DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims filed August 27, 2025 is received and entered.
2. Claims 1, 12, and 15 are amended. Claims 14 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1 – 13 and 15 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments / Amendment
4. On pages 7 – 8 of the Response, Applicant argues that “[T]he Office concedes that neither Morimoto nor Sakita disclose said processor is configured to switch between a first mode of operation and a second mode of operation, by means of a set button connected to said processor”. Applicant argues that with regard to Chu, “[T]he specific output to a user . . . does not change in response to the mode selected, and each touch mode is dependent on a different input”. Applicant concludes that “Chu does not teach two separate modes of operation that use two separate button structures which are contained within the same key mechanism”.
The Office finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. 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).
Claim 1 was rejected in view of the combination of Morimoto, Sakita, and Chu. However, Applicant’s argument only applies to Chu. As set forth below, Chu was only relied upon to demonstrate that it was obvious to incorporate a hardware switch button into a touch device to switch touch modes manually.
Applicant has not articulated any reason why this particular application of Chu would be inapplicable to the combination of Morimoto and Sakita. Neither has applicant articulated any reason why this combination would fail to teach any of the claimed subject matter.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “set button” of independent claims 1 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 7 – 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (U.S. Pub. 2006/0278013) in view of Sakita (U.S. Pub. 2016/0048217) in view of Chu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0057491) in view of Feng (U.S. Pub. 2021/0181876).
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches: apparatus comprising a key mechanism (FIG. 1; paragraph [0038]; resistance type sensor 1) and a processor (FIG. 4; paragraph [0047]; signal processor 60), said key mechanism comprising:
an elastic structure comprising a first cavity and a second cavity spaced apart from each other, said first cavity being located above said second cavity (FIG. 1; paragraph [0037], [0039] – [0040]; the elements including, and contained between, membrane sheets 20 and 50 constitute an “elastic structure”. A “first cavity” is formed between spacers 45 and a “second cavity” is formed between spacers 25. As illustrated, the “first cavity” is disposed above the “second cavity”);
a first button structure within said first cavity (FIG. 1; paragraph [0040]; electrodes 41a and 51a form a “first button structure” in the “first cavity” between spacers 45); and
a second button structure (The elements below form a “second button structure”), comprising:
a first electrode layer disposed on an upper wall of said second cavity and a second electrode layer disposed on a lower wall of said second cavity (FIG. 1; paragraph [0039]; electrode 31a [first electrode layer] is formed on a bottom surface of membrane sheet 30 and therefore on an upper wall of the “second cavity” between spacers 25. Electrode 21a [second electrode layer] is formed on a top surface of membrane sheet 20a and therefore on a lower wall of the “second cavity” between spacers 25), and
a first body provided on a lower surface of said first electrode layer or an upper surface of said second electrode layer (FIG. 1; paragraph [0039]; resistive material 32a [first body] is provided on a lower surface of electrode 31a [first electrode layer] and resistive material 22a [first body] is provided on an upper surface of electrode 21a [second electrode layer]. Either one or both of these resistive materials constitute the “first body”); and
a pressing mechanism (FIG. 1; paragraph [0045]; operation button 10 and supporting layer 15 together form a “pressing mechanism”);
wherein: said processor is electrically connected to said first button structure, to said first electrode layer, and to said second electrode layer (FIG. 4; paragraphs [0047], [0048]; signal processor 60 receives an ON/OFF signal from a switch formed by electrodes 41a and 51a of the “first button structure”. Additionally, signal processor 60 receives a voltage from variable resistor R1 formed by resistive materials 32a and 22a, which are electrically connected to electrodes 31a and 21a, respectively).
Morimoto fails to explicitly disclose: the structure is elastic; the pressing mechanism is configured to generate a first key signal and a second key signal on application of a force to said pressing mechanism; said processor is configured to switch between said first mode of operation utilizing said first button structure, and said second mode of operation utilizing said second button structure; and said processor is further configured to: in the first mode of operation, generate said first key signal from said first button structure when a force is applied to said upper wall of said first cavity; and in the second mode of operation, generate said second key signal from said second button structure in response to elastic deformation of said first elastic body when a force is applied to said upper wall of said first cavity compressing said upper wall of said second cavity, and said first electrode layer and said second electrode layer are in contact.
However, Morimoto does disclose that the resistance type sensor 1 differentiates between inputs applied with Z-axial force and inputs applied with only X and Y-axial forces (FIG. 5; paragraphs [0054], [0055]; steps s105 and s107, respectively. It is implied that a light input corresponds to s107 and a hard input corresponds to s105).
Additionally, Morimoto teaches that membrane sheets 20, 30, 40, and 50 may be made of a PET film which is well-known as a strong and flexible [elastic] material (paragraph [0038]).
In a related field of endeavor, Sakita discloses an input device [computer keyboard] that includes a “first button structure” of conductive element 56 and electrical circuit 62 formed with opening 93 [first cavity] therebetween where the “first button structure” detects a light touch; and a “second button structure” of conductive element 64 and electric circuit 66 formed with an opening [second cavity] therebetween where the “second button structure” detects a force touch (FIGS. 7-B, 7-C; paragraphs [0062], [0063]).
With regard to claim 1, Sakita teaches: the structure is elastic (FIGS. 7A – 7C; paragraph [0061]; key 22a [key mechanism] is elastic in that various elements move, collapse, and/or compress in response to applied force);
the pressing mechanism is configured to generate a first key signal and a second key signal on application of a force to said pressing mechanism (FIGS. 7-B, 7-C; paragraph [0062], [0063], [0069]; when a light touch is applied to an area of key 22A [pressing mechanism] corresponding to opening 93 [first cavity], conductive element 56 and electric circuit 62 are electrically connected to one another which inherently outputs a [first key] signal to a CPU. When a force touch is applied to the area of key 22A, conductive element 64 [first electrode] and electric circuit 66 [second electrode] are electrically connected to one another which inherently outputs a [second key] signal to a CPU);
said processor is configured to switch between said first mode of operation utilizing said first button structure and said second mode of operation utilizing said second button structure (FIGS. 7-B, 7-C; paragraphs [0062], [0063]; it is implicit / inherent that the CPU of the disclosed device switches between the “first mode” in which a light touch causes the device to pronounce of the name of a letter/function or a logo/pictograph in response to a compression / collapse of the “first button structure” and the “second mode” in which a force touch causes the device to input the character/function or execute an application corresponding to the logo/pictograph [second mode] in response to a compression / collapse of the “second button structure”), and said processor is further configured to:
in said first mode of operation, generate said first key signal from said first button structure when a force is applied to said upper wall of said first cavity (FIG. 7-B; paragraph [0062]; when the light touch is applied to the area corresponding to opening 93 [first cavity], conductive element 56 and electric circuit 62 are electrically connected to one another which inherently outputs the [first key] signal to a CPU, see paragraph [0069], that causes the device to pronounce of the name of a letter/function or a logo/pictograph [first mode]); and
in said second mode of operation, generate said second key signal from said second button structure in response to elastic deformation of said first elastic body when a force is applied to said upper wall of said first cavity compressing said upper wall of said second cavity, and said first electrode layer and said second electrode layer are in contact (FIG. 7-C; paragraph [0063]; when a force touch is applied to an area corresponding to opening 93 [first cavity], the opening 93 [first cavity] collapses / compresses as does the opening [second cavity] between conductive element 64 [first electrode] and electric circuit 66 [second electrode]. This collapse / compression results in conductive element 64 [first electrode] and electric circuit 66 [second electrode] being in electrical contact with each other. When this force touch is applied as illustrated in FIG. 7-C, the electrical connection between conductive element 64 [first electrode] and electric circuit 66 [second electrode] inherently outputs a [second key] signal to a CPU, see paragraph [0069], that causes the device to input the character/function or execute an application corresponding to the logo/pictograph [second mode]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto and Sakita to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a button-style input device that detects a light input via a first signal from two electrodes of a first button structure and a hard input via a second signal from two electrodes of a second button structure below the first button structure, as taught by Morimoto, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a keyboard input device having an elastic structure where they keyboard input device operates in a first mode in response to detecting a light input via a first signal from two electrodes of a first button structure and operates in a second mode in response to detecting a hard input via a second signal from two electrodes of a second button structure below the first button structure, as taught by Sakita, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Morimoto and Sakita would yield the predictable results of a keyboard input device that has an elastic PET film structure which operates in a first mode in response to detecting a light input via a first signal from two electrodes of a first button structure and operates in a second mode in response to detecting a hard input via a second signal from two electrodes of a second button structure below the first button structure. Such a combination merely requires applying the particular button-style input device structure of Morimoto to a keyboard device implementation such as that of Sakita which would utilize a flexible version of the PET film of Morimoto, which is well-known and conventional. Both disclosures include two button assemblies that overlap each other, have two electrodes, and generate different signals in response to different applied input forces. Accordingly, utilizing the sensor of Morimoto in a keyboard device of Sakita to perform the functions of Sakita would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, in such a combination, the PET film of Morimoto would be flexible so that the button assemblies deform to electrically connect the respective electrodes of the first and second button assemblies, similar to the collapse / compression as disclosed by Sakita. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto and Sakita to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Neither Morimoto nor Sakita explicitly disclose: said processor is configured to switch between a first of mode of operation utilizing said first button structure and a second mode of operation, by means of a set button connected to said processor; in said first mode of operation, generate only said first key signal; and in said second mode of operation, generate only said second key signal.
However, Chu teaches: said processor is configured to switch between a first of mode of operation and a second mode of operation, by means of a set button connected to said processor (paragraph [0057]; a hardware switch button may be included to manually switch touch modes. This manual mode switching is disclosed as an explicit alternative to automatic switching of touch modes. The particularly disclosed embodiment includes both manual and automatic switching);
in said first mode of operation, generate only said first key signal (paragraph [0057]; logically, when a first touch mode is manually selected, only signals associated with the manually selected first touch mode would be generated in response to user input. When a mode of operation is manually selected, it is logical and obvious that only inputs corresponding to the selected mode would be generated / recognized); and
in said second mode of operation, generate only said second key signal (paragraph [0057]; logically, when a second touch mode is manually selected, only signals associated with the manually selected second touch mode would be generated in response to user input. When a mode of operation is manually selected, it is logical and obvious that only inputs corresponding to the selected mode would be generated / recognized).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, and Chu to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a keyboard input device that operates in a first mode in response to detecting a light input via a first signal and operates in a second mode in response to detecting a hard input via a second signal, as taught by the combination of Morimoto and Sakita, are known. Additionally, the teachings of an input device that includes a hardware switch button to manually switch touch modes as an additional alternative to automatically switching the touch modes where, logically, only the first signal is generated when the first mode is manually selected and only the second signal is generated when the second mode is manually selected, as taught by Chu, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, and Chu would yield the predictable results of a keyboard input device that includes a hardware switch button that allows a user to manually switch between a first mode in which only a first signal is generated and a second mode in which only a second signal is generated. Such a combination merely requires applying the hardware switch button of Chu to allow a user of the combined device of Morimoto and Sakita to manually switch the touch modes thereof. This combination would allow a user greater control of what input signals are generated based on which mode they purposefully select and would likely reduce erroneous inputs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, and Chu to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Neither Morimoto nor Sakita nor Chu explicitly disclose: the first body is elastic.
However, as reminder, the “first body” elements 22a and 32a referenced above are resistive materials (paragraph [0039]).
In a related field of endeavor, Feng discloses a resistive input device (paragraph [0007]).
With regard to claim 1, Feng teaches: the first body is elastic (FIG. 2; paragraph [0088]; an input device is provided with an anisotropic conductive layer 303 disposed between a first sub-touch-electrode layer 3021 and a second sub-touch-electrode layer 3022. When no pressure is applied to a top surface of the input device, elastic particles 3032 inside the anisotropic conductive layer 303 [first elastic body] are electrically separated from one another as are electrode layers 3021 and 3022. When pressure is applied to a top surface of the input device, elastic particles 3032 inside the anisotropic layer 303 are electorally connected to each other and electrode layers 3021 and 3022.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, and Feng to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a keyboard input device having an elastic structure and a second button assembly with a resistive material disposed between two electrodes where a pressing input compresses / collapses a cavity / space between the two electrodes to generate a signal in response to the pressing input, as taught by the combination of Morimoto and Sakita, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a resistive input device that includes an elastic body disposed between two electrodes such that applied force compresses the elastic body to electrically connect the two electrodes through conductive particles in the elastic body, as taught by Feng, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, and Feng would yield the predictable results of a resistive keyboard input device having an elastic structure and a second button assembly with a resistive elastic body disposed between two electrodes such that applied force compresses the resistive elastic body to electrically connect the two electrodes through conductive particles in the elastic body to generate a signal in response to the pressing input. In other words, it would have been obvious to simply substitute the anisotropic conductive layer 303 of the resistive input device of Feng for the generic resistive materials 22a and 32a of Morimoto. Such a substitution, when incorporated in the combination of Morimoto and Sakita as set forth above, would allow for the compression of the second button assembly when a force input is applied to generate a corresponding input signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, and Feng to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Morimoto teaches: wherein: said first button structure comprises a third electrode layer and a fourth electrode layer (FIG. 1; paragraph [0040]; as set forth above with regard to claim 1, electrodes 41a [fourth electrode layer] and 51a [third electrode layer] form a “first button structure” in the “first cavity” between spacers 45); and
said third electrode layer is disposed on said upper wall of said first cavity and said fourth electrode layer is disposed on a lower wall of said first cavity (FIG. 1; paragraph [0040]; electrode 51a [third electrode layer] is disposed on a bottom surface of membrane sheet 50 and therefore on an upper wall of the “first cavity” between spacers 25. Electrode 41a [fourth electrode layer] is disposed on a top surface of membrane sheet 40 and therefore on a lower wall of the “first cavity” between spacers 25).
Regarding claim 8, Morimoto fails to explicitly disclose: further comprising a second elastic body disposed on a lower surface of said third electrode layer or an upper surface of said fourth electrode layer, arranged such that, in use, when a force is applied to said upper wall of said first cavity, said third electrode layer contacts said fourth electrode layer to generate said first key signal in response to elastic deformation of said second elastic body.
However, Morimoto discloses that resistive materials 22a and 32a may be disposed between electrodes 21a and 31a in the “second cavity” between spacers 25.
Additionally, as set forth above with regard to claim 1, Feng discloses an anisotropic conductive layer 303 disposed between electrode layers 3021 and 3022 (FIG. 2; paragraph [0088]).
When these teachings are considered together, it would have been obvious to merely duplicate the use of the resistive materials 22a and 32a in the “second cavity” of Morimoto to also be used in the “first cavity”, and to use the anisotropic conductive layer 303 of Feng as the resistive materials. This modification would result in switches SW1 1 – SW4 of Morimoto instead being variable resistors, similar to R1 – R4. However, the particular amount of resistance that can measured by “first button assembly” in this configuration would be significantly greater than the amount of resistance that can be measured by the “second button assembly” due to the intermediate layers. Such a modification of Morimoto would allow the modified device to provide more than just binary functionality with regard to both the first and second button assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, and Feng to yield the aforementioned predictable results for the reasons set forth above and with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Morimoto teaches: wherein said elastic structure comprises: a base layer (FIG. 1; paragraph [0037]; membrane sheet 20), a first support structure (FIG. 1; paragraph [0039]; spacers 25), a second support structure (FIG. 1; paragraph [0040]; spacers 45), a first elastic membrane (FIG. 1; paragraph [0038]; PET membrane sheet 50 which may be elastic for the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1) and a second elastic membrane (FIG. 1; paragraph [0038]; PET membrane sheets 30 and 40 combined are interpreted as the “second elastic membrane” which may be elastic for the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Morimoto teaches: wherein said first support structure is arranged between said second elastic membrane and said base layer such that said first support structure, said second elastic membrane and said base layer define said second cavity (FIG. 1; spacers 25 [first support structure] are arranged between PET membrane sheets 30/40 [second elastic membrane] and membrane sheet 20 [base layer] to define the “second cavity” as set forth above with regard to claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Morimoto teaches: wherein said second support structure is arranged between said first elastic membrane and said second elastic membrane such that said second supporting structure, said first elastic membrane and said second elastic membrane define said first cavity (FIG. 1; spacers 45 [second support structure] are arranged between PET membrane sheet 50 [first elastic membrane] and PET membrane sheets 30/40 [second elastic membrane] to define the “first cavity” as set forth above with regard to claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is merely a method recitation of the structural arrangement and functional recitations set forth above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose or brevity.
8. Claims 2 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Sakita in view of Chu in view of Feng, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Eventoff (U.S. Patent 4,314,227)
Regarding claim 2, neither Morimoto nor Sakita nor Chu nor Feng explicitly disclose: wherein said first electrode layer comprises a plurality of first interdigitated fingers and a plurality of second interdigitated fingers.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Eventoff discloses a keyboard that includes pressure sensitive variable resistance switches (col. 1, lines 6 – 9).
With regard to claim 2, Eventoff teaches: wherein said first electrode layer comprises a plurality of first interdigitated fingers and a plurality of second interdigitated fingers (FIGS. 2 – 4; col. 5, lines 5 – 7; col. 6, lines 29 – 31; contact conductors 13 [first electrode layer] includes first contact conductors 14 [interdigitated fingers] and second contact conductors 16 [interdigitated fingers] are arranged opposite to one another, interleaved with one another, and alternately spaced from one another).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, Feng, and Eventoff to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a resistive keyboard input device having a second button structure with a first electrode layer that forms part of a variable resistor to detect force inputs, as taught by the combination of Morimoto, Sakita, and Feng, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a resistive keyboard input device having an electrode layer including first and second interdigitized fingers to detect a variable resistance, as taught by Eventoff, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Feng, and Eventoff would yield the predictable results of a resistive keyboard input device having a second button structure with a first electrode layer including first and second interdigitized fingers that form part of a variable resistor to detect force inputs. In other words, it would have been obvious to utilize the interdigitized electrodes of the variable resistor of Eventoff in place of the variable resistance generic electrode of Morimoto. Such a modification of Morimoto is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known variable resistor electrode for another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, Feng, and Eventoff to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, neither Morimoto nor Sakita nor Chu nor Feng explicitly disclose: wherein said plurality of first interdigitated fingers and said plurality of second interdigitated fingers are arranged substantially opposite to each other and alternately spaced.
However, Eventoff teaches: wherein said plurality of first interdigitated fingers and said plurality of second interdigitated fingers are arranged substantially opposite to each other and alternately spaced (FIG. 4; first contact conductors 14 [interdigitated fingers] and second contact conductors 16 [interdigitated fingers] are arranged opposite to one another, interleaved with one another, and alternately spaced from one another).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, Feng, and Eventoff to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, neither Morimoto nor Sakita nor Chu nor Feng explicitly disclose: wherein each of said plurality of first interdigitated fingers is connected to a first main electrode, and each of said plurality of second interdigitated fingers is connected to a second main electrode.
However, Eventoff teaches: wherein each of said plurality of first interdigitated fingers is connected to a first main electrode (FIG. 4; the straight portion of the first contact conductors 14 extending from conductor 34 rightwards towards orifice 26 is interpreted as the “first main electrode” from which arced portions of the contact conductors 14 protrude), and each of said plurality of second interdigitated fingers is connected to a second main electrode (FIG. 4; the straight portion of the second contact conductors 16 extending from conductor 32 leftwards towards orifice 26 is interpreted as the “second main electrode” from which arced portions of the contact conductors 16 protrude).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, Feng, and Eventoff to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, neither Morimoto nor Sakita nor Chu nor Feng nor Eventoff explicitly disclose: wherein said first main electrode and said second main electrode are substantially arc-shaped and form a circular arrangement into which said plurality of first interdigitated fingers and said plurality of second interdigitated fingers are located.
However, please see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B) which refers to case law that has held that a mere change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
There is nothing in Applicant’s disclosure that indicates the particular shape is significant or different from any other particular shape known in the art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to merely change the shape of the electrodes of Eventoff when incorporated into the combination of Morimoto, Sakita, and Feng, as set forth above with regard to claim 2, to yield predictable results of having the particularly claimed shape.
Regarding claim 6, neither Morimoto nor Sakita nor Chu nor Feng nor Eventoff explicitly disclose: wherein said first main electrode and said second main electrode are substantially rectangular and are arranged in parallel to each other.
However, please see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B) which refers to case law that has held that a mere change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
There is nothing in Applicant’s disclosure that indicates the particular shape is significant or different from any other particular shape known in the art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to merely change the shape of the electrodes of Eventoff when incorporated into the combination of Morimoto, Sakita, and Feng, as set forth above with regard to claim 2, to yield predictable results of having the particularly claimed shape.
9. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Sakita in view of Chu in view of Feng, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0243277).
Regarding claim 12, Morimoto teaches: wherein said pressing mechanism comprises a pressing member (FIG. 1; paragraph [0045]; operation button 10), and an abutting member (FIG. 1; paragraph [0045]; protrusion 15a which implicitly / inherently applies a force to a top surface of the “first button structure” which generates an electrical signal when force is applied to operation button 10).
Morimoto fails to explicitly disclose: the pressing mechanism comprising two support members.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Chen discloses a membrane circuit board for a keyboard device (Title).
With regard to claim 12, Chen teaches: further comprising: a pressing mechanism (FIG. 1; paragraph [0003]; key structure 12), said pressing mechanism comprising a pressing member (FIG. 1; paragraph [0003]; keycap 121), an abutting member (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0003], [0005]; elastic element 123 which applies a force to membrane switch 144 which generates an electrical signal when key structure 12 is depressed), and two support members (FIG. 1; paragraph [0003]; first frame 1221 and second frame 1222).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, Feng, and Chen to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a resistive keyboard input device having an operation button and a protrusion that applies force to a first button structure which generates an electrical signal when force is applied to the operation button, as taught by the combination of Morimoto, Sakita, and Feng, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a keyboard input device having a keycap, an elastic element, and two frames that support the keycap such that an application of a force is required to generate an electrical signal via a membrane switch, as taught by Chen, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Feng, and Chen would yield the predictable results of a resistive keyboard input device having a keycap, an elastic element, and two frames that support the keycap such that an application of a force is required to generate an electrical signal via a membrane switch. In other words, it would have been obvious to use the key structure of Chen in place of the operation button and supporting layer 15 of Morimoto when Morimoto is incorporated in a keyboard device. Such a modification of the “pressing mechanism” of Morimoto requires nothing more than a simple substitution of one known membrane switch key structure for another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, Feng, and Chen to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Morimoto fails to explicitly disclose: wherein said two support members are connected to a lower surface of said pressing member at a respective first end of each said support member; and said two support members are arranged on opposite side walls of said first cavity at a respective second end of each said support member; and said abutting member is arranged on said lower surface of said pressing member and located between said two support members, such that, said abutting member is opposite to said first cavity so as to enable compression of said upper wall of said first cavity.
However, Chen teaches: wherein said two support members are connected to a lower surface of said pressing member at a respective first end of each said support member (FIG. 1; paragraph [0003]; first frame 1221 and second frame 1222 [support members] each include an upper end which is connected to a lower surface of keycap 121 [pressing member], as illustrated); and
said two support members are arranged on opposite side walls of said first cavity at a respective second end of each said support member (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0003], [0004]; first frame 1221 and second frame 1222 [support members] each include a lower end which are respectively arranged on opposite sides of intermedia film layer 143 relative to perforation 1431 [first cavity]); and
said abutting member is arranged on said lower surface of said pressing member and located between said two support members (FIG. 1; paragraph [0003]; elastic element 123 [abutting member] is disposed on a lower surface of keycap 121 [pressing member] and is arranged between first frame 1221 and second frame 1222 [support members] as illustrated), such that, said abutting member is opposite to said first cavity so as to enable compression of said upper wall of said first cavity (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0003], [0005]; elastic element 123 [abutting member] is disposed above [opposite to] perforation 1431 [first cavity]. When keycap 121 [pressing member] is pressed, elastic element 123 [abutting member] applies a force to upper film layer 142 which deforms / compresses perforation 1431 [first cavity] so upper contact 14211 contacts 14111).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Morimoto, Sakita, Chu, Feng, and Chen to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626