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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At pages 9-12, Applicant alleges the amended limitations of claim 1 are not disclosed by the cited references. And similar arguments are made for independent claims 17 and 32, as amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As properly addressed below, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the first set of keys having a first sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, such as a computerized tomography system) and a third sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 5-6, [0063]-[0066] capable of analog and digital modes for determination of input, particularly in gaming function, digital input preferred with 50% threshold distance, further at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, for medical application, first sensitivity, but when gaming application at [0072] force sensitive input keys of FIG. 5 is changed), the first sensitivity different from the second sensitivity and the third sensitivity (when gaming application at [0072] force sensitive input keys of FIG. 5 is changed), the first sensitivity for the first keys to apply when a user is actively engaged with a first application running on the compute system (Madsen FIGS. 5-6, [0063]-[0066] capable of analog and digital modes for determination of input, particularly in gaming function, digital input preferred with 50% threshold distance, further at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, for medical application, first sensitivity, but when gaming application at [0072] force sensitive input keys of FIG. 5 is changed) and the third sensitivity for the first set of keys to apply when the user is actively engaged with a second application running on the compute system (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0066] “the threshold distance 34 may be user configurable, such that it can be adjusted to any selected displacement of the plunger 12, allowing the user to reconfigure the input key 10 for different applications” at [0071]-[0072] describing medical device or other consumer electronic application vs gaming application, the keys having different force sensitivities and assignments based on the application; additionally at [0081]-[0082] and at [0089]-[0091] describing various other applications including volume control based on relative depth of pressing as a different application with different sensitivity). Therefore, the claims stand as properly addressed and rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al., US 2020/0218362 A1 (hereinafter “Madsen”) in view of Yasuno et al., US 2020/0064961 A1 (hereinafter “Yasuno”) further in view of Kamepalli et al., US 2020/0356182 A1 (hereinafter “Kamepalli”).
Regarding claim 1, Madsen discloses a compute system ([0003] computing device interfacing with an input device; FIGS. 5 and 6 at [0071] computing devices such as personal computers in use with input device 100) comprising:
a keyboard ([0005] keyboards for personal computers) including:
a housing (FIG. 1, PCB 20 and housing 18 at [0049]-[0050], and FIGS. 5-7 at [0073]-[0076] and cover 150 in conjunction with PCB 120);
a plurality of keys (FIGS. 1-4 input key 10 at [0047] comprising a plunger 12 associated with each key; FIGS. 5-6 input keys 160 at [0072]-[0076]; FIG. 7 force sensitive input keys 110 at [0072]-[0081]); and
a touch sensor (FIG. 1, analog sensor 16 at [0048] can be capacitive, FIGS. 5-7 analog sensor 116 at [0076]-[0077]) positioned between the housing (FIG. 1, PCB 20) and at least one of the plurality of keys (FIG. 1, plunger 12, with sensor 16 being positioned between PCB 20 and plunger 12 at [0050]; FIG. 7 with sensor 116 being positioned between keycap 134/plunger 136 and PCB 120 at [0074]),
the first set of keys having a first sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, such as a computerized tomography system) and a third sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 5-6, [0063]-[0066] capable of analog and digital modes for determination of input, particularly in gaming function, digital input preferred with 50% threshold distance, further at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, for medical application, first sensitivity, but when gaming application at [0072] force sensitive input keys of FIG. 5 is changed), the first sensitivity different from the second sensitivity and the third sensitivity (when gaming application at [0072] force sensitive input keys of FIG. 5 is changed), the first sensitivity for the first keys to apply when a user is actively engaged with a first application running on the compute system (Madsen FIGS. 5-6, [0063]-[0066] capable of analog and digital modes for determination of input, particularly in gaming function, digital input preferred with 50% threshold distance, further at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, for medical application, first sensitivity, but when gaming application at [0072] force sensitive input keys of FIG. 5 is changed) and the third sensitivity for the first set of keys to apply when the user is actively engaged with a second application running on the compute system (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0066] “the threshold distance 34 may be user configurable, such that it can be adjusted to any selected displacement of the plunger 12, allowing the user to reconfigure the input key 10 for different applications” at [0071]-[0072] describing medical device or other consumer electronic application vs gaming application, the keys having different force sensitivities and assignments based on the application; additionally at [0081]-[0082] and at [0089]-[0091] describing various other applications including volume control based on relative depth of pressing as a different application with different sensitivity);
keyboard circuitry (FIG. 6, circuitry 152 at [0078]-[0083], including DAC) to:
detect a signal (FIGS. 1-6 analog signal at [0048] [0051] [0058] and [0060] and [0076]-[0081]) output by the touch sensor (FIGS. 1-6 analog sensor 16 and 116 outputs the signal at [0048] and [0076]-[0077]), the signal corresponding to a keystroke (FIGS. 1-7 describing depressed keycap 134 at [0047]-[0048]); and
generate a code corresponding to the detected signal (FIG. 6, at [0078]-[0080] circuitry 152 generates both the analog signal and digital input data representative of distance traveled, force applied, and convert to digital for each pressed button 112 / input key 110; binary conversion at [0074]-[0077]), and at least one processor circuit to process the code to effect the keystroke (data “outputted to separate circuitry assembly, such as the signal by driver software of computer hardware” at [0048])
However, Madsen does not explicitly disclose the touch sensor adjustable such that a first set of the keys exhibits a first sensitivity and a second set of the keys exhibits a second sensitivity, the first set including less than all the keys, the second set including less than all the keys,
In the same field of endeavor, Yasuno discloses the touch sensor adjustable such that a first set of the keys exhibits a first sensitivity (Yasuno at [0005], FIG. 3A and [0033], FIGS. 4A-5C and [0040]-[0044] areas 53-55 and 63-68 with each area having different sensitivities from each other) and a second set of the keys exhibits a second sensitivity (Yasuno at [0005], FIG. 3A and [0033], FIGS. 4A-5C and [0040]-[0044] areas 53-55 and 63-68 with each area having different sensitivities from each other), the first set including less than all the keys (Yasuno at [0005], FIG. 3A and [0033], FIGS. 4A-5C and [0040]-[0044] areas 53-55 and 63-68 with each area having different sensitivities from each other), the second set including less than all the keys (Yasuno, FIG. 3A and [0033], FIGS. 4A-5C and [0040]-[0044] areas 53-55 and 63-68, each area being less than all of the keys), the first sensitivity different than the second sensitivity (Yasuno, FIG. 3A and [0033], FIGS. 4A-5C and [0040]-[0044] areas 53-55 and 63-68, describing sensitivities being different from each other).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustable sensitivity keys of a keyboard of Madsen in view of Kamepalli to incorporate the areas with different sensitivities as disclosed by Yasuno because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, touch sensitivity keyboards capable of adjustable sensitivities. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve the operation feeling when operating the touch sensitive keys (see Yasuno at least at [0023]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
However, although Madsen in view of Yasuno does not explicitly disclose a at least one processor circuit to process the code to effect the keystroke.
In the same field of endeavor, Kamepalli discloses at least one processor circuit (FIG. 2, chipset 202) to process the code to effect the keystroke (FIG. 2, chipset 202 processing the input devices 211 [0034]-[0042], and output signals unique to each key at [0026]-[0028] provided by keyboard controller 300, chipset 202 may transmit the keystroke information signals from attached keyboard, and provide the information to the operating system OS of information handling system (IHS) to effect the keystroke output).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard key input detection of Madsen in view of Yasuno to incorporate the processor circuitry as disclosed by Kamepalli because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, keyboard input devices capable of adjusting threshold distance of depressed keys. The motivation to combine these references would have been to reduce the latency of input detection (see Kamepalli at least at [0005] and [0059]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the keystroke includes at least one of the plurality of keys (Madsen 10, 110) being depressed at least a distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0066] threshold distance 34) that satisfies a threshold distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0065]-[0069] threshold distance 34), the threshold distance different for the first sensitivity than for the second sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0063]-[0069] input sensed when set threshold crossed and binary value produced; in view of Yasuno at [0005], FIG. 3A and [0033], FIGS. 4A-5C and [0040]-[0044] areas 53-55 and 63-68 with each area having different sensitivities from each other, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill) and the threshold distance different for the first sensitivity than for the third sensitivity.
Regarding claim 4, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 3 (see above), wherein the threshold distance is less for the first sensitivity than for the second sensitivity, the first sensitivity greater than the second sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0063]-[0069] threshold can be adjusted from 80% to 50% or less, specifically at [0066], in view of Yasuno at FIG. 3A and [0033], FIGS. 4A-5C and [0040]-[0044] areas 53-55 and 63-68 with areas having greater or lesser sensitivity accordingly as would be understood by one of ordinary skill).
Regarding claim 5, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the touch sensor is a capacitive touch sensor (Madsen FIG. 1, analog sensor 16 at [0048] can be capacitive, FIGS. 5-7 analog sensor 116 at [0076]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 5 (see above), wherein the keystroke includes the touch sensor (Madsen at FIGS. 1 and 6-7 with sensors 16 and 116; Kamepalli FIGS. 1-4, capacitive sensors at [0031] for sensing layer 103C and [0051]) sensing a presence (Kamepalli FIG. 4, [0051]-[0052] and proximity detected by proximity sensor 403) of a finger or object (Kamepalli FIG. 4, finger or fingertip 404 at [0052]) within a threshold distance (Kamepalli FIG. 4 distances 407-410 at [0052]-[0053] and FIG. 1 at [0030], generally at [0013]-[0015]) above at least one of the plurality of keys (Kamepalli FIG. 4, key 401 [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above), wherein ones of the plurality of keys include a flexible support below a keycap (Madsen at FIG. 1, [0047]-[0049]support member 14 described as elastic member therein), the keyboard circuitry to detect the signal output by the touch sensor before the flexible support is fully compressed (Madsen at FIGS. 1-6 and full analog range is H which is the fully depressed plunger 12 at [0062], but signal is sensed at 80% or alternatively between 0-50% at threshold distance 34 of height H as disclosed at [0062]-[0068]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensitivity of keys of a keyboard of Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli to include detection of signal before full compression of the flexible support for the commonly understood benefit of faster and robust response time of input detection (Madsen at [0053]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the feature to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the touch sensor is a first touch sensor that is below first ones of the first set of keys (Madsen at FIG. 1 and [0048] sensor 16 for each of the keys 10), the keyboard including a second touch sensor below at least one key of the second set of keys that is different than the first ones of the plurality of keys (Madsen at FIG. 1 and [0048] sensor 16 for each of the keys 10, further at FIG. 6 and 7 and sensor 116 wherein each key 110 has a sensor 116 at [0076]-[0077]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hussain et al., US 2014/0176352 A1 (hereinafter “Hussain”).
Regarding claim 8, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above).
However, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli does not explicitly disclose wherein the keyboard circuitry is to monitor the touch sensor at a scan rate of approximately 250 Hertz.
In the same field of endeavor, Hussain discloses a capacitance type keyboard (FIG. 2 and keyboard 22 and [0037]) capable of detecting input (FIG. 4 at [0042]) wherein the keyboard circuitry is to monitor the touch sensor (FIG. 4 at keyboard processor 56 along with scanning control circuitry 66 at [0042]-[0048]) at a scan rate of approximately 250 Hertz (FIG. 4, and scan rate of scanning control circuitry to scan the keyboard at [0046] describing a range of 200 Hz to 40 kHz, and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is equal to approximately 250 Hz).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard with adjustable sensitivity of Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli to incorporate the scanning rate method and circuitry as disclosed by Hussain because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, keyboard input devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve response time and improve power efficiency (see Hussain at least at [0071]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hattori, US 2018/0062650 A1 (hereinafter “Hattori”).
Regarding claim 9, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above).
However, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to monitor the keyboard circuitry at a polling rate between about 400 Hertz and about 1,000 Hertz.
In the same field of endeavor, Hattori discloses a keyboard device (FIG. 1, at [0026] input device 10 in the form of a keyboard) wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit (FIGS. 5-8, control unit 130 in conjunction with the determination unit 13 at [0045] and [0052]-[0053] in view of [0096] as would be understood by one of ordinary skill) is to monitor the keyboard circuitry at a polling rate (FIGS. 5-8 and [0039] [0045] and [0071] describing a sampling rate of the sensor 12) between about 400 Hertz and about 1,000 Hertz (FIGS. 5-8 and 13 and [0045] describing sampling rate is approximately 1 kHZ, and further at [0071]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard with adjustable sensitivity of Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli to incorporate the sampling rate methodology as disclosed by Hattori because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, keyboard input devices with touch sensing capabilities. The motivation to combine these references would have been reduce erroneous detection of an operation of placing a finger on a key (see Hattori at least at [0071] and [0087]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli as applied to claim 1, further in view of Leventhal et al., US 2014/0068525 A1 (hereinafter “Leventhal”).
Regarding claim 10, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above).
However, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to process the code by: determining if the code corresponds to a system command; and in response to determining that the code does not correspond to the system command, cause the transmission of the code to an application.
In the same field of endeavor, Leventhal discloses a keyboard (FIG. 1, 106) for use with computing system (FIG. 1, 100) wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit (FIG. 1 at [0040]) is to process the code by: determining if the code corresponds to a system command ([0052]-[0058] system commands which cause specific action by the operating system); and in response to determining that the code does not correspond to the system command, cause the transmission of the code to an application ([0052]-[0058] application specific determination of whether the input key is a system command or application specific, such as a text input application, further at FIG. 1 with AT application 114, which may be a system level command as disclosed at [0040]-[0047] and may respond to a particular command regardless of application being run).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard device used within the computing system of Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli to incorporate the system command determination as disclosed by Leventhal because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, keyboard inputs and keyboard devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve accessibility for those using the system (see Leventhal at [0041]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli further in view of Leventhal as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Chandrasekhara, US 2019/0042048 A1 (hereinafter “Chandrasekhara”).
Regarding claim 11, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli further in view of Leventhal discloses the compute system of claim 10 (see above).
However, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli further in view of Leventhal does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit includes a hardware accelerator.
In the same field of endeavor, Chandrasekhara discloses a computing system apparatus (FIG. 1, 100) with a computing device (110) with off screen input (121) such as a keyboard ([0036]) wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit (FIG. 7, and processors 702 at [0057] in view of [0080] and [0083]) includes a hardware accelerator (FIG. 7 and hardware accelerator 703 at [0057]-[0059] and [0065]in view of [0080] and [0083]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard device used with the computing system of Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli further in view of Leventhal to incorporate the hardware accelerator as disclosed by Chandrasekhara because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, input processing for a computing device from input devices such as keyboards. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve costs and reduce processing of inputs (see Chandrasekhara at least at [0013]-[0014]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli further in view of Leventhal further in view of Chandrasekhara discloses the compute system of claim 11 (see above), including keyboard controller circuitry (Chandrasekhara FIG. 4, keyboard 421 with off-screen input interface controller 425 along with main processor 427 at [0046]-[0048]), the keyboard controller circuitry to monitor the keyboard circuitry (Chandrasekhara FIG. 4, with controller 425 ready for transmitting the received inputs via the transmitter 423 to the computing device at [0046]-[0048]), the keyboard controller circuitry (Chandrasekhara FIG. 4, keyboard 421 with off-screen input interface controller 425 along with main processor 427) communicatively coupled to the hardware accelerator (Chandrasekhara FIG. 7, 703, noting offscreen input device 721 may include keyboard 421 of FIG. 4 as disclosed at [0036] and coupling described at [0046]-[0048], [0057] and [0065]), keyboard controller circuitry responsive to the code from the keyboard circuitry (Chandrasekhara [0041] and [0045] when key of the keyboard is pressed, it generates a input signal, processed by controller 425 at [0048]) to pass the code to the hardware accelerator (Chandrasekhara FIG. 7, 703, offscreen input device 721 may include keyboard 421 of FIG. 4 as disclosed at [0036] and connection [0046]-[0048], [0057] and [0065], noting bus 706 connecting control circuitry of off-screen input device 721 to hardware accelerator 703 at [0057] and [0066]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kamepalli et al., US 2020/0356183 A1 (hereinafter “Kamepalli ‘183”).
Regarding claim 13, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli discloses the compute system of claim 1 (see above).
However, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli does not explicitly disclose wherein the keystroke includes a gesture within a threshold distance above at least one of the plurality of keys, the gesture corresponding to a command.
In the same field of endeavor, Kamepalli ‘183 discloses wherein the keystroke (FIG. 4 and [0052]-[0057]) includes a gesture (Kamepalli ‘183 FIG. 4, 5A-5B and 6 at [0052]-[0060]), within a threshold distance above at least one of the plurality of keys (Kamepalli ‘183 FIG. 4 and distance in the Z direction for hovering keypress at [0052]-[0057], such as for example, configurable distance 409 to enter at 408 causing the signal of detection of hovering keypress and corresponding gesture), the gesture corresponding to a command (Kamepalli ‘183 FIGS. 4-8 and [0071]-[0079] describing commands based on determined gesture therein).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard device used with the computing system of Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli to incorporate the hover gesture inputs as disclosed by Kamepalli ‘183 because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, input processing for a computing device from input devices such as keyboards. The motivation to combine these references would have been to quickly and efficiently process information of the computing device through intuitive inputs (see Kamepalli ‘183 at [0002]-[0006]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli further in view of Kamepalli ‘183 discloses the compute system of claim 13 (see above), wherein the gesture includes a sliding gesture across the at least one of the plurality of keys (Kamepalli ‘183 at FIGS. 4-8 and swiping gestures at [0056]-[0058] and [0072]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 15, Madsen in view of Yasuno further in view of Kamepalli further in view of Kamepalli ‘183 discloses the compute system of claim 14 (see above), wherein the command is one of display brightness adjustment (see below, condition satisfied), volume adjustment (see below, condition satisfied), or touch sensor sensitivity adjustment (Kamepalli ‘183 at [0079] set a hovering parameter distances (407-410)).
Claims 17, 19-20, 32, 34-35 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al., US 2020/0218362 A1 (hereinafter “Madsen”) in view of Kamepalli et al., US 2020/0356182 A1 (hereinafter “Kamepalli”).
Regarding claim 17, Madsen discloses at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Madsen [0048], [0065], [0083],[0085]-[0086]) comprising instructions (Madsen [0048], [0065], [0083],[0085]-[0086]).
detect a signal (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 analog signal at [0048] [0051] [0058] and [0060] and [0076]-[0081]) output by a touch sensor (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 analog sensor 16 and 116 outputs the signal at [0048] and [0076]-[0077]), the signal corresponding to a keystroke (Madsen FIGS. 1-7 describing depressed keycap 134 at [0047]-[0048]), the touch sensor (Madsen at FIG. 1, analog sensor 16 at [0048] can be capacitive, FIGS. 5-7 analog sensor 116 at [0076]-[0077]) positioned between a housing (Madsen at FIG. 1, PCB 20) and at least one of a plurality of keys (Madsen FIG. 1, plunger 12, with sensor 16 being positioned between PCB 20 and plunger 12 at [0050]; FIG. 7 with sensor 116 being positioned between keycap 134/plunger 136 and PCB 120 at [0074]) associated with a keyboard (Madsen at [0005] keyboards for personal computers);
generate a scan code corresponding to the detected signal (Madsen FIG. 6, at [0078]-[0080] circuitry 152 generates both the analog signal and digital input data representative of distance traveled, force applied, and convert to digital for each pressed button 112 / input key 110; binary conversion at [0074]-[0077]);
the touch sensor has an adjustable sensitivity (Madsen at FIGS. 1-7 at [0060]-[0068] and FIG. 8 at 210, [0092]-[0097];) and the instructions cause the processing circuitry to adjust the sensitivity for a key of the plurality of keys to a first sensitivity when a first application is operating on a device coupled to the keyboard (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, such as a computerized tomography system) and to adjust the sensitivity for the same key of the plurality of keys to a second sensitivity different than the first sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 5-6, [0063]-[0066] capable of analog and digital modes for determination of input, particularly in gaming function, digital input preferred with 50% threshold distance, further at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, for medical application, first sensitivity, but when gaming application at [0072] force sensitive input keys of FIG. 5 is changed) when a second application is operating on the device (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0066] “the threshold distance 34 may be user configurable, such that it can be adjusted to any selected displacement of the plunger 12, allowing the user to reconfigure the input key 10 for different applications” at [0071]-[0072] describing medical device or other consumer electronic application vs gaming application, the keys having different force sensitivities and assignments based on the application; additionally at [0081]-[0082] and at [0089]-[0091] describing various other applications including volume control based on relative depth of pressing as a different application with different sensitivity).
However, Madsen does not explicitly disclose at least one processing circuitry; and in response to determining the scan code is ready to be processed, process the scan code to effect the keystroke.
In the same field of endeavor, Kamepalli discloses at least one processing circuitry (Kamepalli FIG. 2, processor(s) 201 executing program instructions at [0033]) and in response to determining the scan code is ready to be processed, process the scan code to effect the keystroke (FIG. 2, chipset 202 processing the input devices 211 [0034]-[0042], and output signals unique to each key at [0026]-[0028] provided by keyboard controller 300, chipset 202 may transmit the keystroke information signals from attached keyboard, and provide the information to the operating system OS of information handling system (IHS) to effect the keystroke output).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard key input detection of Madsen to incorporate the processor circuitry as disclosed by Kamepalli because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, keyboard input devices capable of adjusting threshold distance of depressed keys. The motivation to combine these references would have been to reduce the latency of input detection (see Kamepalli at least at [0005] and [0059]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Madsen in view of Kamepalli discloses the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17 (see above), wherein the keystroke includes at least one of the plurality of keys (Madsen 10, 110) adjacent the touch sensor (Madsen 16, 116) being depressed at least a distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0066] threshold distance 34) that satisfies a threshold distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0065]-[0069] threshold distance 34), the sensitivity of the touch sensor corresponding to the threshold distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0063]-[0069] input sensed when set threshold crossed and binary value produced).
Regarding claim 20, Madsen in view of Kamepalli discloses the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19 (see above), wherein the instructions (Kamepalli at [0035], program instructions stored on memory 205), when executed, cause the processing circuitry (Kamepalli FIG. 2, processor(s) 201 executing program instructions at [0033]) to increase the sensitivity of the touch sensor to reduce the threshold distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0063]-[0069] threshold can be adjusted from 80% to 50% or less, specifically at [0066]).
Regarding claim 32, it is similar in scope to claim 17, the only difference being claim 17 is directed to a method (Madsen at FIGS. 8 and 10 generally and [0028]; Kamepalli at FIG. 5 and claims 12-15, generally) for performing steps similar to claim 1 (see above), by executing instructions with at least one processor (Kamepalli FIG. 2, processor(s) 201 executing program instructions at [0033], Madsen at [0078] describing microcontroller of circuitry 152) and a third sensitivity different than the first sensitivity and the second sensitivity when a third application is running (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, e.g., medical application vs. gaming application using different keys with different sensitivity further at [0081]-[0082] and at [0090]-[0091] describing various other applications, sensitivity dependent on the application as understood by one of ordinary skill). Therefore, claim 32 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 34, Madsen in view of Kamepalli discloses the method of claim 32 (see above) wherein the keystroke includes at least one of the plurality of keys (Madsen 10, 110) being depressed at least a distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0066] threshold distance 34) that satisfies a threshold distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0065]-[0069] threshold distance 34), the sensitivity of the touch sensor corresponding to the threshold distance such that the threshold distance is different for the first sensitivity than for the second sensitivity (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0063]-[0069] input sensed when set threshold crossed and binary value produced).
Regarding claim 35, Madsen in view of Kamepalli discloses the method of claim 34 (see above), further including increasing the sensitivity of the touch sensor to reduce the threshold distance (Madsen FIGS. 1-6 and [0063]-[0069] threshold can be adjusted from 80% to 50% or less, specifically at [0066]).
Regarding claim 48, Madsen in view of Kamepalli discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the first application is a word processing application and the second application is a gaming application (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, e.g., medical application vs. gaming application using different keys with different sensitivity further at [0081]-[0082] and at [0090]-[0091] describing various other applications; in view of Kamepalli at [0007], [0058], [0060] specifically describing travel distance being determined by the selected application; a word processing application is commonly known in the art, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to differentiate the distances traveled in accordance with a word processing application versus a gaming application for the clearly described benefits of low latency for the gaming usage (Kamepalli at [0060]).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Kamepalli respectively as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Kamepalli et al., US 2020/0356183 A1 (hereinafter “Kamepalli ‘183”).
Regarding claim 44, Madsen in view of Kamepalli discloses the method of claim 32 (see above),
However, Madsen in view of Kamepalli does not explicitly disclose wherein the keystroke includes a gesture within a threshold distance above at least one of the plurality of keys, the gesture corresponding to a command.
In the same field of endeavor, Kamepalli ‘183 discloses wherein the keystroke (FIG. 4 and [0052]-[0057]) includes a gesture (Kamepalli ‘183 FIG. 4, 5A-5B and 6 at [0052]-[0060]), within a threshold distance above at least one of the plurality of keys (Kamepalli ‘183 FIG. 4 and distance in the Z direction for hovering keypress at [0052]-[0057], such as for example, configurable distance 409 to enter at 408 causing the signal of detection of hovering keypress and corresponding gesture), the gesture corresponding to a command (Kamepalli ‘183 FIGS. 4-8 and [0071]-[0079] describing commands based on determined gesture therein).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard device used with the computing system of Madsen in view of Kamepalli to incorporate the hover gesture inputs as disclosed by Kamepalli ‘183 because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, input processing for a computing device from input devices such as keyboards. The motivation to combine these references would have been to quickly and efficiently process information of the computing device through intuitive inputs (see Kamepalli ‘183 at [0002]-[0006]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Kamepalli respectively as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Gil-Gomez, US 2007/0132735 A1 (hereinafter “Gil-Gomez”).
Regarding claim 49, Madsen in view of Kamepalli discloses the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17 (see above), wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: and adjust the sensitivity for the key based on the switching (Madsen FIGS. 5-6 at [0071]-[0072] application dependent force, e.g., medical application vs. gaming application using different keys with different sensitivity further at [0081]-[0082] and at [0090]-[0091] describing various other applications, sensitivity dependent on the application as understood by one of ordinary skill).
However, Madsen in view of Kamepalli does not explicitly disclose detect a user switching between the first application and the second application;
In the same field of endeavor, Gil-Gomez discloses detect a user switching between the first application and the second application (FIGS. 1-2 and [0005]-[0006] and [0020]-[0022] describing switching between applications determination and output to a keyboard in accordance of the switching).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard device used with the computing system of Madsen in view of Kamepalli to incorporate the detecting of the switching between applications as disclosed by Gil-Gomez because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, input processing for a computing device from input devices such as keyboards. The motivation to combine these references would have been to assist with guiding the user when operating the keyboard input device (Gil-Gomez at [0003]-[0004]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edwards, US 2012/0038496 A1: FIGS. 6-14C and [0036]-[0050] describing gesture inputs above a keyboard;
Coltrane-Pagan et al., US 2018/0024647 A1: FIG.4, generally, input sensitivity of a pointing device determined based on application running;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARVESH J. NADKARNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7562. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/SARVESH J NADKARNI/Examiner, Art Unit 2629