[and]],
Mainini describes a neckband 32 that couples earloops 10 and 11. Id.
Mainini, however, does not describe neckband 32 as being elastically deformable.
“wherein the coupling band couples the pair of ear hooking arms, and
“the coupling band includes:
“an annular portion, and
“an upright portion continuous to an end of the annular portion; and
Neckband 32 couples earloops 10 and 11. Id. Neckband 32 includes an annular portion that fits around the back of a user’s neck. Id. at FIG.4. Neckband 32 is also configured with a continuous, upright portion 21 that extends upright from the annular portion 32. Id. at FIG.1.
“a speaker unit between an ear hooking arm of the pair of ear hooking arms and the coupling band, wherein , the portion of the speaker unit is
Earloops 10 and 11 include capsules 14, 15 that include respective left and right speakers located between apex segments 16 and 17 of loops 10 and 11 and neckband 32. 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.
“:
“a front side portion , and
“a back side portion on a back side of the auricle,
“the back side of the auricle is away from [sic]
“,
Mainini’s earloops 10 and 11 include behind-the-ear segments 20, 21 and connector segments 12, 13 that respectively correspond to the claimed back side portions and front 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.
“a portion of the back side portion is
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).
“a first surface of the speaker unit includes:
“a first portion coupled to the front side portion of the ear hooking arm, and
“a second portion coupled to the upright portion of the coupling band,
Each of Mainini’s speaker capsules 14, 15 includes a portion that couples to a respective front side portion 12 and 13. Id. at FIG.1.
Mainini, however, does not describe speaker capsules 14, 15 as including a second portion coupled to an upright portion of a coupling band. For example, capsules 14, 15 do not include a second portion that connects to portions 20, 21 of neckband 32.
“the front side portion is in contact with at least two points that include:
“
“a second contact point that is a portion on a front side of the tragus in a temporal region,
“the back side portion includes an upper end and a lower end,
“the back side portion is sloped in a state in which the [[an]] upper end is positioned more toward the [[a]] front side of the auricle than the [[a]] lower end [[and]],
“the back side portion is each of:
“a third contact point of a base of the auricle, and
“a fourth contact point of the base of the auricle,
“the third contact point is the fourth contact point in the
“a first [[an]] extension line connects
“a second [[an]] extension line connects
“an angle between the first extension line and the second extension line is an acute angle.”
Similar contact points and a similar acute angle are described by Mainini. See Figure 1, below.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
203
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Mainini at FIG.6 (highlighting the four points of contact that form first and second extension lines and the acute angle f between the extension lines.)
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. Further, Mainini does not anticipate forming speaker capsules 14 and 15 with a second portion that connects to upright portions (e.g., 20 and 21) of a coupling band (e.g., neckband 32).
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 Mainini, 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.
Further, the Ito reference describes multiple configurations of a headphone that includes a neckband. In one embodiment, the neckband includes upright portions that rise up near the back of a user’s auricle to make contact with an earhook that connects to a speaker capsule. Ito at ¶ 53, FIG.14. This is similar to the embodiments depicted in the Mainini reference. Compare Ito at FIG.14 with Mainini at FIG.1. In another embodiment, Ito teaches routing the neckband under the user’s auricle, such that the band’s upright portion rises in the front portion of the user’s auricle to make contact with a second portion of a speaker capsule that also includes a first portion that couples to an earhook 37 that fits over the top of the user’s auricle. Ito at ¶ 59, FIG.16.
Ito’s teaching of these two alternative embodiments would have reasonably suggested modifying Mainini’s headset 2 in a similar way. For example, one of ordinary skill would have modified Mainini’s neckband 32 to extend along the bottom of the user’s auricle, such that upright segments 20 and 21 rise in front of the user’s auricle in connect with a second, bottom portion of speaker capsules 14 and 15. The first, top portion of capsules 14 and 15 would then couple with ear loops/hooks 10, 11. In accordance with Ito’s example of member 37, hooks 10 and 11 would support headset 2 on the user’s ears, but would no longer directly couple with neckband 32. 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 in a range of
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 in a case where is [[are]] separated in a left-right direction of the coupling band, the coupling band elastically deforms and generates [[is]] a side force,
“in a case where , the coupling band elastically deforms and generates [[is]] a restoring force,
“each ear hooking arm of the pair of ear hooking arms has:
“a respective upper end portion of upper end portions, and
“a respective lower end portion of lower end portions, and
“in a non-worn state of the sound output device on the pair of ears, at least one of:
“the pair of ear hooking arms is [[are]] sloped in a vertical state, or
“the of the pair of ear hooking arms are positioned more toward an inner side in the left-right direction than the lower end portions of the pair of ear hooking arms.”
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 in a range of
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 is [[are]] separated in the left-right direction and a distance between the pair of ear hooking arms [[both]] is 120 millimeters [[mm]].”
Claim 7 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“wherein a line segment connects a front end of the ear hooking arm and a back end of the ear hooking arm,
“a reference line extends in a front-back direction of the sound output device, and
“the restoring force is smaller than the side force in a case where [[when]] an angle of the [[a]] line segment the [[a]] reference line
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 is [[are]] separated in the left-right direction and a distance between the pair of ear hooking arms [[both]] is 120 millimeters [[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 connecting connects ,
“a second surface of the speaker unit opposes the concha auriculae, and
“an angle between the connecting line and the second [[a]] surface of the speaker unit in a range of
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 further includes an intermediate portion between the front side portion and the back side portion,
“the intermediate portion is of the ear hooking arm in a worn state of the sound output device, and
“a [[the]] left-right direction of the intermediate portion a width of the intermediate portion is millimeters [[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
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 the speaker unit includes a through hole , and
“a center axis of the through hole intersects the concha auriculae
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
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (14 April 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 9–13 presents comments pertaining to the rejections presented in Non-Final Rejection (14 January 2026). Those comments have been considered, but are either moot or unpersuasive.
Applicant’s comments regarding claim 1 are moot in light of the additional findings and determinations made in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant’s comments regarding claims 2, 4, 7 and 8 that a rejection based on a design choice is inappropriate here because the Specification discloses certain benefits. This is not a persuasive argument. The rejection of these claims is not simply a design choice rejection. The rejection is premised (1) on a design choice as to what goals the designer wants to achieve (e.g., prioritizing comfort or stability in a particular userbase) (2) followed by routine experimentation on a set of variables known to influence the goals. In particular, Mainini at ¶ 51, FIG.4 demonstrates prior art knowledge of adjusting angles as a balance between comfort and stability. Thus, by employing routine experimentation, the various sizes and angles of a headset are adjusted to match the chosen userbase in a way that optimizes the headset in terms of comfort and stability.
Applicant cites passages from the Specification demonstrating that the claimed angles provide a more stable wearing state. But as seen in Mainini, the adjustment of the angles in question for wearing stability was already a known technique in the art. And while Mainini does not specifically describe the claimed angle ranges, that difference is bridged by the routine experimentation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted to adapt Mainini’s headset for stability among users of the designer’s chosen userbase. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not persuasively demonstrated any error in the Office action, and all the rejections will be maintained.
Conclusion
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 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/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
6/12/2026
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.
Prosecution Insights