DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
1. The terminal disclaimer filed on July 06, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of United States Patent 12,069,420 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed July 06, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0276159 A1, hereinafter "Liu") in view of Struzik (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0067857 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches an open earphone (earphone 100, Figs. 1-3, Para. [0030]) comprising:
an acoustic driver (acoustic driver 120, Fig. 3, Para. [0032]);
a housing configured to accommodate the acoustic driver (housing 110 accommodates acoustic driver 120, Fig. 3, Para. [0032]); and
a suspension structure (suspension structure 160, Figs. 1-3 and 4B, Para. [0042]) configured to fix the housing in a position near an ear of a user without blocking an ear canal, and hold an end of the housing away from the suspension structure to abut against a wall of a concha cavity of the user (the housing 110 to be located in the concha cavity 11, and the supporting portion 142 of the supporting member 140 at least leans against the lower edge 11b of the concha cavity 11 to maintain a relative position of the sound outlet 113 of the housing 110 and the ear canal 12, Figs. 1-3, and 4B, Para. [0036]; the housing is located in the concha cavity with causing blocking of the ear canal, Para. [0053]), wherein
the housing defines a first cavity accommodating the acoustic driver (housing 110 defines first cavity 111, Fig. 3, Para. [0032]),
the housing and the auricle define a second cavity (housing 110 and auricle of ear 10 forms a second cavity, Figs. 4B).
Liu fails to explicitly teach an acoustic driver configured to generate two sounds with opposite phases;
a housing configured to accommodate the acoustic driver, the housing being provided with two sound holes for outputting the two sounds with opposite phases respectively; and
the two sound holes are respectively located inside and outside of the second cavity.
However, Struzik teaches an acoustic driver (acoustic driver 172, Fig. 9A, Para. [0042]) configured to generate two sounds with opposite phases (acoustic driver 172 radiates front-side acoustic radiation into front acoustic cavity 174 and rear-side acoustic radiation into rear acoustic cavity 176, Fig. 9A, Para. [0042]; the sounds generated are out-of-phase [creating a dipole device], Paras. [0022], [0030], and [0044]);
a housing configured to accommodate the acoustic driver (housing 190, Figs. 9A, 9B, Para. [0042]), the housing being provided with two sound holes for outputting the two sounds with opposite phases respectively (sound holes 180 and 186, Fig. 9A, Para. [0042]); and
the two sound holes are respectively located inside and outside of the second cavity (sound hole 180 will be located inside the second cavity and sound hole 186 will be located outside the second cavity, Figs. 9A and 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the open earphone (as taught by Liu) to include the generation of two sounds with opposite phases, housing with two sound holes to output the opposing phase sounds and the two sound holes being inside and outside a second cavity (as taught by Struzik). Doing so can increase the resonance frequency of the openings (Struzik Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu in view of Struzik teach wherein the sound hole located inside of the second cavity is located on a side of the housing facing the ear canal (Struzik, transmission line 178 is directed toward ear canal opening 202, and places opening 180 over or very close to the ear canal opening, Figs. 9A and 9B, Para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu in view of Struzik teach wherein the sound hole located outside of the second cavity is located on a side of the housing toward a triangular fossa (Struzik, second hole 186 is shown to be located on a side of housing 190 towards the triangular fossa of ear 200, Figs, 9A and 9B).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 9B
Regarding Claim 9, Liu in view of Struzik teach wherein an angle between a side of the housing towards a triangular fossa and a tangent line at a connection point between the suspension structure and the housing is in a range of 100°-150° (Struzik, as shown in Fig. 9B, the angle between housing 190, 178 towards a triangular fossa of ear 200 and the tangent line at the connection point between suspension structure 192 and the housing will be over 100°, see modified Fig. 9B).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu in view of Struzik teach wherein a distance between a gap between the housing and an ear canal opening and the sound hole located outside of the second cavity is less than a distance between the two sound holes (Struzik, as shown in Figs. 9A and 9B, the gap between the housing (190, 178) and canal opening 202 and sound hole 180 and the sound hole 186 is less than a distance between sound holes 180 and 186; see also Para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu in view of Struzik teach further including an acoustic structure, the acoustic structure including a conduit disposed at one of the two sound holes (Struzik, opening 186 may not have a resistive element 188 or there may be multiple rear cavity openings/ports, Figs. 2, 4-7, and 10, Para. [0043]).
Regarding Claim 17, Liu in view of Struzik teach wherein the housing at least partially covers an ear canal opening of the user (Struzik, transmission line 178 is directed toward ear canal opening 202, and places opening 180 over or very close to the ear canal opening without blocking it, Fig. 9B, Para. [0042]).
5. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0276159 A1, hereinafter "Liu") in view of Struzik (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0067857 A1), and further in view of Gu et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 201616895 U, hereinafter "Gu").
Regarding Claim 6, Liu in view of Struzik fail to explicitly teach further comprising another sound hole located outside of the second cavity, wherein the another sound hole is located on a side of the housing toward an earlobe.
However, Gu teaches further comprising another sound hole located outside of the second cavity, wherein the another sound hole is located on a side of the housing toward an earlobe (another sound hole 5 is shown on a side of the housing toward an earlobe, Fig. 1; see also Paras. [0021] and [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the open earphone (as taught by Liu in view of Struzik) to include the sound hole on the housing toward an earlobe (as taught by Gu). Doing so enhances privacy of audio signal (Gu Para. [0022]).
6. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0276159 A1, hereinafter "Liu") in view of Struzik (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0067857 A1), and further in view of Kako et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0168557 A1, hereinafter "Kako").
Regarding Claim 7, Liu in view of Struzik fail to explicitly teach wherein a ratio of sound volume of sound output from the sound hole located outside of the second cavity to sound volume of sound output from the sound hole located inside of the second cavity is in a range of 0.7-1.3.
However, Kako teaches wherein a ratio of sound volume of sound output from the sound hole located outside of the second cavity to sound volume of sound output from the sound hole located inside of the second cavity is in a range of 0.7-1.3 (acoustic signal AC1 (i.e. sound from first sound hole 121a) and acoustic signal AC2 (i.e. sound from second hole 123a) can have the same amplitude [volume] (i.e. a ratio of 1), Para. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the open earphone (as taught by Liu in view of Struzik) to include the sound volume ratio in the range of 0.7-1.3 (as taught by Kako). Doing so the acoustic signal output device thus can suppress sound leakage into the surroundings without completely blocking the ear canal (Kako Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 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.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remark, pages 7-12, filed July 06, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 11, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Struzik have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment to independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik.
Liu teaches the suspension structure configured to fix the earphone housing to abut the concha cavity of the ear of the user without blocking the ear canal with the earphone housing and auricle defining a second cavity.
Struzik teaches the two sound holes which can be located inside and outside of the second cavity formed by the structure of Liu.
The combination of the teachings of Liu in view of Struzik renders independent Claim 1 obvious.
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik is maintained.
Dependent Claims 2, 13, and 17 are rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik.
The rejections of Claims 2, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik are maintained.
Dependent Claim 7 is rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik, and further in view of Kako.
The rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik, and further in view of Kako is maintained.
9. Regarding dependent Claims 5, 6, and 9, Applicant's arguments filed July 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 5, applicant argues (see applicant’s remark, page 12), Struzik does not disclose that "the sound hole located outside of the second cavity is disposed on a side of the housing facing the triangular fossa" recited in claim 5.
In response to applicant’s argument above, applicant has clearly misrepresented the position of the second sound hole of Struzik. Fig. 9A as shown below shows the correct position of the second sound hole (hole 186) of Struzik, which is clearly located on the side of housing (190) towards the triangular fossa when the earphone is in the worn state.
PNG
media_image2.png
273
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 5 is rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik.
The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik is maintained.
Regarding Claim 6, applicant argues (see applicant’s remark, pages 14 and 15), From paragraph [0001] of Gu, Gu discloses a receiver (earpiece), and particularly relates to a sound cavity in the receiver and an electronic device (e.g., a mobile terminal, a fixed telephone, etc.) having the sound cavity. Struzik, on the other hand, discloses an acoustic module, specifically an earphone. Struzik and Gu belong to entirely different technical fields. A person skilled in the art would have no motivation to apply the internal sound cavity design of a mobile phone receiver to the external housing of an earphone.
In response to applicant's argument that Gu is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Gu is in the field of an electronic device (e.g., headphones) having a sound cavity [Para. [0002]).
Dependent Claim 6 is rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik, and further in view of Gu.
The rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik, and further in view of Gu is maintained.
Regarding Claim 9, applicant argues (see applicant’s remark, pages 14 and 15), in Struzik, the angle between the side wall of the housing facing the triangular fossa and the tangent line at the connection point between the suspension structure and the housing is clearly an acute angle. Accordingly, Struzik fails to disclose features in amended claim 9.
In response to applicant's argument above, and using applicants Fig. 42 shown below and compared to Struzik modified Fig. 9B also shown below, it can be seen that Struzik clearly teaches the angle is within the range of 100°-150°.
Fig. 42 of Application 18803516
Struzik modified Fig. 9B
PNG
media_image3.png
417
295
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
356
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claim 9 is rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik.
The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui in view of Struzik is maintained.
Regarding Claim 11, applicant argues (see applicant’s remark, pages 14 and 15), even if Struzik discloses the distance between the gap between the housing and the ear canal opening 202 and the sound outlet 180 were less than the distance between the sound outlet 180 and the sound outlet 186, that still Struzik would not disclose the ratio, as recited in claim 11, of the distance from the gap between the housing and the ear canal entrance to the sound hole located outside the second cavity to the distance between the two sound holes being less than 1.78.
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 ratio) is not recited in the rejected claim. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 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
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights