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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed on 09/14/2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 remain in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the structures presented in Figs. 3 and 6 are not non-manufacturable shapes, the examiner respectfully disagrees, and provides a proof below in further support of this assertion.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3 of applicant’s specification (annotated))]
PNG
media_image1.png
350
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that Torbati does not solve the same technical problem as the current application (See Pg. 8, last paragraph of filed remarks), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Moreover, Torbati does consider in at least ¶[0030]-¶[0032] that these components described are for improved acoustic damping of earmolds, especially in the 4000-8000 Hz range, which would reduce the howling described in applicant’s arguments.
In response to applicant’s argument that Torbati does not disclose a foam material including multiple repeating units (See Pg. 9, first paragraph of filed remarks), the examiner asserts that this is not the case. As explained in the non-final rejection dated 06/16/2026, Torbati discloses in ¶[0023], ¶[0030] wherein the 3D printed foam is provided in the form of a lattice, a lattice being a periodic (repeating) three-dimensional structure.
In further support of the examiner’s interpretation of the lattice as described by Torbati, the examiner notes that the structure of Torbati is additionally described as a digital foam in ¶[0023], lines 5-7. In a separate example, not relied upon for purposes of rejection, but provided as a visual aid, a digital foam with a visible repeating porous lattice is depicted below in an excerpt from “What is Digital Foam? [online]. EOS GmbH, 2020” (provided as NPL with this office action).
PNG
media_image2.png
641
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt from “What is Digital Foam?” EOS GmbH
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Figs. 3 and 6 fail to show a manufacturable repeating structure comprised of rods and holes as described in the specification (Initially at ¶[0009]). Rather, the illustration appears to be of a repeating series of impossible triangular objects (e.g. Penrose Triangles), depicted immediately below, overlaid with Fig. 3 of the present application.
PNG
media_image3.png
340
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of applicant’s specification, overlaid with and arranged next to a Penrose Triangle.
The examiner offers further explanation below as to why this structure is impossible:
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3 of applicant’s specification (annotated))]
PNG
media_image1.png
350
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonikas et al (hereinafter Stonikas), US-PG-PUB No. 2002/0025055 (previously cited) in view of Torbati et al (hereinafter Torbati), US-PG-PUB No. 2025/0135721 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Stonikas discloses, at least as shown in Fig. 17B, an acoustic element (earpiece 80), comprising: a first end (left side) adapted to be located proximate to inside of an ear (The earpiece is for insertion into an ear canal.....¶[0119], lines 4-6) and a second end (right side) adapted to be located proximate to outside of the ear (¶[0119], lines 4-6); and a porous structure provided between the first end and the second end (The compressible matrix 82a.....¶[0119], lines 6-7), the porous structure being provided with: a plurality of first holes in communication with each other (The matrix is made of an open-celled foam, which, by definition, comprises a plurality of cavities interlinked by holes in communication with each other.....¶[0073], lines 1-3), wherein the first end is in communication with the second end through at least part of the first holes (Shown in Fig. 17B, the porous structure comprising the first holes is between the two ends, communicating them); and an accommodating cavity (Receiver 86a is placed in a cavity.....¶[0119], lines 1-3) configured to at least partially accommodate a first audio device (Receiver 86a), wherein the accommodating cavity is in communication with an external environment from the first end (Sound is expelled from the receiver through the first end.....¶[0119], lines 1-4).
Stonikas fails to disclose wherein the porous structure is a three-dimensional frame structure.
Torbati teaches a 3D printed acoustic element for an ear mold (¶[0030], lines 11-13), comprising wherein the porous structure is a three-dimensional frame structure (The inner material may be a 3D (three-dimensional) printed lattice (a frame structure).....¶[0030], lines 11-13), the three-dimensional frame structure comprises a plurality of repeating units (A lattice is a regular, repeating structure), the plurality of repeating units are arranged in an array in a three-dimensional space (The repeating structures form an array, which, as they are 3D printed, exist in 3D space), and the plurality of first holes are formed between the plurality of repeating units (The lattice is porous, thus comprising a plurality of first holes.....¶[0023], lines 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas by Torbati teachings to provide the benefit of a room-temperature manufacturing method requiring minimal post-processing (Torbati, ¶[0027], lines 1-6), as well as reduced acoustic feedback and increased comfort for the wearer due to the usage of liquid crystal elastomer foams, which provides improved attenuation over silicone between 4000-8000 Hz and, when at body temperature, improved compressibility over silicone (Torbati, ¶[0032]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the porous structure is a three-dimensional frame structure.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic element according to claim 1.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein at least part of the plurality of first holes in communication with each other form a mesh channel (Shown in Fig. 17B, there are two channels defined within the plurality of first holes of the open-celled foam, one for the receiver, its output, and wires, as well as one for tube 86b), and the first end is in communication with the second end through the mesh channel (Shown in Fig. 17B, the channels extend between both ends of the element).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic element according to claim 1.
Torbati additionally teaches a 3D printed acoustic element for an ear mold (¶[0030], lines 11-13), wherein a porosity of the porous structure is less than or equal to 99% (The methods of Torbati enable porosity levels lower than 60%.....¶[0028], lines 10-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas and Torbati further by Torbati to provide the benefit of a room-temperature manufacturing method requiring minimum post-processing (Torbati, ¶[0027], lines 1-6). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein a porosity of the porous structure is less than or equal to 99%.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic element according to claim 1.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein the porous structure is further provided with an acoustic hole (Shown in Fig. 17B, a gap in the porous structure (acoustic hole) allows the receiver (86a) to communicate with the first end of the element), the acoustic hole is provided between the accommodating cavity and the first end (Shown in Fig. 17B), and the accommodating cavity is in communication with the external environment through the acoustic hole (As shown, the tube provided to the acoustic hole communicates the receiver in the cavity to the external environment of the first end).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic element according to claim 1.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein the acoustic element is an intra-aural (The element of 17B is designed for insertion into an ear canal) ear mold.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati, as explained above, teach the acoustic element of claim 1.
Stonikas additionally teaches an acoustic device (Shown in 17B, the earpiece is for a behind-the-ear hearing aid (acoustic device).....¶[0119], lines 1-2) comprising an acoustic element (and therefore the acoustic element of claim 1) (80) and first audio device (receiver 86a) accommodated within an accommodating cavity of the acoustic element (Shown in 17B).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic device according to claim 17.
Stonikas additionally teaches further comprising a second audio device (The external ear circuitry (comprised of a microphone and audio processing circuitry) of the behind the ear hearing aid.....¶[0119], lines 1-3, ¶[0072], lines 8-10) communicatively connected to the first audio device (The external ear circuitry provides signals (communicates) to the receiver.....¶[0119], lines 1-4)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic device according to claim 18.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein the second device is a hearing aid (BTE hearing aid…..¶[0119]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic device according to claim 17.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein the second device communicates with the first audio device through a signal line (Shown in Fig. 17B, the receiver (86a) receives electrical signals from the hearing aid processing circuitry, which, based on the circumstantial evidence of the disclosure (e.g. the exploded view of the hearing aid of 15B), such signals are conducted via the wires extending from the right side of the acoustic element.....¶[0119], lines 1-4).
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonikas in view of Torbati in further view of “Microlattice Metamaterials with Simultaneous Superior Acoustic and Mechanical Energy Absorption” [online] Small, 2021 (hereinafter Li) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati, as explained above, teach the acoustic element according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein each repeating unit comprises at least three rods respectively extend in non-coplanar directions, and ends of adjacent rods of the plurality of repeating units are connected to each other.
Li teaches a microlattice element for acoustic absorption wherein each repeating unit comprises at least three rods respectively extend in non-coplanar directions (Shown on Pg. 3, Fig. 2, the fluorite truss microlattice (repeating unit) comprises at least 3 rods, extending in a plurality of non-coplanar directions), and ends of adjacent rods of the plurality of repeating units are connected to each other (Several of the rods of the repeating structure terminate at the edges of the structure and connect to rods of the next structure in the repeating lattice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas and Torbati by Li to provide the benefit of a lightweight sound absorbing material (Li, Pg. 2, ¶3, lines 4-7). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein each repeating unit comprises at least three rods respectively extend in non-coplanar directions, and ends of adjacent rods of the plurality of repeating units are connected to each other.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Stonikas, Torbati, and Li teach the acoustic element according to claim 4, wherein a longitudinal dimension of each rod is from 100 microns to 5 millimeters (The fluorite-truss lattice of Fig. 2 is a 6 mm repeating structure (Shown in Pt. B of Fig. 2), with the longest trusses (rods) extending from a center of one face to the center of an adjacent face of the repeating structure. As the faces are 6 mm in size, and the trusses extend from the center, a truss forms a hypotenuse of a right triangle with 3 mm edges, indicating the length of the truss is ~4.2 mm), and a transverse dimension of each rod is from 20 microns to 1 millimeter (On the front of the fluorite-truss lattice is a half-rod extending the length of the structure face. Taking the distance from corner to center of the face as ~4.2 mm, the transverse dimension is visibly under 1/5 the length of the half rod, and visibly over 119/25000 the length of the half rod, and is therefore under between 20 microns and 1 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Stonikas, Torbati, and Li by Li to provide the benefit of a lightweight sound absorbing material (Li, Pg. 2, ¶3, lines 4-7). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein a longitudinal dimension of each rod is from 100 microns to 5 millimeters and a transverse dimension of each rod is from 20 microns to 1 millimeter.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic element according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein hole diameters of the plurality of first holes are from 100 microns to 5 millimeters.
Li teaches a microlattice element for acoustic absorption wherein the hole diameters of said lattice are from 100 microns to 5 millimeters (Shown in Fig. 2, on Pg. 8, the fluorite-truss repeating lattice is 6 mm long per edge of repeating unit cell (Pg. 2, Col. 2, last 5 lines). As no gaps (holes) in the lattice have dimensions larger than 5/6 the length of the unit cell, or smaller than 1/60 the length of the unit cell, the hole diameters are visibly between 100 microns and 5 millimeters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas and Torbati by Li to provide the benefit of a lightweight sound absorbing material (Li, Pg. 2, ¶3, lines 4-7). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein hole diameters of the plurality of first holes are from 100 microns to 5 millimeters.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonikas in view of Torbati in further view of “Highly compressible 3D periodic graphene aerogel microlattices,” [online] Nature Communications, 2015 (hereinafter Cheng), with supporting evidence from “Precise control of versatile microstructure and properties of graphene aerogel via freezing manipulation” [online] Nanoscale, 2020 (hereinafter Zhu) (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati, as explained above, teach the acoustic element according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of repeating units are formed of a porous material having a plurality of second holes.
Cheng teaches a microlattice, analogous to the lattice of Torbati, wherein a plurality of repeating units (A lattice is a plurality of repeating units) are formed of a porous material having a plurality of second holes (The lattice is formed of a graphene aerogel, a porous material having a plurality of nanoscale micropores.....Cheng, Pg. 4, Fig. 2, with evidence of the plurality of second holes shown in Zhu, Pg. 6, Col 2, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas and Torbati by Cheng to provide the benefit of supercompressibility of the acoustic element (Cheng, Abstract). Such modification would make obvious the feature wherein the plurality of repeating units are formed of a porous material having a plurality of second holes.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonikas in view of Torbati and Cheng, in further view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Stonikas, Torbati, and Cheng teach the acoustic element according to claim 6, but fail to explicitly teach wherein hole diameters of the plurality of second holes are less than or equal to 50 microns.
Zhu teaches a method wherein the pore size of graphene aerogels (analogous to the aerogels of Cheng) may be controlled to be under 50 microns (5.9 micron pore size…..Zhu, Pg. 6, Col 2, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas, Torbati, and Cheng by Zhu to provide the benefit of a material capable of sustaining greater compressive stress (Zhu, Pg. 6, Col 2, last paragraph). Such modification would make obvious the feature wherein hole diameters of the plurality of second holes are less than or equal to 50 microns.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonikas in view of Torbati in further view of Freels et al (hereinafter Freels), US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0014427 (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic element according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein a porosity of the porous structure gradually decreases in a direction from the first end to the second end.
Freels teaches an earmould wherein a porosity of a porous structure gradually decreases in a direction from the first end to the second end (Shown in Fig. 2, the density of the earmould skeleton (3), increases (and thus the porosity decreases) from the first (right) end to the second (left) end.....¶[0041], lines 9-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas and Torbati by Freels to provide the benefit of increased flexibility, specific to the wearer (Freels, ¶[0025], lines 17-24). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein a porosity of the porous structure gradually decreases in a direction from the first end to the second end.
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonikas in view of Torbati in further view of Mun, Korean Patent Publication No. 20160028298 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Stonikas and Torbati teach the acoustic element according to claim 1.
Stonikas additionally teaches further comprising an outer housing (Shown in Fig. 17B, elastomeric skin (82b).....¶[0117], lines 1-4) wherein the porous structure is provided in the outer housing (82a is provided inside of 82b), the housing has a first opening at the first end (A tube extends from the receiver 86a out from a first opening of the housing at the first end) and a second opening at the second end (A tube extends from the receiver 86a out from a second opening of the housing at the second end).
This further combination fails to teach wherein the porous structure is exposed from the first and second openings.
Mun teaches an eartip analogous to the acoustic element of Stonikas, wherein a porous structure is exposed from a first and second opening (Shown in Fig. 7, a silicone foam structure (porous structure) is encased in housing (130), with the structure exposed to first and second openings at points (101) and (120), respectively.....¶[0044], lines 1-2, ¶[0137], lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stonikas and Torbati by Mun to provide the benefit of improved sound quality of at the high frequency range (Mun, ¶[0052], lines 6-8). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the porous structure is exposed from the first and second openings.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Stonikas, Torbati, and Mun teaches, as explained above, the acoustic element according to claim 11.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein the porous structure is elastic (The structure is compressible, bendable, and provides restorative force when compressed, and is therefore elastic…..¶[0025], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stonikas, Torbati, and Mun teaches, as explained above, the acoustic element according to claim 11.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein a size of a portion of the housing is adapted to a user’s ear canal (The housing may be based on a user’s ear canal impression.....¶[0098], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Stonikas, Torbati, and Mun teaches, as explained above, the acoustic element according to claim 11.
Stonikas additionally teaches wherein the acoustic element comprises a fixing structure (Shown in Fig. 17B, the earpiece is divided into an intra-canal portion on the left, which expands into a fixing structure portion on the right configured to fit into the pinna (outside the canal)), wherein the fixing structure cooperates with the pinna of a user (If the earpiece of Fig. 17B is inserted into the ear, the fixing structure portion will cooperate with the concha, tragus, and anti-tragus of the pinna) and is connected to the housing to fix the acoustic element to the ear of the user (The fixing structure is additionally encased by housing 72b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“What is Digital Foam? [online]. EOS GmbH, 2020”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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 on (571) 272-7488. 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.
/SEAN RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights