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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 7, 12, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claim 22 has been added
Claims 1, 3-15, 17-22 are pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations of claim 5 were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Applicant has not provided an argument other than to indicate that there is a disagreement with the examiner’s interpretation, and thus the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7, 12 and 13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Applicant has amended claim 7 to overcome or render the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claims 12 and 13 remain.
Claim 7 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7, are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO-2021088551-A1 hereinafter “Zhang” wherein citations provided correspond to the line numbers of the machine translation) in view of Meinke et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0257241, hereinafter “Meinke”).
Claims 5 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in further view of Liu (CN-113345726-A, hereinafter “Liu”, cited in the IDS, wherein citations correspond to the machine translation previously provided).
Claim 6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in further view of Fukuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0239051, hereinafter “Fukuda”).
Claims 9-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in further view of Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0176000, hereinafter “Abbott”).
Claims 3, 11-15 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in view of Smith et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0357324, hereinafter Smith”).
Claim 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Meinke and Smith in further view of Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0176000, hereinafter “Abbott”).
Claims 19 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Meinke and Smith in further view of Doughty et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0020064, hereinafter “Doughty”).
Claims 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Abbott.
Claims 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Abbott in further view of Smith.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Applicant argues with respect to the rejection of claim 1 with the combination of Zhang and Meinke that while the claim recites “a sensor coupled to the interior surface of the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the button surface; and an electronic processor coupled to and configured to control an operation of the robotic garden tool based on an output of the sensor ” that:
Zhang is merely generally directed to a touch-sensitive button including a panel (overlay) 21 for finger touch and a sensor pad 23. See Zhang, FIG. 2.
As noted on Page 13 of the Office Action, the examiner merely "believes that Zhang shows that the sensor is coupled to the interior surface of the button (i.e. the sensor pad 23 is on the interior portion of the button as it is under the panel overlay)." (emphasis added) The Examiner then turns to Meinke to "more clearly teach[es] this." Finally, as described on Page 14 of the Office Action, the Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to modify Zhang with the teaching of Meinke since the keys or buttons can be used in other applications including lawn mowers to benefit aesthetics.
However, Meinke is merely generally directed to a trim component 120 of a vehicle 110 with keys 170 associated with, for example, a capacitance sensor positioned behind the keys 170 and capable of sensing the presence of a user's finger. (emphasis added) See Meinke, paragraphs [0035], [0063].
Applicant submits that neither Zhang nor Meinke are specific to a sensor coupled to an interior surface of a user-actuatable button. Simply being under or behind one component does not evidence that the components are coupled to one another. In fact, FIG. 2 of Zhang clearly illustrates a gap between the sensor pad 23 and the panel (overlay) 21; and Meinke simply does not illustrate a cross-sectional view showing the described capacitance sensor coupled with an interior surface of the keys 170. For these reasons, the cited art lacks teaching or suggestion of a sensor coupled to an interior surface of a user-actuatable button where the sensor is configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the button surface.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out by Applicant, the examiner previously noted that Zhang shows that the sensor pad 23 is on the interior portion of the button as it is under the panel overlay and the panel overlay is the surface that is touched by the user. It is clear that the sensor pad is electrically connected (and shown in Figures as physically connected) to the panel overlay of the user actuatable button as it is used to sense that the user has touched the panel overlay of the button. Thus, the sensor is part of the interior surface as an interior is being within, or inside of anything. However, to further prosecution, the examiner provided Meinke. Applicant’s arguments with respect Meinke indicate that Applicant is aware that the sensor is positioned behind the keys (i.e. the interior surface of the user-actuatable button). While Applicant submits that being behind or under one component does not provide evidence that the components are coupled to another. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Meinke provides evidence that the sensor is coupled to the interior surface of the button because the capacitive sensor is in an interior surface of the button and the sensor senses the presence of the user’s finger on the exterior of the key (see at least Meinke [0063]) and thus, the sensor must be at least electrically coupled to the key interior and exterior.
Applicant argues regarding the obviousness rationale:
The cited obviousness rationale regarding aesthetics is moot since the Zhang sensor pad 23 is already under and thereby hidden from view by the panel (overlay) 21 just as the capacitance sensor of Meinke is behind and thereby hidden from view by the keys 170.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. While the sensor pad 23 of Zhang is under the panel, there is no teaching in Zhang that the sensor pad is hidden, as asserted by Applicant. The examiner notes that the panel may be translucent. Further, Meinke teaches that the keys or buttons as described can be used in other applications such as lawn mowers which is sufficient motivation on its own. Accordingly, the examiner motivation that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with the teaching of Meinke with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Meinke teaches the keys or buttons can be used in other applications including lawn mowers when it would benefits the aesthetics (see Meinke [0035]) has been maintained.
Applicant does not provide separate arguments for claims 3-10 or 22 instead relying upon the arguments with respect to claim 1, addressed above.
Applicant further argues with respect to independent claim 11 the combination of Zhang, Meinke, and Smith continuing to rely upon the arguments addressed above regarding Zhang and Meinke and further argues:
Smith generally discloses a wearable electronic device in the form of a smart watch where a "[c]over 120 includes a perimeter portion 122 that defines a button area 124" and that in some embodiments, one or more "flexible buttons 126 a-e may be raised or elevated above button area 124, as shown in FIG. lA" or "one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be recessed or depressed relative to button area 124." Smith [0024].
Smith does not teach or suggest a button with a button surface and an indented portion formed into the button surface, much less the concept of incorporating a sensor into the button configured to sense the capacitance level within an indented portion. Rather than teaching or suggesting adding depressions in a button as alleged by the Examiner, the flexible buttons 126a-e are merely recessed or depressed relative to a button area 124.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant above, and as pointed out by the examiner, Smith teaches an indented portion formed into the button surface explicitly by stating “one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be recessed or depressed relative to button area 124”. The examiner points applicant to Figure 1E further showing that an indented portion of the button and further points to [0025] wherein symbols are embossed or raised from the surface of each button thus creating an indent. “Flexible buttons 126a-e also include symbols that are embossed and/or raised from the outer surface of each button, and buttons 126d-e include symbols that are recessed from or depressed relative to the outer surface of the button. with reduced visibility.”). The examiner notes that raised portions necessarily create portions that are below the raised portion (i.e. indented portions).
Finally, regarding Applicant’s argument that Smith does not teach concept of incorporating a sensor into the button configured to sense the capacitance level within an indented portion. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant does not provide separate arguments for claims 12-15 and 17-20 instead relying upon the arguments with respect to claim 11, addressed above.
Applicant further argues with respect to independent claim 21:
Applicant submits that neither Liu nor Abbott teach a user-actuatable button with an indented portion shaped to convey a function of the user-actuatable button and a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with the indented portion.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner relied upon Liu to teach a user-actuatable button with an indented portion shaped to convey a function of the user-actuatable button and a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button configured to sense a value associated with the indented portion of the button surface and further relies upon Abbot to teach sensing a capacitance level associated with a surface.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues:
First, it would not have been obvious to modify Liu's escape aperture 5120 and rain sensor 40 to an arrangement whereby the sensor 40 is coupled with the pressing portion 511. Liu's sensor 40 is uncoupled from the pressing portion 511; and Abbott lacks a user-actuatable button.
Second, it would not have been obvious to modify Liu's octagonal portion with a sensor (e.g., that of Abbott) whereby the sensor is configured to sense a capacitance level associated with the indented portion of the button surface. The Liu pressing portion 511 is entirely separate from the position of the escape aperture 5120 and rain sensor 40. Claim 21 is drawn to an indented portion formed into the button surface; and the Examiner is misapplying this language to the entirety of the pressing portion 511 of Liu- including the escape aperture 5120. There is no evidence in Liu or Abbott for coupling a capacitance sensor with a user-actuatable button with the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with the indented portion.
The examiner does not suggest modifying Liu’s escape aperture 5120 and rain sensor 40 to an arrangement where the sensor is coupled with the pressing portion. Rather, as noted in the rejection, the sensor is physically coupled to the user-actuatable button, and the sensor is configured to sense a value associated with the indented portion of the button surface (see at least Liu Figure 1 and 2, wherein emergency stop button 50, the shape of the “pressing portion” 511 of the button 20 is shaped as an octagon which is a shape that conveys the function of the button. The indented portion being the sidewalls of the button as shown in the cross section of Figure 2. Further the examiner notes that Figure 7 and page 5 teach the mounting portion to which the button is joined can be indented or depressed, See at least Figure 7, mounting portion 111 and page 5 “The mounting portion 111 is protruded or depressed from the outer surface, or partly protruded and partly depressed,”)
Further, the examiner is not suggesting to modify Liu’s octagonal portion with a sensor of Abbott. Rather, Liu teaches a sensor coupled with the pressing portion, the rain sensor 40 and the examiner modifies the rain sensor of Liu with the rain sensor of Abbott and provides proper motivation in the rejection.
Applicant further argues:
The prior art does not appreciate a dual purpose user-actuatable button with: (i) an indented portion indented in a shape to convey a function of the user-actuatable button, and (ii) with a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level (e.g., of rain) of the same indented portion (e.g., where rain can collect).
The examiner respectfully disagrees as Liu clearly shows a user actuatable button with an indented portion and sensor coupled to the user actuatable button to sense rain in the indented portion. Abbott teaches that the sensor may sense capacitance level of rain.
Applicant further argues the reliance on Smith for showing a sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with the indented portion of the button surface. The arguments regarding Smith mirror the Applicant’s arguments presented above with respect to claim 11 above, and the examiner refers Applicant to the examiner response above.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the interior surface” in line 8. This should be replaced with “the opposite interior surface”. Similarly claim 7 should be amended to recite “the opposite interior surface”.
Claim 11 recites “the interior surface” in line 9. This should be replaced with “the opposite interior surface”. Similarly, claim 12 and 13 should be amended to recite “the opposite interior surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“indicator configured to provide a notification” in claim 5. Structural support can be found at least in [0044] of the instant application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 has been amendment to recite “wherein the indented portion defines an interior surface”. Claim 12 depends from claim 11 which previously recited “the interior surface” in line 9. Thus, it is not clear with the introduction of “an interior surface” in claim 12, whether the interior surface defined in claim 12 is the same or different than that recited in claim 11. Further, the examiner notes that claim 11 recites “an opposite interior surface” and “the interior surface” and assumed that the interior surface of claim 11, line 9 referred back to the opposite interior surface of line 7. However, by introducing a second “an interior surface” this brings to question if “the interior surface” in line 9 of claim 11 is the same or different than the opposite interior surface of claim 11. Claim 13 has been similarly amended and has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO-2021088551-A1 hereinafter “Zhang” wherein citations provided correspond to the line numbers of the machine translation) in view of Meinke et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0257241, hereinafter “Meinke”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a robotic garden tool (see at least Zhang Figure 5, line 356 “Optionally, the electric tool in this application may be a smart lawn mower”) comprising:
a housing (see at least Zhang Figure 5, housing 51, line 362 “As shown in FIG. 5, the electric tool at least includes: a housing 51.” );
a user interface forming part of an outer surface of the housing, wherein the user interface comprises a user-actuatable button configured to enable user interaction with the robotic garden tool, and wherein the user actuatable button includes a button surface exposed to an environment of the robotic garden tool and an opposite interior surface shielded from the environment by the button surface (see at least Zhang Figure 5, touch sensing component 52, and lines 362-391 “As shown in FIG. 5, the electric tool at least includes: a housing 51; a touch sensing component 52 and a rain detection component arranged on the housing 51 53. The touch sensing component 52 has a function of shielding touch requests triggered by non-target objects…In an example, the touch sensing component 52 includes a button sensor 521, a protection sensor 522, and a shield electrode 523 connected to the control component 54 respectively….Among them, the key sensor 521 is a sensor implemented based on touch sensing technology, and is used to detect a touch request. The button sensor 521 may be a capacitive touch button sensor, such as the button sensor shown in FIG. 2…In this embodiment, the touch request detected by the key sensor 521 may be triggered by the target object; or, it may also be triggered by a liquid drop or a water flow.” See also Zhang lines 119-154 “Detecting, by the control component, whether there is currently a first capacitance value within a specified range… Determining that there is a touch request triggered by the target object when the first capacitance value exists… Detecting, by the control component, whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, the second capacitance value being generated when the protection sensor is covered with water flow…When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, determining that there is no touch request of the target object, and stopping scanning the touch request of the key sensor…When there is currently no second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold value, detecting, by the control component, whether there is currently a first capacitance value within a specified range;…When the first capacitance value exists, it is determined that there is a touch request triggered by the target object…When there is no first capacitance value, it is determined that there is no touch request triggered by the target object….” The examiner notes that the touch capacitive sensor 52 can distinguish between water and a finger touch)
a sensor coupled to the interior surface of the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the button surface (see at least Zhang 382-391 “….Among them, the key sensor 521 is a sensor implemented based on touch sensing technology, and is used to detect a touch request. The button sensor 521 may be a capacitive touch button sensor, such as the button sensor shown in FIG. 2… “ See also Figure 2; and lines 312-326 “Referring to the three-dimensional schematic diagram of the touch-sensitive button based on CapSense technology shown in FIG. 2, the touch-sensitive button includes a panel (overlay) 21 for finger touch; a ground port (GROUND HATCH) 22 and A sensor pad (sensor pad) 23, wherein there is a gap between the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; a printed circuit board (PCB) 24 located under the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; The scan line is connected to the sensor pad 23 and is located under the input/output (I/O) pin 25 of the PCB 24… When a finger touches the surface of the sensor pad 23, a parallel plate capacitance is formed at both ends of the panel 21, and the sensor pad 23 and the finger are two electrodes of the capacitance respectively. Define this capacitance as finger capacitance Cf, the parallel capacitance formula is…” ) and
an electronic processor coupled to the sensor and configured to control an operation of the robotic garden tool based on an output of the sensor (see at least Zhang, 660-665 “In one example, when the detection result of the touch sensing component is that there are other touch requests except the touch request caused by the target object, the task indicated by the touch request is executed. For example: start task, stop task, adjust working mode task, etc….In another example, when the detection result of the rain detection component is in the rain state, the rain shelter task is executed; or the shutdown task is performed.”)
While Zhang discloses a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button, and the examiner believes that Zhang shows that the sensor is coupled to the interior surface of the button (i.e. the sensor pad 23 is on the interior portion of the button as it is under the panel overlay 21), however Meinke more clearly teaches this and thus is relied upon for this limitation.
Meinke teaches the sensor is coupled to the interior surface of the user-actuatable button and further teaches the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the button surface (see at least Meinke [0063] “The keys 170 can be associated with electronics in the form of a switch or sensor, such as a membrane switch, a capacitance sensor, or a field effect sensor, positioned behind the keys 170 and capable of sensing the presence of the user's finger when the user touches the keys 170. Thus, when the user touches the keys 170 of the trim component, the electronics detect the presence of the user's finger, and when the user touches the keys 170 in the predetermined sequence, the electronics operably communicates with the lock mechanism to unlock the door.” See also [0035] “The trim component is not limited to vehicular trim components or use with vehicles. The invention as described herein can also be used in non-automotive applications, including those having control mechanisms for operation by the user and would benefit aesthetically by being concealed or hidden while not in use. Examples of such devices include, but are not limited to, appliances such as microwave ovens, clothes washers and dryers, ranges, stovetops, ovens, countertop kitchen appliances, and lawn and garden appliances, such as trimmers, edgers, blowers, snow blowers, and lawn mowers…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with the teaching of Meinke with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Meinke teaches the keys or buttons can be used in other applications including lawn mowers when it would benefits the aesthetics (see Meinke [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 1, wherein the user-actuatable button includes a user- actuatable stop button, and wherein the robotic garden tool is configured to stop operating in response to determining that the user-actuatable stop button has been actuated ((see at least Zhang, 660-665 “In one example, when the detection result of the touch sensing component is that there are other touch requests except the touch request caused by the target object, the task indicated by the touch request is executed. For example: start task, stop task, adjust working mode task, etc….In another example, when the detection result of the rain detection component is in the rain state, the rain shelter task is executed; or the shutdown task is performed.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 1, wherein the sensor includes a sensing surface disposed on an interior surface of the at least a portion of the user-actuatable button (see at least Zhang 382-391 “….Among them, the key sensor 521 is a sensor implemented based on touch sensing technology, and is used to detect a touch request. The button sensor 521 may be a capacitive touch button sensor, such as the button sensor shown in FIG. 2… “ See also Figure 2; and lines 312-326 “Referring to the three-dimensional schematic diagram of the touch-sensitive button based on CapSense technology shown in FIG. 2, the touch-sensitive button includes a panel (overlay) 21 for finger touch; a ground port (GROUND HATCH) 22 and A sensor pad (sensor pad) 23, wherein there is a gap between the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; a printed circuit board (PCB) 24 located under the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; The scan line is connected to the sensor pad 23 and is located under the input/output (I/O) pin 25 of the PCB 24… When a finger touches the surface of the sensor pad 23, a parallel plate capacitance is formed at both ends of the panel 21, and the sensor pad 23 and the finger are two electrodes of the capacitance respectively. Define this capacitance as finger capacitance Cf, the parallel capacitance formula is…” The examiner notes Zhang shows that the sensor is coupled to the interior surface of the button (i.e. the sensor pad 23 is on the interior portion of the button as it is under the panel overlay 21). See also at least Meinke [0063] “The keys 170 can be associated with electronics in the form of a switch or sensor, such as a membrane switch, a capacitance sensor, or a field effect sensor, positioned behind the keys 170 and capable of sensing the presence of the user's finger when the user touches the keys 170. Thus, when the user touches the keys 170 of the trim component, the electronics detect the presence of the user's finger, and when the user touches the keys 170 in the predetermined sequence, the electronics operably communicates with the lock mechanism to unlock the door.” See also [0035] “The trim component is not limited to vehicular trim components or use with vehicles. The invention as described herein can also be used in non-automotive applications, including those having control mechanisms for operation by the user and would benefit aesthetically by being concealed or hidden while not in use. Examples of such devices include, but are not limited to, appliances such as microwave ovens, clothes washers and dryers, ranges, stovetops, ovens, countertop kitchen appliances, and lawn and garden appliances, such as trimmers, edgers, blowers, snow blowers, and lawn mowers…”)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 1, wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
receive, from the sensor, a signal that indicates the capacitance level (see at least Zhang line 441-444 “Acquire the first drive signal provided by the control component 54 for the button sensor 521; acquire the second drive signal provided by the control component 54 for the shield electrode 523; use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold.”),
compare the capacitance level to a predetermined capacitance threshold, wherein the predetermined capacitance threshold is associated with a predetermined amount of liquid being present on the at least a portion of the button (see at least Zhang lines 442-444 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold.”)
determine that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold (see at least Zhang lines 442-447 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold. The second capacitance value is generated when the protection sensor 522 is covered with water flow….When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor 521. At this point, the touch request triggered by the water flow is realized.”)
in response to determining that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold control the operation of the robotic garden tool (see at least Zhang lines 442-447 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold. The second capacitance value is generated when the protection sensor 522 is covered with water flow….When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor 521. At this point, the touch request triggered by the water flow is realized.” The examiner interprets the ”stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor to correspond to controlling the operation of the robotic garden tool.” See also 103-104 “The control component triggers the electric tool to perform a corresponding task according to the detection results of the touch sensing component and the rain detection component.”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Zhang robotic garden tool of claim 1, wherein electronic processor is configured to control the operation of the robotic garden tool either based on the output of the sensor indicative of presence of a liquid on the button surface or based on actuation of the user-actuatable button by user actuation of the button surface (see at least Zhang lines 29-30 “Taking a smart lawn mower as an example, the existing smart lawn mower is provided with a touch sensor board, and the working state is switched by the touch signal sensed by the touch sensor board.” See also 657-684 “In step 903, the control component triggers the electric tool to perform a corresponding task according to the detection result of the touch sensing component and the rain detection component…In one example, when the detection result of the touch sensing component is that there are other touch requests except the touch request caused by the target object, the task indicated by the touch request is executed. For example: start task, stop task, adjust working mode task, etc….In another example, when the detection result of the rain detection component is in the rain state, the rain shelter task is executed; or the shutdown task is performed……It should be supplemented that the control component can trigger the electric tool to execute the task corresponding to the detection result of the touch sensing component when only the detection result of the touch sensing component is obtained; or, when only the detection result of the rain detection component is obtained, trigger The power tool executes the task corresponding to the detection result of the rain detection component; or, when the detection result of the touch sensing component and the rain detection component are obtained at the same time, the power tool is triggered to perform the task corresponding to the detection result of the touch sensing component, and the power tool is also triggered to execute The task corresponding to the detection result of the rain detection component….In summary, the method provided in this embodiment detects whether there is a touch request triggered by a target object through the touch sensing component; detects whether the electric tool is in the rain state through the rain detection component; and through the control component According to the detection results of the touch sensing component and the rain detection component, the electric tool is triggered to perform the corresponding task; it can solve the problem that the touch sensor panel on the existing electric tool cannot distinguish media such as water droplets, water flow, fingers, etc. Problem: Because the touch sensing component has the function of shielding touch requests triggered by non-target objects, the power tool can eliminate the false touch problems caused by non-target objects such as water droplets and water streams, and can improve the accuracy of the power tool in detecting finger touches.”)
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in further view of Liu (CN-113345726-A, hereinafter “Liu”, cited in the IDS, wherein citations correspond to the machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 1, including wherein the user interface comprises an indicator configured to provide a notification to a user, the indicator includes the at least a portion of the user interface and wherein the indicator includes a light emitting element (see at least Zhang Figure 5, display component 55, and lines 536-538 “The display component 55 may be a light emitting diode (Light Emitting Diode, LED) display screen, an organic light emitting diode (Organic Light-Emitting Diode, OLED) display screen, or a touch display screen, etc.”)
However, the combination of Zhang and Meinke do not explicit teach that the indicator includes a liquid detection indicator. Liu teaches sensing rain and an interaction module configured a user interface comprises an indicator wherein the indicator includes a liquid detection indicator, and wherein the liquid detection indicator includes a light emitting element (See at least Liu which teaches a rain sensor 40 and an interaction module configured to receive information and send out information, communicate with other systems or devices including the control panel and emergency stop button and the user interface comprises an indicator wherein the indicator includes a liquid detection indicator, an indicator including a light emitting element to notify a user, see Liu page 4 “The display screen and/or buzzer on the work equipment 100 enable the user to perceive information by emitting light or sounding.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Meinke with the teaching of Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Liu teaches the display can provide pertinent information to the user (see at least Liu page 4, as cited above).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in further view of Fukuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0239051, hereinafter “Fukuda”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 1, including a button capable of sensing touch and liquid, however the combination of Zhang and Meinke do not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the button surface is treated to increase an affinity of the first portion to liquid relative to the remainder of the button surface to facilitate liquid accumulation on the surface.
Fukuda teaches wherein the at least a first portion of the button surface is treated to increase an affinity of the first portion to liquid relative to the remainder of the button surface to facilitate liquid accumulation on the surface (see at least Fukuda [0210] which teaches coating a home electric appliances including components with hydrophilic material to increase affinity for liquid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Meinke with the teaching of Fukuda, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fukuda teaches coating home electric appliances with a hydrophilic coating to improve affinity to water and other liquids for improvement of scratch resistance and thus improve wearability of the buttons (see at least Fukuda [0211]).
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in further view of Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0176000, hereinafter “Abbott”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 8, including wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold by determining that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold (see at least Zhang lines 442-447 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold. The second capacitance value is generated when the protection sensor 522 is covered with water flow….When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor 521. At this point, the touch request triggered by the water flow is realized.” The examiner interprets the ”stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor to correspond to controlling the operation of the robotic garden tool.). However, the combination of Zhang and Meinke do not teach that the capacitive level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold for a predetermined de-bounce time period.
Abbott teaches determining that the capacitive level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold for a predetermined de-bounce time period. (see at least Abbott Figure 7, [0007] “A “control and/or regulation unit” is intended to mean in particular a unit with at least one set of control electronics. A “control electronics” is intended to mean in particular a unit having a processor unit and a memory unit, as well as having an operating program stored in the memory unit. Preferably, the semi-autonomous garden appliance, in particular the control and/or regulation unit, is intended and/or configured to control and/or regulate at least one activity, in particular a mowing process or a locomotion, depending on an output signal from the rain detection device.” See also Figure 7 and Figure 8 [0048-0050] “If the calculated ratio of the positive weighting characteristic value and the negative weighting characteristic value for the time interval does not exceed the limit value or the limit range of the symmetry characteristic value, an output signal formed as another Boolean value is output in a further step 82 of the algorithm 44, wherein in particular, the other Boolean value indicates absence of the rain condition on the surface 14. After the output signal has been output, a process of reading in values of the capacitance characteristic value of a further time interval, in particular following the time interval, is started (see first step 62 of the algorithm 44).” Wherein the examiner notes that the device is capable of determining the capacitance level for a time interval, any time interval, including continuously (see Abbott [0010]) and thus, including a debounce time period ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Meinke with the teaching of Abbott, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ensuring the capacitance value exceeds for the predetermined debounce time period prevents false triggers.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the electronic processor is configured to control the operation of the robotic garden tool by at least one of:
(i) navigating the robotic garden tool to a docking station.
(ii) transmitting via a network interface of the robotic garden tool, a liquid detection notification to an external device
both (i) and (ii).
Abbott discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to control the operation of the robotic garden tool by at least one of:
(i) navigating the robotic garden tool to a docking station.
(ii) transmitting via a network interface of the robotic garden tool, a liquid detection notification to an external device (see at least Abbott [0011] , Boolean value (true or false) of rain condition to external unit via network “Preferably, the output signal comprises at least the Boolean value determined by the evaluation unit. In particular, the control unit is configured to output the output signal to an external unit, such as the control and/or regulation unit or another component of the garden appliance, a Smart Home system or another external unit that the person skilled in the art may consider appropriate. It is conceivable that the rain detection device and/or the garden appliance may comprise at least one communication unit intended to transmit the output signal to the external unit. For example, the communication unit is designed as a radio, a W-LAN or a Bluetooth interface or another communication interface known to a person skilled in the art.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Meinke with the teaching of Abbott with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Abbott teaches the rain condition can be communicated to the user based on the user’s designated preferences (see at least Abbott [0010-0011] and [0019] and [0021]) .
Claims 3, 11-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Meinke in view of Smith et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0357324, hereinafter Smith”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 1, but they do not discloses wherein the user-actuatable button comprises an indented portion, the indented portion is indented in a shape to convey a function of the user- actuatable button to a user.
Smith teaches wherein the user-actuatable button comprises an indented portion, the indented portion is indented in a shape to convey a function of the user- actuatable button to a user (see at least Smith Figure 1A and [0024] “In some embodiments, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be raised or elevated above button area 124, as shown in FIG. 1A. In certain instances, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be recessed or depressed relative to button area 124. Elevation and/or depression of flexible buttons may provide a tactile frame of reference to a user searching for a specific button by touch alone without looking at the buttons. Tactile detection of the buttons may be beneficial for a user that is exercising, riding a bicycle, operating a vehicle, or undertaking some other activity that may require extended visual attention. Tactile detection may also be beneficial for users with poor eyesight or users utilizing the protective encasement in an environment with reduced visibility.” See also Smith Figure 1A, 126b, pause button. See also [0029])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Meinke with the teaching of Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Smith teaches, adding depressions in a button can provide context and tactile detection for those with poor eyesight (see at least Smith [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses a robotic garden tool (see at least Zhang Figure 5, line 356 “Optionally, the electric tool in this application may be a smart lawn mower”) comprising:
a housing (see at least Zhang Figure 5, housing 51, line 362 “As shown in FIG. 5, the electric tool at least includes: a housing 51.” );
a user interface disposed on part of the housing, the user interface configured to enable user interaction with the robotic garden tool, the user interface comprises a user-actuatable button configured to enable user interaction with the robotic garden tool, wherein the user actuatable button includes a button surface exposed to an environment of the robotic garden tool and an opposite interior surface shielded from the environment by the button surface (see at least Zhang Figure 5, touch sensing component 52, and lines 362-391 “As shown in FIG. 5, the electric tool at least includes: a housing 51; a touch sensing component 52 and a rain detection component arranged on the housing 51 53. The touch sensing component 52 has a function of shielding touch requests triggered by non-target objects…In an example, the touch sensing component 52 includes a button sensor 521, a protection sensor 522, and a shield electrode 523 connected to the control component 54 respectively….Among them, the key sensor 521 is a sensor implemented based on touch sensing technology, and is used to detect a touch request. The button sensor 521 may be a capacitive touch button sensor, such as the button sensor shown in FIG. 2…In this embodiment, the touch request detected by the key sensor 521 may be triggered by the target object; or, it may also be triggered by a liquid drop or a water flow.” See also Zhang lines 119-154 “Detecting, by the control component, whether there is currently a first capacitance value within a specified range… Determining that there is a touch request triggered by the target object when the first capacitance value exists… Detecting, by the control component, whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, the second capacitance value being generated when the protection sensor is covered with water flow…When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, determining that there is no touch request of the target object, and stopping scanning the touch request of the key sensor…When there is currently no second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold value, detecting, by the control component, whether there is currently a first capacitance value within a specified range;…When the first capacitance value exists, it is determined that there is a touch request triggered by the target object…When there is no first capacitance value, it is determined that there is no touch request triggered by the target object….” The examiner notes that the touch capacitive sensor 52 can distinguish between water and a finger touch)
a sensor coupled to the interior surface of the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with the indented portion of the button surface (see at least Zhang 382-391 “….Among them, the key sensor 521 is a sensor implemented based on touch sensing technology, and is used to detect a touch request. The button sensor 521 may be a capacitive touch button sensor, such as the button sensor shown in FIG. 2… “ See also Figure 2; and lines 312-326 “Referring to the three-dimensional schematic diagram of the touch-sensitive button based on CapSense technology shown in FIG. 2, the touch-sensitive button includes a panel (overlay) 21 for finger touch; a ground port (GROUND HATCH) 22 and A sensor pad (sensor pad) 23, wherein there is a gap between the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; a printed circuit board (PCB) 24 located under the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; The scan line is connected to the sensor pad 23 and is located under the input/output (I/O) pin 25 of the PCB 24… When a finger touches the surface of the sensor pad 23, a parallel plate capacitance is formed at both ends of the panel 21, and the sensor pad 23 and the finger are two electrodes of the capacitance respectively. Define this capacitance as finger capacitance Cf, the parallel capacitance formula is…” ); and
an electronic processor coupled to the sensor and configured to control an operation of the robotic garden tool based on an output of the sensor (see at least Zhang, 660-665 “In one example, when the detection result of the touch sensing component is that there are other touch requests except the touch request caused by the target object, the task indicated by the touch request is executed. For example: start task, stop task, adjust working mode task, etc….In another example, when the detection result of the rain detection component is in the rain state, the rain shelter task is executed; or the shutdown task is performed.”).
While Zhang discloses a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button, and the examiner believes that Zhang shows that the sensor is coupled to the interior surface of the button (i.e. the sensor pad 23 is on the interior portion of the button as it is under the panel overlay 21), however Meinke more clearly teaches this and thus is relied upon for this limitation.
Meinke teaches the sensor is coupled to the interior surface of the user-actuatable button and further teaches the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the button surface (see at least Meinke [0063] “The keys 170 can be associated with electronics in the form of a switch or sensor, such as a membrane switch, a capacitance sensor, or a field effect sensor, positioned behind the keys 170 and capable of sensing the presence of the user's finger when the user touches the keys 170. Thus, when the user touches the keys 170 of the trim component, the electronics detect the presence of the user's finger, and when the user touches the keys 170 in the predetermined sequence, the electronics operably communicates with the lock mechanism to unlock the door.” See also [0035] “The trim component is not limited to vehicular trim components or use with vehicles. The invention as described herein can also be used in non-automotive applications, including those having control mechanisms for operation by the user and would benefit aesthetically by being concealed or hidden while not in use. Examples of such devices include, but are not limited to, appliances such as microwave ovens, clothes washers and dryers, ranges, stovetops, ovens, countertop kitchen appliances, and lawn and garden appliances, such as trimmers, edgers, blowers, snow blowers, and lawn mowers…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with the teaching of Meinke with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Meinke teaches the keys or buttons can be used in other applications including lawn mowers when it would benefits the aesthetics (see Meinke [0035]).
The combination of Zhang and Meinke do not explicitly disclose an indented portion formed into the button surface.
Smith teaches an indented portion formed into the button surface (see at least Smith Figure 1A and [0024] “In some embodiments, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be raised or elevated above button area 124, as shown in FIG. 1A. In certain instances, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be recessed or depressed relative to button area 124. Elevation and/or depression of flexible buttons may provide a tactile frame of reference to a user searching for a specific button by touch alone without looking at the buttons. Tactile detection of the buttons may be beneficial for a user that is exercising, riding a bicycle, operating a vehicle, or undertaking some other activity that may require extended visual attention. Tactile detection may also be beneficial for users with poor eyesight or users utilizing the protective encasement in an environment with reduced visibility.” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Meinke with the teaching of Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Smith teaches, adding depressions in a button can provide context and tactile detection for those with poor eyesight (see at least Smith [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhang, Meinke and Smith teach the robotic garden tool of claim 11, wherein the sensor includes a sensing surface disposed on an interior surface of the indented portion (see at least Zhang 382-391 “….Among them, the key sensor 521 is a sensor implemented based on touch sensing technology, and is used to detect a touch request. The button sensor 521 may be a capacitive touch button sensor, such as the button sensor shown in FIG. 2… “ See also Figure 2; and lines 312-326 “Referring to the three-dimensional schematic diagram of the touch-sensitive button based on CapSense technology shown in FIG. 2, the touch-sensitive button includes a panel (overlay) 21 for finger touch; a ground port (GROUND HATCH) 22 and A sensor pad (sensor pad) 23, wherein there is a gap between the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; a printed circuit board (PCB) 24 located under the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; The scan line is connected to the sensor pad 23 and is located under the input/output (I/O) pin 25 of the PCB 24… When a finger touches the surface of the sensor pad 23, a parallel plate capacitance is formed at both ends of the panel 21, and the sensor pad 23 and the finger are two electrodes of the capacitance respectively. Define this capacitance as finger capacitance Cf, the parallel capacitance formula is…” The examiner notes that Zhang shows that the sensor is disposed on an interior surface of the button (i.e. the sensor pad 23 is on the interior portion of the button as it is under the panel overlay 21. See also Meinke [0063] “The keys 170 can be associated with electronics in the form of a switch or sensor, such as a membrane switch, a capacitance sensor, or a field effect sensor, positioned behind the keys 170 and capable of sensing the presence of the user's finger when the user touches the keys 170. …” As noted above, in view of the 112 rejection above, “the interior surface of the indented portion” will be interpreted as the interior surface of the button.. However the examiner notes that Smith teaches the indented portion as explained and rejected above and when combined with Zhang and Meinke to form a surface of indentions (124 and 126a-e of Smith) over a sensing pad, for example the sensor pad 23 of Zhang, the combination teaches a sensing pad is on an interior surface of the indented portion.)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zhang, Meinke and Smith teach the robotic garden tool of claim 11, wherein the sensor includes a sensing surface located on a side wall of an interior surface of the indented portion, a top wall of the interior surface of the indented portion, or both the side wall and the top wall portion (see at least Zhang 382-391 “….Among them, the key sensor 521 is a sensor implemented based on touch sensing technology, and is used to detect a touch request. The button sensor 521 may be a capacitive touch button sensor, such as the button sensor shown in FIG. 2… “ See also Figure 2; and lines 312-326 “Referring to the three-dimensional schematic diagram of the touch-sensitive button based on CapSense technology shown in FIG. 2, the touch-sensitive button includes a panel (overlay) 21 for finger touch; a ground port (GROUND HATCH) 22 and A sensor pad (sensor pad) 23, wherein there is a gap between the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; a printed circuit board (PCB) 24 located under the ground port 22 and the sensor pad 23; The scan line is connected to the sensor pad 23 and is located under the input/output (I/O) pin 25 of the PCB 24… When a finger touches the surface of the sensor pad 23, a parallel plate capacitance is formed at both ends of the panel 21, and the sensor pad 23 and the finger are two electrodes of the capacitance respectively. Define this capacitance as finger capacitance Cf, the parallel capacitance formula is…” The examiner notes that Zhang shows that the sensor is disposed on an interior surface of the button (i.e. the sensor pad 23 is on the interior portion of the button as it is under the panel overlay 21. See also Meinke [0063] “The keys 170 can be associated with electronics in the form of a switch or sensor, such as a membrane switch, a capacitance sensor, or a field effect sensor, positioned behind the keys 170 and capable of sensing the presence of the user's finger when the user touches the keys 170. …” As noted above, in view of the 112 rejection above, “the interior surface of the indented portion” will be interpreted as the interior surface of the button.. However the examiner notes that Smith teaches the indented portion as explained and rejected above and when combined with Zhang and Meinke to form a surface of indentions (124 and 126a-e of Smith) over a sensing pad, for example the sensor pad 23 of Zhang, the combination teaches a sensing pad is on an interior surface of the indented portion.)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zhang Meinke and Smith teach the robotic garden tool of claim 11, wherein the indented portion is indented in a shape to convey a function of the interface to a user ((see at least Smith Figure 1A and [0024] “In some embodiments, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be raised or elevated above button area 124, as shown in FIG. 1A. In certain instances, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be recessed or depressed relative to button area 124. Elevation and/or depression of flexible buttons may provide a tactile frame of reference to a user searching for a specific button by touch alone without looking at the buttons. Tactile detection of the buttons may be beneficial for a user that is exercising, riding a bicycle, operating a vehicle, or undertaking some other activity that may require extended visual attention. Tactile detection may also be beneficial for users with poor eyesight or users utilizing the protective encasement in an environment with reduced visibility.”)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhang, Meinke and Smith teach the robotic garden tool of claim 11, wherein the user-actuatable button of the user interface defines a user-actuatable stop button and wherein the indented portion is provided on the user-actuatable stop button (see at least Zhang, 660-665 “In one example, when the detection result of the touch sensing component is that there are other touch requests except the touch request caused by the target object, the task indicated by the touch request is executed. For example: start task, stop task, adjust working mode task, etc….In another example, when the detection result of the rain detection component is in the rain state, the rain shelter task is executed; or the shutdown task is performed.” See also Smith Figure 1A, 126b, pause button. See also [0029] ).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhang, Meinke and Smith teach the robotic garden tool of claim 11, wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
receive, from the sensor, a signal that indicates the capacitance level (see at least Zhang line 441-444 “Acquire the first drive signal provided by the control component 54 for the button sensor 521; acquire the second drive signal provided by the control component 54 for the shield electrode 523; use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold.”),
compare the capacitance level to a predetermined capacitance threshold, wherein the predetermined capacitance threshold is associated with a predetermined amount of liquid being present on the indented portion of the button surface (see at least Zhang lines 442-444 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold. The second capacitance value is generated when the protection sensor 522 is covered with water flow….” See also Smith for indented portion.)
determine that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold (see at least Zhang lines 442-447 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold. The second capacitance value is generated when the protection sensor 522 is covered with water flow….When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor 521. At this point, the touch request triggered by the water flow is realized.”)
in response to determining that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold control the operation of the robotic garden tool (see at least Zhang lines 442-447 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold. The second capacitance value is generated when the protection sensor 522 is covered with water flow….When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor 521. At this point, the touch request triggered by the water flow is realized.” The examiner interprets the ”stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor to correspond to controlling the operation of the robotic garden tool.” See also 103-104 “The control component triggers the electric tool to perform a corresponding task according to the detection results of the touch sensing component and the rain detection component.”)
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Meinke and Smith in further view of Abbott et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0176000, hereinafter “Abbott”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Zhang and Meinke teach the robotic garden tool of claim 8, including wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold by determining that the capacitance level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold (see at least Zhang lines 442-447 “use the control component 54 to detect whether there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold. The second capacitance value is generated when the protection sensor 522 is covered with water flow….When there is currently a second capacitance value greater than the first capacitance threshold, stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor 521. At this point, the touch request triggered by the water flow is realized.” The examiner interprets the ”stop scanning the touch request of the key sensor to correspond to controlling the operation of the robotic garden tool.). However, the combination of Zhang and Meinke do not teach that the capacitive level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold for a predetermined de-bounce time period.
Abbott teaches determining that the capacitive level exceeds the predetermined capacitance threshold for a predetermined de-bounce time period. (see at least Abbott Figure 7, [0007] “A “control and/or regulation unit” is intended to mean in particular a unit with at least one set of control electronics. A “control electronics” is intended to mean in particular a unit having a processor unit and a memory unit, as well as having an operating program stored in the memory unit. Preferably, the semi-autonomous garden appliance, in particular the control and/or regulation unit, is intended and/or configured to control and/or regulate at least one activity, in particular a mowing process or a locomotion, depending on an output signal from the rain detection device.” See also Figure 7 and Figure 8 [0048-0050] “If the calculated ratio of the positive weighting characteristic value and the negative weighting characteristic value for the time interval does not exceed the limit value or the limit range of the symmetry characteristic value, an output signal formed as another Boolean value is output in a further step 82 of the algorithm 44, wherein in particular, the other Boolean value indicates absence of the rain condition on the surface 14. After the output signal has been output, a process of reading in values of the capacitance characteristic value of a further time interval, in particular following the time interval, is started (see first step 62 of the algorithm 44).” Wherein the examiner notes that the device is capable of determining the capacitance level for a time interval, any time interval, including continuously (see Abbott [0010]) and thus, including a debounce time period ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Meinke with the teaching of Abbott, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ensuring the capacitance value exceeds for the predetermined debounce time period prevents false triggers.
Claims 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Meinke and Smith in further view of Doughty et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0020064, hereinafter “Doughty”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zhang, Meinke and Smith teach the robotic garden tool of claim 11, as claimed and rejected above. The combination of Zhang, Meinke and Smith do not explicitly teach the robotic garden tool further comprising a network interface to allow the robotic garden tool to wirelessly communicate with an external device wherein the electronic processor is configured to receive, via the network interface, a first indication of whether to enable liquid detection by the electronic processor using the sensor, wherein the first indication is selected via a first user input on the external device.
Doughty discloses the robotic garden tool further comprising a network interface to allow the robotic garden tool to wirelessly communicate with an external device (see at least Doughty [0070] “A communications system 417 housed in the chassis 406 allows the electronic processor 415 to communicate with remote devices (e.g., a remote server, the remote device 116). The communications system 417 includes a wireless receiver, a wireless transmitter, and/or a wireless transceiver that wirelessly communicates with the remote devices using, for example, WiFi, Bluetooth, or other wireless communications protocols. The communications system 417 thus sends data to and receives data from the remote devices. After the electronic processor 415 receives the sensor data from the vegetation characteristic sensors 400 generated during operation of the robotic lawnmower 100, the electronic processor 415 then transmits electrical signals to the communications system 417, which in turn generates data to send to the remote devices. The communications system 417 also receives information and data transmitted from the remote devices and generates corresponding electrical signals to be processed by the electronic processor 415 to control operations of the robotic lawnmower 100.”);
wherein the electronic processor is configured to receive, via the network interface, a first indication of whether to enable liquid detection by the electronic processor using the sensor, wherein the first indication is selected via a first user input on the external device (see at least Doughty [0070], Figure 7A, and [0085] “The user device 510 includes a user interface 700 that displays a map of the mowable area 102 (shown in FIG. 1). In cases where there are multiple maps of different vegetation characteristics, the user toggles between maps 705a, 705b, 705c of different vegetation characteristics by invoking buttons 708. In some examples, the maps 705a, 705b, 705c also show locations of the robot, the beacons, and the docking station.” And [0090] “Different portions of the map 705a are marked to indicate the level of moisture content of the corresponding portions of the mowable area. The map 705a depicts a portion 730a with a color corresponding to the high level 715a of moisture content. The marking of portion 730a indicates that the corresponding portion of the mowable area has a high level of moisture content. Similarly, the map 705a depicts a portion 735a with a marking corresponding to the medium level 720a of moisture content.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang, Meinke and Smith with the teaching of Doughty, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Doughty teaches, the network allows a user with a remote device to be alerted and respond to recommendations to improve the health and aesthetic of the vegetation and area to be mowed (see at least Doughty [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zhang, Meinke, Smith and Doughty teach the robotic garden tool of claim 19, wherein the electronic processor is configured to receive, via the network interface, a second indication of how to control the operation of the robotic garden tool in response to determining that the capacitance level exceeds a predetermined capacitance threshold, wherein the second indication is selected via a second user input on the external device (see at least Doughty [0078] “The robotic lawnmower 100 modifies its mowing operations based on that information and data. In some cases, the user device 510 visualizes the information and data so that the user may easily understand the status of vegetation (e.g., vegetation health, color, height, and moisture content) in his or her lawn or mowable area. The user device 510 further provide recommendations to the user, and the user, using the user device 510, responds by confirming or denying implementation of those recommendations. These various control and recommendation processes are described herein.” and [110] “0110] In some implementations, the electronic processor of the lawnmower generates additional user interface data that includes other information in addition the maps described with respect to FIGS. 6 and 7A to 7C. As depicted in FIG. 8, using the stored position-referenced data 625—which are generated using, for example, the operations 605, 610, 615, 620 of the process 600 of FIG. 6—the electronic processor implements a process 800 to communicate alerts and recommendations to the user device 510. The user device 510 provides recommendations that the user, for example, adjusts operations of the robotic lawnmower or adjusts lawn care strategies (e.g., watering frequency, fertilization frequency) of the mowable area. In some examples, the user device 510 also directs the user's attention to particular portions of the mowable area.” In addition and see [0081] for discussion that the moisture sensor is a capacitance sensor measuring capacitance.)
Claims 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Abbott.
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses a robotic garden tool (see at least Liu Figure 1, 100, and page 3 “The autonomous working equipment 100 is especially a robot that can autonomously move within a preset area and perform specific tasks, typically such as a smart sweeper/vacuum cleaner for performing cleaning operations, or a smart lawnmower for performing grass cutting operations. The present invention is described in detail by taking an intelligent lawn mower as an example. The autonomous working device 100 can autonomously walk on the surface of the working area, especially as an intelligent lawn mower, can autonomously perform mowing operations on the ground.“) comprising:
a housing (see at least Liu Figure 1, housing 30 and page 3 “The main mechanism generally includes a chassis 10 and a housing 30. The chassis 10 is used to install and accommodate functional mechanisms and functional modules such as a moving mechanism, a working mechanism, an energy module, a detection module, an interaction module, and a control module. The shell 30 is usually configured to at least partially cover the chassis 10…”);
a user interface forming part of an outer surface of the housing, wherein the user interface comprises a user-actuatable button configured to enable user interaction with the robotic garden tool, and wherein the user-actuatable button includes a button surface exposed to an environment of the robotic garden tool surface (see at least Liu Figure 1, emergency stop button 50, wherein the examiner interprets the whole of 511 “pressing portion” shown in Figure 7 as part of the button);
an indented portion formed into the button surface, the indented portion being indented in a shape to convey a function of the user-actuatable button to the user (see at least Liu Figure 1 and 2, wherein emergency stop button 50, the shape of the “pressing portion” 511 of the button 20 is shaped as an octagon which is a shape that conveys the function of the button. The indented portion being the sidewalls of the button as shown in the cross section of Figure 2. Further the examiner notes that Figure 7 and page 5 teach the mounting portion to which the button is joined can be indented or depressed, See at least Figure 7, mounting portion 111 and page 5 “The mounting portion 111 is protruded or depressed from the outer surface, or partly protruded and partly depressed,”)
a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense [a capacitance level] associated with the indented portion of the button surface (see at least Liu Figure 7, wherein the examiner interprets the whole of 511 “pressing portion” shown in Figure 7 as part of the button, see specifically button 511 and rain sensor 40 that is within escape hole 5120 of the button, and page 8 “It should be understood that the rain sensor 40 is integrated with the emergency stop button 50 through the escape hole 5120, and the rain sensor 40 may partially or completely pass through the emergency stop button 50. For example, a semi-cylindrical cavity is configured on the circumferential side of the emergency stop button 50, and a part of the rain sensor 40 is located in the semi-cylindrical cavity…Preferably, in this embodiment, the autonomous working device 100 is placed on a horizontal surface, and the projection of the rain sensor 40 on the horizontal surface is located within the projection of the emergency stop button 50 on the horizontal surface.” The examiner notes that the pressing of the button will be sensed whether the button is pressed on the top of the button or the indented portion of the button as defined above.); and
an electronic processor coupled to the sensor and configured to control an operation of the robotic garden tool based on an output of the sensor (see at least Liu page 4, “The control module usually includes at least one processor and at least one non-volatile memory. The memory stores a pre-written computer program or instruction set, and the processor controls the autonomous operating device 100 according to the computer program or instruction set. The execution of movement, work and other actions. Further, the control module can also control and adjust the corresponding behavior of the autonomous working device 100 and modify the data in the memory according to the signal of the detection module and/or user control instructions.” And “The detection module may also include sensors related to the external environment, such as an environmental temperature sensor, an environmental humidity sensor, an acceleration sensor, a light sensor, a rain sensor 40, and so on.” The examiner notes that the rain sensor is part of the detection module ).
Liu does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the button surface.
Abbott discloses a garden tool having a sensor coupled to at least a portion of the button surface, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the user interface (see at least Abbott abstract and [0033] “FIG. 1 shows a garden appliance 10 having a rain detection device 12. The garden appliance 10 is designed as a semi-autonomous lawnmower, in particular a robotic lawnmower…The rain detection device 12 comprises the sensor unit 16, which comprises exactly one capacitive sensor element 22, the sensor element 22 being designed and/or arranged in such a way that a capacitance characteristic value of the sensor element 22 changes depending on an object, e.g. a rain drop, contacting the surface 14. The capacitance characteristic value is formed as an electrical capacitance of an electrode pair 24 which forms the sensor element 22. The rain detection device 12 comprises an evaluation unit 26, which is configured to detect rain drops on the surface 14 depending on a differential signal from the sensor element 22.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu with the teaching of Abbott, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Abbott teaches detection of rain drops or a rain condition by means of a capacitive measurement is accurate and reliable and without requiring expensive optical sensors and can prevent false positive signals due to other conditions (see at least Abbott [0008-0009]).
The examiner notes that Abbott also teaches an electronic processor coupled to the sensor and configured to control an operation of the robotic garden tool based on an output of the sensor (see at least Abbott [0007] “A “control and/or regulation unit” is intended to mean in particular a unit with at least one set of control electronics. A “control electronics” is intended to mean in particular a unit having a processor unit and a memory unit, as well as having an operating program stored in the memory unit. Preferably, the semi-autonomous garden appliance, in particular the control and/or regulation unit, is intended and/or configured to control and/or regulate at least one activity, in particular a mowing process or a locomotion, depending on an output signal from the rain detection device.”).
Claims 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Abbott in further view of Smith.
Liu discloses a robotic garden tool (see at least Liu Figure 1, 100, and page 3 “The autonomous working equipment 100 is especially a robot that can autonomously move within a preset area and perform specific tasks, typically such as a smart sweeper/vacuum cleaner for performing cleaning operations, or a smart lawnmower for performing grass cutting operations. The present invention is described in detail by taking an intelligent lawn mower as an example. The autonomous working device 100 can autonomously walk on the surface of the working area, especially as an intelligent lawn mower, can autonomously perform mowing operations on the ground.“) comprising:
a housing (see at least Liu Figure 1, housing 30 and page 3 “The main mechanism generally includes a chassis 10 and a housing 30. The chassis 10 is used to install and accommodate functional mechanisms and functional modules such as a moving mechanism, a working mechanism, an energy module, a detection module, an interaction module, and a control module. The shell 30 is usually configured to at least partially cover the chassis 10…”);
a user interface forming part of an outer surface of the housing, wherein the user interface comprises a user-actuatable button configured to enable user interaction with the robotic garden tool, and wherein the user-actuatable button includes a button surface exposed to an environment of the robotic garden tool surface (see at least Liu Figure 1, emergency stop button 50, wherein the examiner interprets the whole of 511 “pressing portion” shown in Figure 7 as part of the button);
an indented portion formed into the button surface, the indented portion being indented in a shape to convey a function of the user-actuatable button to the user (see at least Liu Figure 1 and 2, wherein emergency stop button 50, the shape of the “pressing portion” 511 of the button 20 is shaped as an octagon which is a shape that conveys the function of the button. The indented portion being the sidewalls of the button as shown in the cross section of Figure 2. Further the examiner notes that Figure 7 and page 5 teach the mounting portion to which the button is joined can be indented or depressed, See at least Figure 7, mounting portion 111 and page 5 “The mounting portion 111 is protruded or depressed from the outer surface, or partly protruded and partly depressed,”)
a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense [a capacitance level] associated with the indented portion of the button surface (see at least Liu Figure 7, wherein the examiner interprets the whole of 511 “pressing portion” shown in Figure 7 as part of the button, see specifically button 511 and rain sensor 40 that is within escape hole 5120 of the button, and page 8 “It should be understood that the rain sensor 40 is integrated with the emergency stop button 50 through the escape hole 5120, and the rain sensor 40 may partially or completely pass through the emergency stop button 50. For example, a semi-cylindrical cavity is configured on the circumferential side of the emergency stop button 50, and a part of the rain sensor 40 is located in the semi-cylindrical cavity…Preferably, in this embodiment, the autonomous working device 100 is placed on a horizontal surface, and the projection of the rain sensor 40 on the horizontal surface is located within the projection of the emergency stop button 50 on the horizontal surface.”); and
an electronic processor coupled to the sensor and configured to control an operation of the robotic garden tool based on an output of the sensor (see at least Liu page 4, “The control module usually includes at least one processor and at least one non-volatile memory. The memory stores a pre-written computer program or instruction set, and the processor controls the autonomous operating device 100 according to the computer program or instruction set. The execution of movement, work and other actions. Further, the control module can also control and adjust the corresponding behavior of the autonomous working device 100 and modify the data in the memory according to the signal of the detection module and/or user control instructions.” And “The detection module may also include sensors related to the external environment, such as an environmental temperature sensor, an environmental humidity sensor, an acceleration sensor, a light sensor, a rain sensor 40, and so on.” The examiner notes that the rain sensor is part of the detection module ).
Liu does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the button surface.
Abbott discloses a garden tool having a sensor coupled to at least a portion of the button surface, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with at least a portion of the user interface (see at least Abbott abstract and [0033] “FIG. 1 shows a garden appliance 10 having a rain detection device 12. The garden appliance 10 is designed as a semi-autonomous lawnmower, in particular a robotic lawnmower…The rain detection device 12 comprises the sensor unit 16, which comprises exactly one capacitive sensor element 22, the sensor element 22 being designed and/or arranged in such a way that a capacitance characteristic value of the sensor element 22 changes depending on an object, e.g. a rain drop, contacting the surface 14. The capacitance characteristic value is formed as an electrical capacitance of an electrode pair 24 which forms the sensor element 22. The rain detection device 12 comprises an evaluation unit 26, which is configured to detect rain drops on the surface 14 depending on a differential signal from the sensor element 22.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu with the teaching of Abbott, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Abbott teaches detection of rain drops or a rain condition by means of a capacitive measurement is accurate and reliable and without requiring expensive optical sensors and can prevent false positive signals due to other conditions (see at least Abbott [0008-0009]).
While the examiner notes that the combination of Liu and Abbott appear to teach a sensor coupled to the user-actuatable button, the sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with the indented portion of the button surface, to further prosecution the examiner provides Smith for showing a sensor configured to sense a capacitance level associated with the indented portion of the button surface (see at least Smith Figure 1A and [0024] “In some embodiments, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be raised or elevated above button area 124, as shown in FIG. 1A. In certain instances, one or more of the flexible buttons 126a-e may be recessed or depressed relative to button area 124. Elevation and/or depression of flexible buttons may provide a tactile frame of reference to a user searching for a specific button by touch alone without looking at the buttons. Tactile detection of the buttons may be beneficial for a user that is exercising, riding a bicycle, operating a vehicle, or undertaking some other activity that may require extended visual attention. Tactile detection may also be beneficial for users with poor eyesight or users utilizing the protective encasement in an environment with reduced visibility.” See also [0028] for capacitive sensing )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu and Abbott with the teaching of Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Smith teaches, adding depressions in a button can provide context and tactile detection for those with poor eyesight (see at least Smith [0024]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights