DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 October 2025 is entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
See the following.
i. Prior objection to informalities’ recitation in claims 27, 34 is withdrawn.
ii. Claim 59 is objected to because of the following informalities: recitation of “…the lower component…” lacking antecedent basis, will be interpreted instead as “…the lower portion…”1 (emphasis provided).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 47 – 49, 51, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yairi et al. (2016/0357326; hereinafter Yairi).
Regarding claim 47, Yairi discloses a keyboard ([0058]: e.g. QWERTY keyboard) for an electronic device [0060] comprising:
a base structure (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 180);
a glass top member (Comprising 110, 120; [0024]) defining a keyboard region and configured to locally deform in response to a force input to the keyboard region ([0021]: Deformable regions aligned with keys of a keyboard), the glass top member (Comprising 110, 120) coupled to the base structure (Comprising 180) and defining:
an exterior top surface (Comprising 133) defining the keyboard region [0058]; and
an interior surface (Comprising surface of 110 facing away from 120) opposite the exterior top surface (Comprising 133); and
a haptic sheet structure (Comprising 113) coupled to the interior surface of the glass top member (Comprising surface of 110 facing away from 120) and defining a plurality of haptic actuators arranged in a key pattern (Channel set defining deformable regions [0026] of respective input QWERTY keys [0058]), wherein
a first haptic actuator (Comprising 131; comprising one among array thereof) defined by the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 113) is separated from a second haptic actuator (Comprising 131; comprising differing one among array thereof) defined by the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 113) by a gap (Comprising 1142).
Regarding claim 48, Yairi discloses the keyboard of claim 47. Yairi discloses the keyboard further comprising a force sensing system (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 170; [0057]: Pressure3 sensor) operably coupled to the grid of haptic actuators (Comprising 131), the force sensing system configured to detect a local deformation of the glass top member (Comprising 110, 120) in response to the force input ([0057]: “…detect an input…at the deformable region…”).
Regarding claim 49, Yairi discloses the keyboard of claim 47. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein the haptic sheet structure (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 113) comprises a plurality of contiguous compliant layers ([0026]: Set of fluid channels).
Regarding claim 51, Yairi discloses the keyboard of claim 47. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein the haptic sheet structure (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 113) comprises a plurality of connecting elements coupling adjacent aptic actuators ([0026]: Deformable regions’ conduits receive fluid from channel/s) such that the grid of haptic actuators (Comprising 131) define a contiguous sheet structure (Sharing shown common instance of 113).
Regarding claim 52, Yairi discloses the keyboard of claim 48. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein: the keyboard region includes a plurality of key regions (Mimicking physical keys [0021] of QWERTY keyboard [0058]); and the connecting elements structurally support the glass top member to resist deformation of the glass top member between adjacent key regions (Inward resistance to deformation [0034] with conduit of associated deformable region [0064]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
i. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yairi in view of Lezzi et al. (2019/0002331; hereinafter Lezzi).
Regarding claim 50, Yairi discloses the keyboard of claim 47.
Yairi does not explicitly disclose the keyboard wherein the glass top member has an elastic modulus between about 60 GPa and about 80 GPa.
In the same field of endeavor, Lezzi discloses cover glass of consumer electronic devices [0002] wherein the glass top member has an elastic modulus between about 60 GPa and about 80 GPa (Elastic modulus units furnished in GPa [0102] is offered in a range of values including not limited to 63.9 – 73.6 [0103]; TABLE II). This is among measures implemented to furnish tempered glass with a controlled break pattern [0119] avoiding the danger of elongated and sharply edged broken fragments [0006].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the keyboard of Yairi to be modified wherein the glass top member has an elastic modulus between about 60 GPa and about 80 GPa, in view of the teaching of Lezzi, to furnish tempered glass with safer break patterns.
ii. Claims 40 – 43, 45, 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pance et al. (2014/0218853; hereinafter Pance) in view of Maschmeyer et al. (2012/0105333; hereinafter Maschmeyer).
Regarding claim 40, Pance discloses a laptop computer ([0041]; Figure 4) comprising:
an upper portion (Comprising 26) comprising a display (Comprising 14); and
a base portion (Comprising 22) pivotably coupled to the upper portion (Comprising 26), the base portion (Comprising 22) comprising:
a glass [0046] top member (Figures 10A – 11C: Comprising 122) defining:
a top surface ([0008]: Exposed surface) of the base portion (Figure 4: Comprising 22); and
a plurality of keyboard key regions, each keyboard key region of the plurality of keyboard key regions configured to deform in response to a respective user input (Pressure actuatable switches [0081] patterned to mimic keyboard [0074] in QWERTY configuration [0076]); and
a haptic sheet structure (Figures 10A – 11C: Comprising 128) positioned under the glass top member (Comprising 122), the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 128) comprising:
a plurality of haptic actuators (Comprising 72; [0076]) arranged in a pattern corresponding to at least a subset of the plurality of keyboard key regions [0078] on the glass top member (Comprising 122).
Pance does not explicitly disclose the computer further comprising a plurality of connecting elements, wherein a connecting element of the plurality of connecting elements structurally couples a first haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators to a second haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators.
In the same field of endeavor, Maschmeyer discloses haptic controls [0001] capable of keyboard implementation [0076] and comprising a plurality of connecting elements (Figure 20: Between adjacent instances of 2006, 2010, 2014), wherein a connecting element of the plurality of connecting elements structurally couples a first haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators to a second haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators (Arrays 2006, 2010, 2014 are structurally coupled to one another across sheets 20124; instances within each aforementioned array coupled as follows:
2006 | structurally coupled by 2004;
2010 | [0091]: structurally coupled by “…a gap or space5…”;
2014 | [0091]: structurally coupled by itself – when “…shape changing elements of a particular array may…contact one another…” the analogous teaching of connecting elements are the shape changing elements themselves). This structure is among measures implemented to furnish tactile feedback overcoming limitations of force and displacement, of the prior art [0003].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified as further comprising a plurality of connecting elements, wherein a connecting element of the plurality of connecting elements structurally couples a first haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators to a second haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators, in view of the teaching of Maschmeyer, to implement tactile feedback with force and displacement occurring at improved resolution.
Regarding claim 41, Pance in view of Maschmeyer discloses the laptop computer of claim 40. Pance discloses the computer wherein: the plurality of haptic actuators (Figure 11B: Comprising 72) comprise at least one compliant layer formed from a compliant material ([0076]: Comprising at least examples of pneumatic, microfluidic).
Pance does not explicitly disclose the computer wherein the plurality of connecting elements comprise the compliant material.
In the same field of endeavor, Maschmeyer implements haptic control ([0001]; Figure 20) wherein the plurality of connecting elements comprise the compliant material (By array 2014 interpreted as example wherein “…shape change elements of a particular array may…contact one another…” [0091] the material of which 2014 is comprised, is compliant material of which analogous connecting elements and haptic actuators are comprised). This structure is among measures implemented to furnish tactile feedback overcoming limitations of force and displacement, of the prior art [0003].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified wherein the plurality of connecting elements comprise the compliant material, in view of the teaching of Maschmeyer, to implement tactile feedback with force and displacement occurring at improved resolution.
Regarding claim 42, Pance in view of Maschmeyer discloses the laptop computer of claim 40.
Pance does not explicitly disclose the computer wherein: the haptic sheet structure comprises a continuous sheet of compliant material; and at least a portion of each of the plurality of haptic actuators and a portion of each of the plurality of connecting elements is formed from the continuous sheet of compliant material.
In the same field of endeavor, Maschmeyer discloses haptic control ([0001]; Figure 20) wherein: the haptic sheet structure comprises a continuous sheet of compliant material and at least a portion of each of the plurality of haptic actuators and a portion of each of the plurality of connecting elements is formed from the continuous sheet of compliant material (By array 2014 interpreted as example wherein “…shape change elements of a particular array may…contact one another…” [0091] the layer of which 2014 is comprised, is compliant material of which analogous connecting elements and haptic actuators are comprised). This structure is among measures implemented to furnish tactile feedback overcoming limitations of force and displacement, of the prior art [0003].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified wherein: the haptic sheet structure comprises a continuous sheet of compliant material; and at least a portion of each of the plurality of haptic actuators and a portion of each of the plurality of connecting elements is formed from the continuous sheet of compliant material, in view of the teaching of Maschmeyer, to implement tactile feedback with force and displacement occurring at improved resolution.
Regarding claim 43, Pance in view of Maschmeyer discloses the laptop computer of claim 40.
Pance does not explicitly disclose the computer wherein the haptic sheet structure defines respective air gaps formed between adjacent pairs of haptic actuators of the plurality of haptic actuators.
In the same field of endeavor, Maschmeyer discloses haptic control ([0001]; Figure 20) wherein the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 2010) defines respective air gaps ([0091]: “…gap or space…”6) formed between adjacent pairs of haptic actuators of the plurality of haptic actuators (Comprising 2010). This structure is among measures implemented to furnish tactile feedback overcoming limitations of force and displacement, of the prior art [0003].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified wherein: the haptic sheet structure defines respective air gaps formed between adjacent pairs of haptic actuators of the plurality of haptic actuators, in view of the teaching of Maschmeyer, to implement tactile feedback with force and displacement occurring at improved resolution.
Regarding claim 45, Pance in view of Maschmeyer discloses the laptop computer of claim 40.
Pance does not explicitly disclose the computer wherein: the haptic sheet structure further comprises: a plurality of compliant layers, each compliant layer formed from a continuous sheet; and a plurality of electrode layers, each electrode layer laminated to a corresponding compliant layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Maschmeyer discloses haptic control [0001] wherein: the haptic sheet structure (Figure 20) further comprises: a plurality of compliant layers (Comprising 2006, 2010, 2014), each compliant layer formed from a continuous sheet ([0091]: “…shape change elements of a particular array may…contact one another…” interpreted to be explicitly shown by 2014, is similarly applicable to 2006, 2010 as well); and a plurality of electrode layers (Figure 6: Comprising 622, 624), each electrode layer laminated to a corresponding compliant layer (Comprising 620; [0052]). This structure is among measures implemented to furnish tactile feedback overcoming limitations of force and displacement, of the prior art [0003].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified wherein the haptic sheet structure further comprises: a plurality of compliant layers, each compliant layer formed from a continuous sheet; and a plurality of electrode layers, each electrode layer laminated to a corresponding compliant layer, in view of the teaching of Maschmeyer, to implement tactile feedback with force and displacement occurring at improved resolution.
Regarding claim 46, Pance in view of Maschmeyer discloses the laptop computer of claim 40.
Pance does not explicitly disclose the computer wherein each haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators is electrically isolated with respect to each other haptic actuator.
In the same field of endeavor, Maschmeyer discloses haptic control [0001] wherein each haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators is electrically isolated with respect to each other haptic actuator (The isolation of respective ones of tier haptic systems [0121] corresponding to the use of elastic sheets formed from electrically insulating material [0089]). This structure is among measures implemented to furnish tactile feedback overcoming limitations of force and displacement, of the prior art [0003].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified wherein wherein each haptic actuator of the plurality of haptic actuators is electrically isolated with respect to each other haptic actuator, in view of the teaching of Maschmeyer, to implement tactile feedback with force and displacement occurring at improved resolution.
iii. Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pance in view of Maschmeyer, as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Yairi.
Regarding claim 44, Pance in view of Maschmeyer discloses the laptop computer of claim 40. Pance discloses the computer wherein: each haptic actuator (Figures 10A – 11C: Comprising 72) corresponds to a respective keyboard key region of the plurality of keyboard key regions (Haptic output nearest touch position [0078] of surface in QWERTY keyboard configuration [0076]).
Pance does not explicitly disclose the computer wherein the top member is configured to locally deform at each respective keyboard region in response to a user input.
In the same field of endeavor, Maschmeyer discloses haptic control wherein [0001] the top member is configured to locally deform [0127] at each respective keyboard region in response to a user input [0032]. This structure is among measures implemented to furnish tactile feedback overcoming limitations of force and displacement, of the prior art [0003].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified wherein: the top member is configured to locally deform at each respective keyboard region in response to a user input, in view of the teaching of Maschmeyer, to implement tactile feedback with force and displacement occurring at improved resolution.
Pance in view of Maschmeyer does not explicitly disclose the computer wherein the top member is glass.
In the same field of endeavor, Yairi discloses a dynamic tactile interface [0002] wherein the top member (Figure 2: Comprising 110) is glass [0024]. This is among structure implemented capable of executing faster transitions of the deformable region [0026].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Pance to be modified wherein wherein the top member is glass, in view of the teaching of Yairi, to produce faster transitions in the deformable region.
iv. Claims 53 – 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yairi in view of Romera Jolliff et al. (2011/0304550; hereinafter Romera).
Regarding claim 53, Yairi discloses a keyboard ([0058]: e.g. QWERTY keyboard) for a laptop computing device [0060], the keyboard comprising:
a lower portion (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 180);
a glass top member (Comprising 110, 120; [0024]) spaced apart from the lower portion (Comprising 180), the glass top member (Comprising 110, 120) defining a keyboard region and configured to deform ([0021]: Deformable regions aligned with keys of a keyboard) in response to a user input to the keyboard region ([0044]: Application of force); and
a haptic sheet structure (Comprising 113) positioned between the lower portion (Comprising 180) and the glass top member (Comprising 110, 120), the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 113) defining a plurality of haptic key regions within the keyboard region (Channel set defining deformable regions [0026] of respective input QWERTY keys [0058]), the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 113) comprising:
a plurality of compliant layers ([0026]: Set of channels), wherein:
the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 113) defines a plurality of haptic actuators (Comprising 131), each haptic actuator defined at least in part by the plurality of compliant layers (Deformable region retracted, expanded setting [0020] performed independently by set of channels [0026]); and
each haptic actuator (Comprising 131) is positioned below a corresponding haptic key region (Channel set communicating with each deformable region [0026] of respective input QWERTY keys [0058]).
Yairi does not explicitly disclose the keyboard further comprising at least one electrode layer positioned between a first compliant layer of the plurality of compliant layers and a second compliant layer of the plurality of compliant layers.
In the same field of endeavor, Romera discloses multiple configurations of a computer user interface system ([0002]; Figures 8A – 8E) comprising at least one electrode layer (Comprising 814; [0063]) positioned between a first compliant layer of the plurality of compliant layers (Comprising one of 812) and a second compliant layer of the plurality of compliant layers (Comprising differing one among 812). Environmental/device conditions may be relied upon to reconfigure input most suitable for a user [0100].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Yairi to be modified a further comprising at least one electrode layer positioned between a first compliant layer of the plurality of compliant layers and a second compliant layer of the plurality of compliant layers, in view of the teaching of Romera, to reconfigure device input most suitable to a user.
Regarding claim 54, Yairi in view of Romera discloses the keyboard of claim 53.
Yairi does not explicitly disclose the keyboard wherein the at least one electrode layer is laminated to a corresponding compliant layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Romera discloses multiple configurations of a computer user interface system ([0002]; Figures 8A – 8E) wherein the at least one electrode layer (Comprising 814) is laminated to a corresponding compliant layer (Comprising one of 812). Environmental/device conditions may be relied upon to reconfigure input most suitable for a user [0100].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the computer of Yairi to be modified a further comprising the at least one electrode layer is laminated to a corresponding compliant layer, in view of the teaching of Romera, to reconfigure device input most suitable to a user.
Regarding claim 55, Yairi in view of Romera discloses the keyboard of claim 53. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein the haptic sheet structure (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 113) defines a plurality of connecting elements coupling adjacent haptic actuators ([0026]: Deformable regions’ conduits receive fluid from channel/s), the plurality of connecting elements configured to inhibit deflection of the glass top member keyboard between haptic key regions (Inward resistance to deformation [0034] with conduit of associated deformable region [0064]).
Regarding claim 56, Yairi in view of Romera discloses the keyboard of claim 55. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein the keyboard further comprises a force sensing system (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 170; [0057]: Pressure sensor) operably coupled to the haptic sheet structure (Comprising 131), the force sensing system configured to detect the user input to the keyboard region (Input detected by pressure sensor at corresponding deformable region [0057] of QWERTY keyboard [0058]).
Regarding claim 57, Yairi in view of Romera discloses the keyboard of claim 56. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein the force sensing system is configured to detect a location of the user input with respect to the keyboard region (Input detected by pressure sensor at corresponding deformable region [0057] aligned with respective ones [0021] of QWERTY keyboard keys [0058]).
Regarding claim 58, Yairi in view of Romera discloses the keyboard of claim 55. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein the plurality of connecting elements are defined at least in part by a unitary compliant layer (Figures 2, 3: 113 communicating with each among 131).
Regarding claim 59, Yairi in view of Romera discloses the keyboard of claim 55. Yairi discloses the keyboard wherein the haptic sheet structure (Figures 2, 3: Comprising 113) extends from the lower component (Comprising 180) to the glass top member (Comprising 110, 120).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure follows:
Wang et al. (2009/0167690) discloses an example of a single continuous sheet of compliant material (Figure 2A).
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Midkiff whose telephone number is (571)270-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/AARON MIDKIFF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2621
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
1 As recited in claim 53.
2 Interpreted to, similar to that mentioned in [0087] of the instant application, “…provide clearance…” around respective actuators, and/or “…allow lateral deflection…” of haptic actuator(s) by introduction of material.
3 Pressure = force per unit area.
4 Including unlabeled second (continuous) instance; comparable to 1408 in Figure 14.
5 Comparable to 1160 in Figure 11.
6 This passage of text describes a feature illustrated in Figure 11. The feature is similarly shown in Figure 20, but without the same labeling and explicit discussion.
Prosecution Insights