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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Office respectfully submits that the claimed limitation of wherein the at least one seal element is not placed on top of the haptic element was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0285848 to Rosenberg et al.; in view of US 2013/0106734 to Schuler et al.; in view of US 2006/0109254 to Akieda et al.; further in view of US 2017/0364158 to Wen et al.
As per claim 1, a first embodiment of Rosenberg et al. teach a device, comprising:
a first layer (Fig. 13A, 110);
a second layer (Fig. 13A, 134) disposed opposite the first layer; and
at least one intermediate layer (Fig. 13A, 120) between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the at least one intermediate layer comprises:
a haptic element (Fig. 13A, 120)
at least one seal element (a combination of isolators Fig. 13A and seal in Fig. 13D will be construed as the at least one seal element), positioned on at least one side of the haptic element (Fig. 13A, ISOLATORS), wherein the at least one seal element is configured to seal at least the haptic element between the first layer and the second layer at least on the one side.
wherein the at least one intermediate layer further comprises at least one adhesive element positioned on at least a first side and a second side of the haptic element (Rosenberg, Fig. 13A, paragraph 104, “elastic isolators bonded to the back side of the substrate (or to the back side of the touch sensor surface 114)”, in other words, it is at least suggested, wherein there is an adhesive layer between the isolators and layers 110 and 114), wherein the first side opposes the second side, and wherein the at least one adhesive element attaches the first layer to the second layer (Rosenberg, Figs. 13A and 13D, seal elements positioned to the left, right and above the haptic element).
Rosenberg et al. do not teach the haptic element comprising at least one piezo-electric transducer.
Schuler et al. teach the haptic element comprising at least one piezo-electric transducer (Fig. 7, 129, paragraph 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Rosenberg et al., so that the haptic element comprises at least one piezo-electric transducer, such as taught bu Schuler et al., for the purpose of providing haptic feedback.
Rosenberg and Schuler et al. do not teach wherein the first layer comprises at least one depression for the at least one seal element, and wherein the at least one seal element is positioned in the at least one depression.
Akieda et al. teach wherein the first layer (Fig. 3, 72 is analogous to the first layer of Rosenberg because it is disposed on a seal element) comprises at least one depression and the at least one seal element is located within the at least one depression (Fig. 3, seal element 80 is positioned in notch of layer 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Rosenberg and Schuler et al., so that the first layer comprises at least one depression and the at least one seal element is located within the at least one depression, such as taught by Akieda et al., for the purpose of optimizing space utilization and improving structural integrity.
Rosenberg, Schuler and Akieda et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one seal element is positioned laterally adjacent at least a third side of the haptic element such that the at least one seal element is not placed on top of the haptic element, the third side transverse to the first and second sides of the haptic element.
Wen et al. teach wherein the at least one seal element is positioned laterally adjacent at least a third side of the haptic element such that the at least one seal element is not placed on top of the haptic element, the third side transverse to the first and second sides of the haptic element (Fig. 15D, paragraph 118, “The haptic element may also include a seal disposed around a periphery of the piezoelectric component, between the first flex and the second flex, such that the first flex, the second flex, and the seal enclose the piezoelectric component”, paragraph 155, “a conforming sealant 1520 can be added around the perimeter of piezoelectric component 1502, between the top flex 1504 and the bottom flex 1506”, in other words, seal element 1520 is peripheral to haptic element 1502), wherein the at least one seal element is further configured to seal at least the haptic element between the first layer and the second layer at least on the third side (paragraph 118, “disposed around a periphery of the piezoelectric component”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Rosenberg, Schuler and Akieda et al., so that the at least one seal element is positioned laterally adjacent at least a third side of the haptic element such that the at least one seal element is not placed on top of the haptic element, the third side transverse to the first and second sides of the haptic element, such as taught by Wen et al., for the purpose of preventing moisture and particle ingress.
As per claim 4, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one seal element is further positioned on a fourth side (Rosenberg, Fig. 13A, ISOLATORS are disposed slightly below the haptic element 120) of the haptic element, wherein the third side opposes the fourth side.
As per claim 6, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one intermediate layer further comprises a capacitive sensor element positioned between the second layer and the haptic element (Fig. 13B, paragraph 131).
As per claim 7, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a C-cover of a laptop computer (Rosenberg, Fig. 11).
As per claim 8, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises a touch interface surface (Fig. 13B, D. sensor, paragraph 131) of a laptop computer (Rosenberg, Fig. 11).
As per claim 10, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 9, wherein a thickness of the at least one seal element in a direction from the first layer to the second layer is greater than a depth of the at least one depression (Akieda, Fig. 3, seal element 80).
As per claim 11, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first layer and/or the second layer has first length in a first planar dimension and a second length in a second planar dimension (Rosenberg, Fig. 13A), wherein the second length is greater than the first length, and wherein the at least one seal element is configured to seal at least the haptic element between the first layer and the second layer along at least the second planar dimension (Rosenberg, Fig. 13A).
As per claim 12, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one intermediate layer further comprises an electronic circuitry for controlling the haptic element and/or the capacitive sensor element (Rosenberg, Fig. 14, 150, paragraph 35, “the controller 150 can simultaneously trigger the vibrator 120”, notice that at the very least the wiring from/to 150 is disposed in the intermediate layer).
As per claim 14, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach a laptop computer comprising the device according to claim 1 (Rosenberg, Figs. 11, 12 and 15).
As per claim 14, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 11, wherein a distance between the first layer and the second layer is in a third dimension that is perpendicular to the first planar dimension and the second planar dimension, and wherein both the at least one seal element and the haptic element are positioned along the third dimension such that the at least one seal element is parallel to the haptic element along the third dimension (Wen, Fig. 15D, paragraph 118, “The haptic element may also include a seal disposed around a periphery of the piezoelectric component, between the first flex and the second flex, such that the first flex, the second flex, and the seal enclose the piezoelectric component”).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0285848 to Rosenberg et al.; in view of US 2013/0106734 to Schuler et al.; in view of US 2006/0109254 to Akieda et al. ; further in view of US 2017/0364158 to Wen et al.; in view of US 2010/0052489 to Nakatani et al.
As per claim 2, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1.
Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one seal element comprises polyurethane, mi-crocellular urethane, microcellular urethane foam open cell urethane foam, closed cell urethane foam, silicone rubber, liquid silicone rubber, synthetic fibre fabric, and/or natural fibre fabric.
Nakatani et al. teach wherein the at least one seal element comprises polyurethane, mi-crocellular urethane, microcellular urethane foam open cell urethane foam, closed cell urethane foam, silicone rubber (paragraph 31, “elastic materials such as rubber, foamed resins that are deformed by compression and are restorable therefrom, such as foamed urethane, foamed polyethylene, silicone foam, and the like”), liquid silicone rubber, synthetic fibre fabric, and/or natural fibre fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al., so that the at least one seal element comprises polyurethane, mi-crocellular urethane, microcellular urethane foam open cell urethane foam, closed cell urethane foam, silicone rubber, liquid silicone rubber, synthetic fibre fabric, and/or natural fibre fabric, such as taught by Nakatani et al., for the purpose of protecting the device.
As per claim 5, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1.
Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. do not teach wherein a compression load deflection of the at least one seal element is 0.5 - 50 kilopascal when measured according to JIS K 6254.
Nakatani et al. teach wherein a compression load deflection of the at least one seal element is 0.5 - 50 kilopascal when measured according to JIS K 6254 (paragraph 31, “a load for 25% compression measured by a method according to the regulations of Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) K 6254 was 0.040 MPa”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al., so that a compression load deflection of the at least one seal element is 0.5 - 50 kilopascal when measured according to JIS K 6254, such as taught by Nakatani et al., for the purpose of protecting the device
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0285848 to Rosenberg et al.; in view of US 2013/0106734 to Schuler et al.; in view of US 2006/0109254 to Akieda et al. ; further in view of US 2017/0364158 to Wen et al.; in view of US 2013/0294020 to Rayner et al,.
As per claim 13, Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. teach the device according to claim 1.
Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one seal element is mounted to the first layer and/or to the second layer using an adhesive.
Rayner et al. teach wherein the at least one seal element is mounted to the first layer and/or to the second layer using an adhesive (paragraph 174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Rosenberg, Schuler, Akieda and Wen et al., so that the at least one seal element is mounted to the first layer and/or to the second layer using an adhesive, such as taught by Rayner et al., for the purpose of protecting the display.
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 JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, from 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached on (571) 272-7603. 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.
/JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622