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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
This Office action is in response to the Election filed on 6/16/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/15/2024, 7/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification - Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1-I (Figures 1-2) and Species 2-I (Figure 5) in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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, 5, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struzik (US 2021/0067858) in view of Silvestri et al. (US 2014/0363040).
Regarding claim 1, Struzik discloses an acoustic device (Fig. 6), comprising
a housing (108) and
a sound source (102) disposed in the housing (see Fig. 6), wherein
the housing is provided with a sound outlet hole (110) and a reverse-phase sound hole (112) in different surfaces of the housing (¶ 0026: 40 and 42 of Fig. 2 (which correspond to 110 and 112, respectively, of Fig. 6) are out of phase);
sounds emitted from the sound outlet hole and from the reverse-phase sound hole are opposite in phase (¶ 0026) and identical in amplitude (¶ 0018, 0026);
a first sound cavity (104) is formed between a front end of the sound source and the sound outlet hole (see Fig. 6), and a second sound cavity (106) is formed between a rear end of the sound source and the reverse-phase sound hole (see Fig. 6); and
the first sound cavity is communicated with the second sound cavity through an acoustic dipole opening (114) (¶ 0032 and see Fig. 6, and note that opening 114 connects 104 and 106, and since 104 and 106 have opposite polarities phase-wise and thus are two different polarities, 114 is considered to be a dipole opening).
Struzik is not relied upon to disclose that the acoustic dipole opening is an acoustic dipole tube.
In a similar field of endeavor, Silvestri discloses an acoustic dipole opening (119) that is an acoustic dipole tube (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure the acoustic dipole opening of Struzik to be an acoustic dipole tube, the motivation being to perform the simple substitution of one pressure equalization port (Struzik - ¶ 0032) for another (Silvestri - ¶ 0018) to obtain predictable results of a port for obtaining pressure equalization. See MPEP § 2143(B).
Regarding claim 2, Struzik-Silvestri discloses the acoustic device according to claim 1, and Struzik discloses wherein the sound source radiates sound signals to a front side and a rear side of the sound source (¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 5, Struzik-Silvestri discloses the acoustic device according to claim 1, and Struzik discloses wherein a set angle is formed between a sound outlet direction of the sound outlet hole and a sound outlet direction of the reverse-phase sound hole, and the set angle is 90° to 180° (Fig. 6: 180°).
Regarding claim 12, Struzik-Silvestri discloses the acoustic device according to claim 1, and Struzik discloses wherein the sound source is a single-vibrating diaphragm loudspeaker (102) (¶ 0026); the single-vibrating diaphragm loudspeaker is provided with a first vibrating diaphragm (44 of Fig. 2, which also appears unlabeled in Fig. 6); the first sound cavity is formed between the first vibrating diaphragm and an inner wall of the housing (see Fig. 6); and the second sound cavity is formed between a rear side of the single-vibrating diaphragm loudspeaker and an inner wall of the housing (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0026: rear-side acoustic radiation enters rear cavity which indicates that rear side of diaphragm forms part of cavity).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struzik in view of Silvestri in view of Sapiejewski et al (EP 2059067).
Regarding claim 6, Struzik-Silvestri discloses the acoustic device according to claim 1.
Struzik-Silvestri is not relied upon to disclose wherein volumes of the first sound cavity and the second sound cavity are both greater than 0.8 cm3, and the volume of the first sound cavity is 0.4 to 6 times that of the second sound cavity.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sapiejewski discloses wherein volumes of the first sound cavity and the second sound cavity are both greater than 0.8 cm3, and the volume of the first sound cavity is 0.4 to 6 times that of the second sound cavity (¶ 0011, and note that 50/15=3.33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein volumes of the first sound cavity and the second sound cavity are both greater than 0.8 cm3, and the volume of the first sound cavity is 0.4 to 6 times that of the second sound cavity, the motivation being to use preferable volumes for a front and rear cavity (Sapiejewski - ¶ 0011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-11, 18-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 3, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein a spatial coordinate system is established with Ear canal Entrance Point, EEP, in Standard ITU-T P.57, as an origin point, the EEP is provided as the origin point 0, a positive semi-axis of X axis that is perpendicular to an ear outwardly is provided, a positive semi-axis of Y axis that is perpendicular to the ear forwardly is provided, and a positive semi-axis of Z axis that is vertical upwardly is provided; when the acoustic device is worn, the sound outlet hole is located in an area of (0 mm, -12.2 mm, -5.2 mm), (15.3 mm, 3.2 mm, 13.3 mm) and (3 mm, 10 mm, -10 mm) in the coordinate system, and the reverse-phase sound hole is located in an area of (5 mm, -22 mm, -3.2mm), (27.3mm, 15mm, 18mm) and (5mm, -15mm, 12mm) in the coordinate system.”
In regard to claim 7, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein the sound outlet hole and the reverse-phase sound hole are both provided with acoustic mesh clothes, respectively, and an acoustic impedance of the sound outlet hole and the corresponding acoustic mesh cloth, and an acoustic impedance of the reverse-phase sound hole and the corresponding acoustic mesh cloth are less than or equal to 9*107 Pa•s/m3.”
In regard to claim 8, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein a cross-sectional area of the sound outlet hole is 20% to 35% of an area of a vibrating diaphragm of the sound source, and a cross-sectional area of the reverse-phase sound hole is 15% to 20% of the area of the vibrating diaphragm of the sound source.”
In regard to claim 9, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein areas of the sound outlet hole and the reverse-phase sound hole are both greater than or equal to 4 mm2, and the area of the sound outlet hole is 0.4 to 2.5 times that of the reverse-phase sound hole.”
In regard to claim 10, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein a cross-sectional area of the acoustic dipole tube is greater than or equal to 2 mm2, and a length of the acoustic dipole tube is greater than or equal to 2 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm.”
In regard to claim 11, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein the acoustic dipole tube is provided with an acoustic mesh cloth at a position where the first sound cavity or the second sound cavity is communicated with the acoustic dipole tube; and an acoustic impedance formed by the acoustic dipole tube and the corresponding acoustic mesh cloth is less than or equal to 9*107 Pa•s/m3.”
In regard to claim 18, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein the sound source is provided with a vibrating diaphragm, and a distance between a center of two ends of the acoustic dipole tube and a center of the vibrating diaphragm is not more than 25 mm.”
In regard to claim 19, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein a distance between a center of two ends of the acoustic dipole tube and a center of the sound outlet hole and a distance between the center of two ends of the acoustic dipole tube and a center of the reverse-phase sound hole are both not more than 30 mm.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm EST.
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 R EDWARDS can be reached on 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights