Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1-25, the applicant argues that the board’s decision is not relevant to the current claimed limitations because the applicant’s claimed invention relies on an absolute coordinates mode when in a keypad mode and on a relative coordinate mode when in a pointing device mode [see applicant’s arguments pg. 9 last two paragraphs].
Again the applicant argues the relevance of the board’s decision in regards to the combination of references used to reject the limitation of “relative coordinate mode” in claim 1. The examiner and one of the examiner’s supervisors have already concluded that the board’s decision regarding the combination of references still applies in the current rejection because the current claim is broader than the claim reviewed by the board, and the same prior art that was used to reject the current broader claim was also used to reject the narrower claim reviewed by the board [see response to arguments in office actions dated March 4, 2022 and October 31, 2022]. Furthermore, the fact that a new mode of operation is claimed does not mean that the field of endeavor of the claimed invention has changed or the problem faced by the inventor has changed because the field of endeavor of the claimed invention still is a keypad and the problem faced by the inventor still is the combination of a keypad with a touch input. Since the board has already decided that the combination of references is proper, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to inform the applicant that any future arguments regarding the relevance of the board’s decision will not be considered because the examiner has already addressed this issue several times in previous actions [see office action dated December 14, 2020, March 4, 2022, October 31, 2022, May 23, 2023, December 26, 2023, July 16, 2024, January 31, 2025 and August 1, 2025], and the examiner has made clear that the examiner does not agree with the applicant’s opinion.
The examiner also would like to emphasize that regardless of whether or not the board’s decision still applies in the current rejection, the examiner has made clear on record that the examiner believes that the prior art used in the rejections teaches all the claimed limitations, and that the combination of references is proper. Therefore, all applicant’s arguments regarding of the board’s decision are irrelevant.
It is clear that the examiner and the applicant will not come to an agreement regarding the rejection of the current claims and the combination of references. Therefore, the examiner would like to remind the applicant that the applicant has the option to appeal the last decision of the examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tiphane (US-6,680,677) in view of Zadesky (US-7,499,040).
In regards to claim 1, Tiphane teaches an input device comprising a flexible touchpad [fig. 3 element 56, fig. 4 element 56, col. 1 L. 60-63, col. 3 L. 45-50]. Tiphane also teaches that the device comprises one or more of pushbuttons positioned below the flexible touchpad [fig. 3 element 58, fig. 4 element 58, col. 3 L. 45-50, col. 3 L. 56-58]. Furthermore, Tiphane teaches that the input device comprises a processor, a collection of software and hardware in communication with the flexible touchpad and pushbuttons [fig. 2 elements 28, 36, 14, 26, col. 3 L. 14-16]. Also, Tiphane teaches that said flexible touchpad and pushbuttons retain a recognizable tactile feedback [fig. 4, col. 3 L. 56-58 teach that the touchpad is molded around each key. This teaching means that each pushbutton and flexible touchpad retain a recognizable tactile feedback because each key will retain its original shape].
Tiphane does not teach that the input device comprises instructions to observe and interpret interaction of a contact point with said flexible touchpad and pushbuttons and instructions to operate the flexible touchpad effectively in relative coordinate mode.
On the other hand, Zadesky teaches a touchpad device having pushbuttons positioned below said touchpad [col. 7 L. 25-31]. Zadesky teaches that one or more instructions defined within said processor can be configured to observe and interpret an interaction of a contact point with the touchpad and pushbuttons [col. 8 L. 25-46]. Also, Zadesky teaches that the input device can effectively function in a relative coordinate mode [col. 5 L. 49-59]. This teaching means that the input device comprises instructions to operate the touchpad effectively in a relative coordinate mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Zadesky’s teachings of using the touchpad as a second input means in the input device taught by Tiphane because it will permit the touchpad to be used as a mouse replacement and also as an input device when the pushbuttons are actuated.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tiphane (US-6,680,677) in view of Zadesky (US-7,499,040) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levy (US-2003/0160712).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Tiphane and Zadesky, as applied in claim 1 above, does not explicitly teach that the flexible touchpad has a continuous stretch of surface.
On the other hand, Levy teaches that one or more pushbuttons of a keypad can be built in such a way that they form a continuous stretch of surface [fig. 6]. Also, Levy teaches that at each location of a pushbutton, the surface provides tactile feedback in the form of an undulating surface [fig. 6]. This teaching means that said input device provides recognizable lateral tactile feedback of said one or more pushbuttons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Levy’s teachings of forming the push buttons with a continuous stretch of surface and recognizable lateral tactile feedback in the input device taught by the combination because it will help the input device to be almost flat while maintaining tactile feedback for each pushbutton.
The combination of Tiphane, Zadesky and Levy teaches that the flexible touchpad keeps the shape of the pushbuttons [see Tiphane fig. 4], and that the one or more pushbuttons can have a shape of a continuous stretch of surface that provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback [see Levy fig. 6]. These teachings mean that when Levy’s teachings are applied in the combination’s input device, the flexible touchpad will have a continuous stretch of surface as a result of the flexible touchpad keeping the same shape as the one or more pushbuttons, and said input device will provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback of said one or more pushbuttons through the surface of said flexible touchpad.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Tiphane, Zadesky and Levy, as applied in claim 2 above, further teaches that the one or more pushbuttons are actuators that can be individually actuated [see Tiphane fig. 4, col. 3 L. 45-50, see Zadesky fig. 7A and 7B]. The combination further teaches that the processor coordinates the interaction on the continuous stretch of surface of the flexible touchpad and a state of the one or more pushbuttons [see Tiphane fig. 2 element 28, col. 3 L. 25-50, col. 4 L. 14-26, see Zadesky col. 8 L. 25-46].
In regards to claims 4 and 5, the combination of Tiphane, Zadesky and Levy, as applied in claim 3 above, teaches that the touchpad can detect when a pushbutton moves from a first position to a second position [see Tiphane col. 3 L. 45-59, see Zadesky col. 10 L. 7-14]. This means that the buttons that are below the touchpad can recognize pushbutton actuation and de-actuation events when the button is actuated and released. The combination also teaches that it is well known in the art that the touchpad can be used as a selection device when an object touches the surface of the touchpad [see Zadesky col. 1 L. 40-45]. This means that the touchpad can detect an engagement event and a disengagement event. The combination further teaches that the pushbuttons can be used as selection buttons or other functions [see Zadesky col. 9 L. 52-54]. This means that the engagement event and the actuation event can be treated as selection buttons (the same) or can be treated differently (pushbutton having different function).
In regards to claims 6 and 7, the combination of Tiphane, Zadesky and Levy, as applied in claim 3 above, teaches that the touchpad can detect when a pushbutton moves from a first position to a second position [see Tiphane col. 3 L. 45-59, see Zadesky col. 10 L. 7-14]. This means that the buttons that are below the touchpad can recognize pushbutton actuation and de-actuation events when the button is actuated and released. The combination also teaches that it is well known in the art that the touchpad can be used as a selection device when an object touches the surface of the touchpad [see Zadesky col. 1 L. 40-45]. This means that the touchpad can detect an engagement event and a disengagement event. The combination further teaches that the pushbuttons can be used as selection buttons or other functions [see Zadesky col. 9 L. 52-54]. This means that the disengagement event and the de-actuation event can be treated the same (stopping a selection function) or can be treated differently (pushbutton release stops different function than a selection function).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tiphane (US-6,680,677) in view of Zadesky (US-7,499,040) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levy (US-2003/0160712) and Park et al. (US-7,020,269).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Tiphane and Zadesky, as applied in claim 1 above, does not explicitly teach that the flexible touchpad has an even continuous stretch of surface of display which yields to provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback.
On the other hand, Levy teaches that pushbuttons of a keypad can be built in such a way that they form an even continuous stretch of surface [fig. 6]. Also, Levy teaches that at each location of a pushbutton, the surface provides tactile feedback in the form of an undulating surface [fig. 6]. This teaching means that the even continuous stretch of surface yields to provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback for said one or more pushbuttons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Levy’s teachings of forming the push buttons with an even continuous stretch of surface and recognizable lateral tactile feedback in the input device taught by the combination because it will help the input device to be almost flat while maintaining tactile feedback for each pushbutton.
The combination of Tiphane, Zadesky and Levy teaches that the flexible touchpad keeps the shape of the pushbuttons [see Tiphane fig. 4], and that the one or more pushbuttons can have a shape of an even continuous stretch of surface that provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback [see Levy fig. 6]. These teachings mean that when Levy’s teachings are applied in the combination’s input device, the flexible touchpad will have an even continuous stretch of display surface which yields to provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback because of the flexible touchpad keeping the same shape as the one or more pushbuttons.
Furthermore, the combination of Tiphane, Zadesky and Levy, further teaches that the touchpad captures the movement of the contact point and that the instructions trigger a signal conditional on the position of the contact point [see Zadesky col. 8 L. 32-37]. However, the combination does not teach that the input device allows tracing a pattern by tactile sense.
On the other hand, Park teaches that a processor, with the use of a touch pad, can be configured to receive and recognize traced patterns drawn on the touchpad [col. 4 L. 35-45, col. 4 L. 55-67]. This teaching means that the input device allows tracing a pattern by tactile sense.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Park’s teachings of using the touchpad to input traced patterns in the device taught by the combination because it will permit a device using the input device to implement different functions based on the traced patterns such as speed dial in a mobile phone.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Tiphane, Zadesky, Levy and Park, as applied in claim 8 above, further teaches that the processor triggers a signal based on coordinated interpretation of traversal of an object and a state of said one or more pushbuttons [see Tiphane col. 4 L. 14-26, see Zadesky col. 8 L. 25-46].
In regards to claims 10, the combination of Tiphane, Zadesky, Levy and Park, as applied in claim 9 above, further teaches that at least one of said one or more pushbuttons is actuated by said object sliding onto the pushbutton [see Tiphane col. 4 L. 14-26, see Zadesky fig. 7A and 7B, col. 8 L. 25-46].
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Tiphane, Zadesky, Levy and Park, as applied in claim 9 above, further teaches that the one or more pushbuttons are de-actuated by said object seamlessly sliding off of the pushbutton over the surface of the flexible touchpad [see Zadesky fig. 7A and 7B, col. 8 L. 25-46].
Claims 11-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tiphane (US-6,680,677) in view of Takala (US-6,788,294) and Nishikawa et al. (US-5,907,375).
In regards to claim 11, Tiphane teaches an input device comprising a flexible touchpad and one or more of mechanical protrusions arranged in a manner so that said one or more mechanical protrusions can be felt through the topmost layer of said flexible touchpad [fig. 4, col. 3 L. 56-58]. Also, Tiphane teaches that the input device comprises a processor, a collection of software and hardware subsystems in communication with the flexible touchpad and mechanical protrusions [fig. 2 elements 28, 36, 14, 26, col. 3 L. 15-25]. Furthermore, Tiphane further teaches that his invention can be implemented using touch screen that can display the functions of the keys [col. 4 L. 14-26]. This teachings means that said input device doubles as a display and a tactile keypad and that said processor further comprises instructions for a graphical use interface on the display screen.
Tiphane does not explicitly teach that the display screen is flexible and comprises one or more layers with a continuous stretch of surface.
On the other hand, Takala teaches a flexible touch display screen comprising one or more of protrusions and one or more layers with a top most layer with a continuous stretch of surface [fig. 2, col. 5 L. 50-65, col. 6 L. 21-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Takala's teachings of a flexible touch screen in the input device taught by Tiphane because the flexible touchscreen with protrusions will help the user to know where the keys of the keyboard are.
The combination of Takala and Tiphane does not teach that mechanical switches are used to sense pressure.
On the other hand, Nishikawa teaches that a touch screen device, having instructions to display a graphical user interface and comprising mechanical buttons, can use the mechanical buttons to detect pressure [col. 4 L. 53-59 and col. 9 L. 18-56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Nishikawa’s teachings of using the mechanical buttons to detect pressure on the touch screen in the input device taught by the combination because it will make the display device to feel more like a regular keypad when pressing a button.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Tiphane, Takala and Nishikawa, as applied in claim 11 above, further teaches that the flexible display has a continuous stretch of display surface [see Takala fig. 2, col. 5 L. 50-65, col. 6 L. 21-31]. Furthermore, the combination further teaches that the flexible display comprises one or more protrusions to provide tactile feedback [see Takala fig. 2]. This teaching means that when a finger is crossing the continuous stretch of display surface, the finger will be able to feel laterally when a new protrusion is near the finger. In other words, said input device provides recognizable lateral tactile feedback of said one or more mechanical protrusions through the surface of said flexible display screen
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Tiphane, Takala and Nishikawa, as applied in claims 12 above, further teaches that the one or more mechanical protrusions are actuators that can be individually actuated [see Tiphane col. 3 L. 45-55]. The combination further teaches the processor triggers a signal based on coordinated interpretation of a traversal of an object and a state said one or more mechanical protrusions [see Tiphane col. 4 L. 14-26, see Takala col. 4 L. 55-67, col. 8 L. 24-38]. This teaching means that the processor coordinates interaction of the surface of said flexible display screen and a state of said one or more mechanical protrusions.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Tiphane, Takala and Nishikawa, as applied in claims 11 above, further teaches the processor triggers a signal based on coordinated interpretation of a traversal of an object and a state said one or more mechanical protrusions [see Tiphane col. 4 L. 14-26, see Takala col. 4 L. 55-67, col. 8 L. 24-38]. This teaching means that the processor monitors the state of the object.
In regards to claims 15 and 16, the combination of Tiphane, Takala, Nishikawa and Graham, as applied in claim 14 above, further teaches that at least one of said one or more mechanical protrusions are actuated by said object sliding onto the one or more mechanical protrusions and de-actuated by said object sliding off the one or more mechanical protrusions [see Tiphane col. 4 L. 14-26, see Takala col. 6 L. 21-31].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al. (US-6,518,958) in view of Tiphane (US-6,680,677).
In regards to claim 18, Miyajima teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with computer readable instructions for an input [fig. 5, col. 6 L. 19-23 and L. 29-43]. Miyajima teaches providing interpretation of interaction on a flexible membrane system comprising one or more layers with a topmost layer [fig. 2 element 37, fig. 3, fig. 4, col. 5 L. 65-67, col. 6 L. 1-2]. Miyajima further teaches one or more mechanical protrusions can be placed over the flexible membrane system [fig. 2 elements 36 and 38, fig. 3 elements 37c, 38a and 38b]. This teaching means that the instructions comprise a step of providing communication with one or more mechanical protrusions. Miyajima further teaches that the said set of computer readable instructions coordinate said interaction in relation to said one or more of mechanical protrusions [col. 6 L. 5-23].
Miyajima does not teach that the protrusions used to activate the switch are placed below the flexible membrane system and that the flexible membrane system is devoid of any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions.
On the other hand, Tiphane teaches an input device having a flexible membrane system and one or more mechanical protrusions [fig. 4]. Tiphane further teaches that the one or more mechanical protrusions used to activate the switch can be placed below the flexible membrane system and can be felt through the topmost layer of the flexible membrane system through a processor, a collection of software and hardware subsystems [fig. 2 and 4 elements 28, 36, 14, 26, col. 3 L. 14-16]. Also, Tiphane teaches when the mechanical keys are located underneath the flexible membrane system, the functions of each mechanical key can be shown to the user on a separate display [see Tiphane col. 2 L. 1-4]. This means that the flexible membrane system is devoid of any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Tiphane’s teachings of placing the protrusions below the flexible membrane and of not having any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions in the device taught by Miyajima because the placing of the protrusions below the touch surface will improve user input produced by the touch surface and the pushbuttons as a result of the user being able to activate the touch surface directly without any protrusions being on the way like a regular touchpad and as a result of the user being able to activate the pushbuttons directly using the protrusions like a regular keyboard. Also, the lack of any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions will permit the one or more mechanical protrusions to be placed below the touch surface while providing the aforementioned benefits and maintaining the same functionality.
The combination of Miyajima and Tiphane teaches that the touch surface maintains the shape of the one or more protrusions [see Tiphane fig. 4] thereby providing tactile feedback at the location of the one or more protrusions [see Tiphane fig. 4]. These teachings mean that when a finger is crossing the touch surface, the finger will be able to feel laterally when a new protrusion is near the finger. In other words, the one or more protrusions can be laterally felt through the top most layer of said flexible membrane system.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al. (US-6,518,958) in view of Tiphane (US-6,680,677) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Levy (US-2003/0160712).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Miyajima and Tiphane, as applied in claim 1 above, does not explicitly teach that the flexible touchpad has a continuous stretch of surface.
On the other hand, Levy teaches that one or more mechanical protrusions of a keypad can be built in such a way that they form a continuous stretch of surface [fig. 6]. Also, Levy teaches that at each location of a mechanical protrusions, the surface provides tactile feedback in the form of an undulating surface [fig. 6]. This teaching means that said input device provides recognizable lateral tactile feedback of said one or more mechanical protrusions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Levy’s teachings of forming the push buttons with a continuous stretch of surface and recognizable lateral tactile feedback in the input device taught by the combination because it will help the input device to be almost flat while maintaining tactile feedback for each pushbutton.
The combination of Miyajima, Tiphane and Levy teaches that the flexible membrane keeps the shape of the one or more mechanical protrusions [see Tiphane fig. 4], and that the one or more mechanical protrusions can have a shape of a continuous stretch of surface that provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback [see Levy fig. 6]. These teachings mean that when Levy’s teachings are applied in the combination’s input device, the flexible touchpad will have a continuous stretch of surface as a result of the flexible membrane keeping the same shape as the one or more mechanical protrusions, and said input device will provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback of said one or more mechanical protrusions through the surface of said flexible membrane system.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Miyajima, Tiphane and Levy, as applied in claim 19 above, further teaches that the one or more pushbuttons are actuators that can be individually actuated [see Tiphane fig. 4, col. 3 L. 45-50]. The combination further teaches that the processor coordinates the interaction on the surface of the flexible membrane system and the state of the one or more pushbuttons [see Tiphane fig. 2 element 28, col. 3 L. 25-50, col. 4 L. 14-26, see Miyajima fig. 5 and 7].
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al. (US-6,518,958) in view of Tiphane (US-6,680,677) and Levy (US-2003/0160712).
In regards to claim 21, Miyajima teaches an input device comprising a tracking system comprising a flexible surface, configured to track the movements of an object [col. 5 L. 65-67, col. 6 L. 1-16, col. 7 L. 6-16 and L. 31-38]. Miyajima further teaches that the input device comprises one or more of mechanical protrusions over the flexible surface that are used to activate mechanical switches [fig. 2, fig. 3]. Miyajima further teaches a processor, a collection of software and hardware subsystems, in communication with said tracking system and said one or more mechanical protrusions wherein said input device doubles as a gesture system and tactile keypad [col. 6 L. 5-23].
Miyajima does not teach that the one or more mechanical protrusions used to activate the switch are place below the flexible surface and that the flexible surface is devoid of any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions.
On the other hand, Tiphane teaches an input device having a flexible tracking system comprising a flexible surface and one or more mechanical protrusions [fig. 4]. Tiphane further teaches that the one or more mechanical protrusions used to activate the mechanical switches can be placed below the flexible surface and they can be felt through the flexible surface [fig. 4]. Also, Tiphane teaches when the mechanical keys are located underneath the flexible membrane system, the functions of each mechanical key can be shown to the user on a separate display [see Tiphane col. 2 L. 1-4]. This means that the flexible surface is devoid of any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Tiphane’s teachings of placing the protrusions below the flexible membrane and of not having any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions in the device taught by Miyajima because placing the protrusions below the touch surface will improve user input produced by the touch surface and the pushbuttons as a result of the user being able to activate the touch surface directly without any protrusions being on the way like a regular touchpad and as a result of the user being able to activate the pushbuttons directly using the protrusions like a regular keyboard. Also, the lack of any visual identifiers for one or more of the one or more mechanical protrusions will permit the one or more mechanical protrusions to be placed below the touch surface while providing the aforementioned benefits and maintaining the same functionality.
The combination of Miyajima and Tiphane does not explicitly teach that said flexible surface is stretched across said one or more mechanical protrusions.
On the other hand, Levy teaches that one or more mechanical protrusions of a keypad can be built in such a way that they form a continuous stretch of surface (stretched surface) [fig. 6]. Also, Levy teaches that at each location of a mechanical protrusion, the surface provides tactile feedback in the form of an undulating surface [fig. 6]. This teaching means that said one or more mechanical protrusions can be laterally felt across the stretched surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Levy’s teachings of forming the push buttons with a continuous stretch of surface and recognizable lateral tactile feedback in the input device taught by the combination because it will help the input device to be almost flat while maintaining tactile feedback for each pushbutton.
The combination of Miyajima, Tiphane and Levy teaches that the flexible surface keeps the shape of the one or more mechanical protrusions [see Tiphane fig. 4], and that the one or more mechanical protrusions can have a shape of a continuous stretch of surface (stretched surface) that provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback [see Levy fig. 6]. These teachings mean that when Levy’s teachings are applied in the combination’s input device, the flexible surface will be stretched across said one or more mechanical protrusions as a result of the flexible surface keeping the same shape of the one or more mechanical protrusions, and said one or more mechanical protrusions can be laterally through said flexible surface stretched across said one or more mechanical protrusions.
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Miyajima, Tiphane and Levy, as applied in claim 21 above, teaches that the flexible surface keeps the shape of the one or more mechanical protrusions [see Tiphane fig. 4], and that the one or more mechanical protrusions can have a shape of a continuous stretch of surface that provide recognizable lateral tactile feedback [see Levy fig. 6]. These teachings mean that when Levy’s teachings are applied in the combination’s input device, the flexible surface will have a continuous stretch of surface as a result of the flexible surface keeping the same shape of the one or more mechanical protrusions, and said input device provides recognizable lateral tactile feedback of said one or more mechanical protrusions through the surface of said flexible surface.
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Miyajima, Tiphane and Levy, as applied in claim 22 above, further teaches that the one or more mechanical protrusions are actuators that can be individually actuated [see Tiphane fig. 4, col. 3 L. 45-50]. The combination further teaches that the processor coordinates the interaction on the surface of the flexible membrane system and the state of the one or more mechanical protrusions [see Tiphane fig. 2 element 28, col. 3 L. 25-50, col. 4 L. 14-26, see Miyajima fig. 5 and 7].
In regards to claims 24 and 25, the combination of Miyajima, Tiphane and Levy, as applied in claim 21 above, further teaches that the processor triggers a signal based on the coordinated interpretation of the traversal of said object and the state of said one or more mechanical protrusions actuated and de-actuated by the traversal of said object [see Tiphane col. 4 L. 14-26, see Miyajima fig. 7, col. 5 L. 22-38, col. 6 L. 5-16].
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688