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 .
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,609,405 (Fincham).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Fincham discloses:
(Currently amended) A transducer assembly comprising:
a laterally offset arrangement of different size transducers, the different size transducers comprising at least a first transducer having a diaphragm of a first size arranged in a first direction and a pair of transducers each having a diaphragm of a second size arranged in a second direction to output sound when driven by respective audio signals, and wherein a force produced by the first transducer is cancelled by a sum of forces produced by the pair of transducers when the different size transducers are driven by the audio signals. Note Col.2 lines 50 – 64 and Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 4, line 22. When it comes to size, Fincham speaks to diaphragms, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that larger drivers normally have larger diaphragms.
With respect to claim 13, the only difference is in the preamble claim 13 recites an electronic device. However, the transducer assembly is in the electronic device.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, note the Abstract, Col. 2, lines 50 – 64, Col. 4 lines 30 – 32 and Figs, 3A and 3B. Although Fincham does not specifically mention bass driver and full range drivers. Fincham does speak to 3 drivers and that they can be different types (subwoofer or other speakers or drivers) as long as they cancel each other out. Bass driver and full range drivers are just different types or sizes of drivers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated whatever type of drivers was deemed necessary as long as they canceled the sum of the forces.
With respect to claims 3 and 15, the use of a low pass filter, the use of low pass filters are notoriously old in the art and one skilled in the art would find it obvious to use a low pass filter whenever and wherever it was deemed necessary.
With respect to claims 4 and 16, note the rejection of claim 2 above.
With respect to claims 5 and 17, note the Abstract and Col. 7, lines 15 – 24.
With respect to claims 6, note the rejection of claims 2 and 3 above.
With respect to claim 7, note the rejections above and Col. 6, lines 35 – 38.
With respect to claim 8, note the Abstract.
With respect to claim 9 and 18 note the Abstract and the rejection of claim 10 below.
With respect to claim 10, this limitation is inherent when using multiple smaller drivers with larger drivers.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, speaker systems inherently generate vibration output, which is a type of haptic feedback.
With respect to claim 19, note the rejections above dealing with size and surface area. Claim 19 would be rejected similarly.
With respect to claim 20, Fincham discloses that the transducer assembly is with in the electronic device and still produces vibrations to housing of the electronic device just like the instant claim. However, Fincham does not disclose a trackpad for receiving the vibration but does disclose that the vibrations can be received by other components. The object is to reduce or eliminate vibration but, usually some vibrations remain and are felt in the housing. Trackpads are notoriously old in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated such whenever and wherever it was deemed necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Figs and Abstracts of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 -7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
07Mar2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
.