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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiment 1, corresponding to Figures 1-5B and claims 1-15 and 20, in the reply filed on 05/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
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 outer top case recited in claims 1 and 9 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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casparian et al. [Casparian hereinafter, US 8,674,941].
In regard to claim 1, Casparian discloses [in Figs. 2A and 3A] an electronics assembly of a computer peripheral device, comprising: an outer top case [204]; a mechanical support layer [208] disposed on an inner side of the outer top case [204]; a membrane layer [210] coupled with the mechanical support layer [208], the membrane layer [210] comprising a printed trace [232] on at least one surface of the membrane layer [210]; and a ground plane [275] positioned on an opposite side of the membrane layer [210] as the outer top case [204] such that the mechanical support layer [208] and the membrane layer [210] are disposed between the outer top case [204] and the ground plane [274].
In regard to claim 4, Casparian discloses [in Figs. 2A and 3A] the electronics assembly of a computer peripheral device of claim 1, wherein: the membrane layer [210] comprises one or more vias [279] that extend through a thickness of the membrane layer [210] to electrically couple the ground plane [275] and the printed trace [232].
In regard to claim 5, Casparian discloses [in Figs. 2A and 3A] the electronics assembly of a computer peripheral device of claim 1, further comprising: an additional membrane layer [206] that is coupled with the mechanical support layer [208], the additional membrane layer [206] comprising an additional printed trace [234] on at least one surface of the additional membrane layer [206].
In regard to claim 9, Casparian discloses [in Figs. 2A and 3A] an electronics assembly of a computer peripheral device, comprising: an outer top case [204]; a mechanical support layer [208]; a first membrane layer [206] coupled with the mechanical support layer [208], the first membrane layer [206] comprising a first trace [234] that is printed on at least one surface of the first membrane layer [206]; a second membrane layer [210] coupled with the mechanical support layer [208], the second membrane layer [210] comprising a second trace [236] that is printed on at least one surface of the second membrane layer [210]; and a ground plane [275] positioned on an opposite side of the first [206] and second [210] membrane layers as the outer top case [204] such that the mechanical support layer [208], the first membrane layer [206], and the second membrane layer [210] are disposed between the outer top case [204] and the ground plane [275].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casparian et al. [Casparian hereinafter, US 8,674,941] in view of Krumpelman et al. [Krumpelman hereinafter, US 9,240,296]. Casparian discloses [in Figs. 2A and 3A] the electronics assembly of a computer peripheral device of claim 1. Casparian does not disclose that the ground plane comprises a conductive mesh. Krumpelman teaches [in Fig. 9A and col. 15, lines 9-12] that the ground plane comprises a conductive mesh. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the ground plane of Casparian with the ground plane of Krumpelman in order to actuate the switch as desired.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casparian et al. [Casparian hereinafter, US 8,674,941] in view of Niu [US 9,012,795]. Casparian discloses [in Figs. 2A and 3A] the electronics assembly of a computer peripheral device of claim 9. Casparian does not disclose that the first membrane layer comprises one or both of polyethylene terephthalate and a polyamide. Niu teaches [in Fig. 6] that the membrane layer [250] comprises one or both of polyethylene terephthalate and a polyamide [col. 7, lines 8-11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a membrane layer that comprises one or both of polyethylene terephthalate and a polyamide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casparian et al. [Casparian hereinafter, US 8,674,941] in view of Peterson et al. [Peterson hereinafter, US 2014/0224633]. Casparian discloses [in Figs. 2A and 3A] the electronics assembly of a computer peripheral device of claim 9. Casparian does not disclose that the first and second traces are printed using conductive ink that comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of silver, carbon, and copper. Peterson teaches [in Fig. 7A] that traces are printed using conductive ink that comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of silver, carbon, and copper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide traces are printed using conductive ink that comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of silver, carbon, and copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 20 are allowed. In regard to claim 15, in combination with other limitations, a ground plane positioned on an opposite side of the membrane layer as the outer top case such that the mechanical support layer and the membrane layer are disposed between the outer top case and the ground plane, and a plurality of switches that each extend through the membrane layer and the mechanical support layer is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
Claims 3, 6-8, and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 3, in combination with other limitations, the conductive mesh being printed on the membrane layer on an opposite side of the printed trace is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 6, in combination with other limitations, an ultraviolet ink insulation layer disposed atop the printed trace is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 8, in combination with other limitations, a keyboard switch that extends through the membrane layer and the mechanical support layer is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 10, in combination with other limitations, an additional ground plane positioned between the first and second membrane layers and the outer top case is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 11, in combination with other limitations, the ground plane bine printed on one of the first and second membrane layers is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 12, in combination with other limitations, the ground plane being printed on a third membrane layer is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gadelle et al. [US 2024/0321533] discloses a similar electronics assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights