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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US 20130308261; “Matsumoto” hereinafter), in view of Yu et al (US 20140090966; “Yu” hereinafter), and further in view of Watabe et al (US 20110051345; “Watabe” hereinafter), Minaguchi et al (US 20050115025; “Minaguchi” hereinafter), and Dedrich et al (US 5855095; “Dedrich” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches: an electronic apparatus (1, fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (5, fig. 1) including:
an upper cover (12, figs. 1 and 5) that defines a horizontal plane (see fig. 1);
a side wall protruding (unnumbered and annotated as ‘12c’ in annotated fig. 5 below), in a thickness direction of the chassis, from a peripheral edge of the
upper cover (as disclosed in annotated fig. 5 below); and
at least one boss (27, fig. 5) protruding, in the thickness direction of the chassis (¶[0040]), from an inner face (7a, fig. 5, “7a of the housing 5 includes a keyboard attachment region 28”, ¶[0040]) of the upper cover (fig. 5);
a keyboard (11, fig. 1) including:
a baseplate (23, figs. 4-5); and
PNG
media_image1.png
803
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cutout (34, fig. 5) on a peripheral edge of the keyboard (see fig. 5), where the at least one boss extends, in the thickness direction of the chassis (as shown in figs. 5 and 8), through the cutout and protrudes farther from the inner face (7a) of the upper cover (12) than a thickness of the baseplate (fig. 8 discloses this limitation).
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach
a base protruding:
in the thickness direction of the chassis, from the inner face of the upper cover to a height of the at least one boss, and also
in a longitudinal direction of a keyboard, from the inner face of the side wall to connect with the at least one boss: and
a positioning pin protruding, in the thickness direction of the chassis, from the base at a location between the at least one boss and the side wall;
at least one bracket including:
a bracket hole that accommodates a first screw that, through the open-ended slot on the peripheral edge
of the keyboard, fastens the at least one bracket to the
at least one boss;
a positioning hole, disposed between the bracket hole and the side wall of the chassis, that accommodates the positioning pin; and
at least one stud on a face of the at least one bracket opposite to a face facing the keyboard; and
an electronic board including a hole that accommodates a second screw that fastens the electronic
board to the at least one stud, wherein
the location of the positioning pin overlaps a gap, measured along the horizontal plane in a longitudinal direction of the keyboard, between the
peripheral edge of the keyboard to an inner face of the side wall of the chassis is smaller than an
outside diameter of the at least one stud, and
the at least one stud is not disposed in the gap.
and the cutouts being open-ended slots.
However, Yu teaches:
a baseplate (30, fig. 3); and
a cutout (31A, 31B, fig. 1, ¶[0017], ¶[0027]) on a peripheral edge of the keyboard (see fig. 5, where cutouts 31A and 31B, are located on a peripheral edge of keyboard 10, and allow bosses 50a and 50d, ¶[0017], ¶[0027]), where the at least one boss extends, through the cutout and protrudes farther from the inner face of an upper cover (40, see at least figs. 1 and 5) than a thickness of the baseplate (figure 5 discloses this limitation);
at least one bracket (60A-60C, figs. 3 and 5) including:
a bracket hole (hole 61A-61B, fig. 1) that accommodates a first screw (unnumbered. Yu discloses the screw nut's support plate 66 can be secured to a keyboard with a small screw through an aperture (hole 61A-61C) of the screw nut support plate, ¶[0016]-[0017]) that, through the cutout (31A) on the peripheral edge of the keyboard, fastens the at least one bracket (66) to the at least one boss (50A); and
at least one stud (main body 62, ¶[0020]) on a face of the at least one bracket opposite to a face
facing the keyboard (figure 5 discloses this limitation),
an electronic board (90, fig. 5) including a hole (64, where screw 80A is disposed, figs. 2a-2b, and 5) that accommodates a second screw (80A, fig. 5) that fastens the electronic board to the at least one stud (as disclosed in fig. 5, ¶[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Yu’s arraignment of at least one bracket including a bracket hole that accommodates a first screw that, through the cutout on the peripheral edge of the keyboard, to fasten the at least one bracket to the at least one boss; and at least one stud on a face of the at least one bracket opposite to a face facing the keyboard, with an electronic board including a hole that accommodates a second screw that fastens the electronic board to the at least one stud, into the electronic device of Matsumoto, in order to enhance mounting flexibility of the keyboard relative to the electronic device internal components for the advantage of preventing circuitry and internal component interference when the keyboard is used in a different electronic device (¶[0010]).
Matsumoto in view of Yu does not explicitly disclose:
a gap, measured along the horizontal plane in a longitudinal direction of the keyboard, between the
peripheral edge of the keyboard to an inner face of the side wall of the chassis is smaller than an
outside diameter of the at least one stud, and
the at least one stud is not disposed in the gap.
However, Watabe teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
378
379
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a gap (see annotated fig. 11 below), measured along the horizontal plane in a longitudinal direction of the keyboard (as disclosed in fig. 11), between the peripheral edge of a keyboard (9, fig. 11) to an inner face of the side wall of the chassis (main body 3, fig. 1), where the at least one stud (43, fig. 11) is not disposed in the gap (fig. 11).
Watabe is silent regarding the gap being smaller than an outside diameter of the at least one stud.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to define the electronic device of Matsumoto as modified by Yu, as comprising a gap, measured along the horizontal plane in a longitudinal direction of the keyboard, between the peripheral edge of the keyboard to an inner face of the side wall of the chassis is smaller than an outside diameter of the at least one stud, and the at least one stud is not disposed in the gap as taught by Watabe, in order to provide an electronic device with thin housings (¶[0005] and ¶[0010]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine experimentation by those skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Matsumoto in view of Yu and Watabe does not explicitly disclose:
a base protruding:
in the thickness direction of the chassis, from the inner face of the upper cover to a height of the at least one boss, and also
in a longitudinal direction of a keyboard, from the inner face of the side wall to connect with the at least one boss: and
a positioning pin protruding, in the thickness direction of the chassis, from the base at a location between the at least one boss and the side wall;
a positioning hole, disposed between the bracket hole and the side wall of the chassis, that accommodates the positioning pin
the location of the positioning pin overlaps a gap,
and the cutouts being open-ended slots.
However, Minaguchi teaches:
a base (30, fig. 5) protruding in the thickness direction of a chassis (4, figs. 1-2), from the inner face (bottom inner face of 5, fig. 5) of a cover (5, fig. 5) to a height of the at least one boss (29, fig. 5, ¶[0029]), and
protruding, in the longitudinal direction of the keyboard (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1-2, and 5, where 30 protrudes in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of keyboard 10), from the inner face of the side wall (4c and 4e, figs. 2 and 5) to connect with the at least one boss (fig. 5); and
a positioning pin (31, fig. 5) protruding, in the thickness direction of the chassis (fig. 5),
from the base (30) at a location between the at least one boss and the side wall (fig. 5),
a bracket (25, fig. 5) comprising a positioning hole (33, fig. 5), disposed between a bracket hole (32, fig. 5) and the side wall of the chassis (fig. 5), that accommodates the positioning pin (as disclosed in fig. 6),
the location of the positioning pin overlaps a gap between the side wall and the base (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a base, boss, positioning pin and positioning hole in to Matsumoto’s electronic apparatus as modified by Yu and Watabe, so that it comprises a base protruding in the thickness direction of the chassis, from the inner face of the upper cover to a height of the at least one boss, and also in a longitudinal direction of a keyboard, from the inner face of the side wall to connect with the at least one boss; and a positioning pin protruding, in the thickness direction of the chassis, from the base at a location between the at least one boss and the side wall; a positioning hole, disposed between the bracket hole and the side wall of the chassis, that accommodates the positioning pin, and the location of the positioning pin overlaps the gap, in order to restrain the longitudinal and depth directions of the baseplate with respect to the chassis (¶[0054]). The claim would have been obvious because the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2141, 2143).
Furthermore, it has been held that, "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238, 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 127 S. Ct. at 1727
Matsumoto in view of Yu and Watabe and Minaguchi does not explicitly disclose:
the cutouts being open-ended slots.
However, Dedrich discloses:
A bracket (20, fig. 2) comprising an open-ended slot (22, fig. 2) as a fixing element for a fastening element (32 and 36, fig. 3, Col. 2; Lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace the cutouts of Matsumoto electronic apparatus as modified by Yu, Watabe and Minaguchi with Dedrich open-ended slot, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (fixing /fastening elements) were recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Dedrich. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image3.png
385
693
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto in view of Yu, Watabe, Minaguchi and Dedrich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the combination further teaches:, wherein the at least one bracket includes brackets (60A and 60C, fig. 3, Yu) disposed at both ends of the keyboard in the longitudinal direction of the keyboard (see annotated fig. 3 below from Yu).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto in view of Yu, Watabe, Minaguchi and Dedrich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Yu further teaches: the at least one bracket (60) has more fixing points (61A and 61B, ¶[0017]) with the at least one boss (50A and 50B, figs. 1 and 2A-2B) than with the at least one stud (60, figs 2A-2B).
Matsumoto in view of Yu and Watabe does not explicitly disclose: wherein the second screw corresponding to the at least one stud has a larger nominal diameter than the first screw corresponding to the at least one boss.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to define different nominal diameters of screws corresponding to studs and bosses, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). The motivation would be the sizing of fastening means, conforming to the layout of internal components within the design architecture of an electronic device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US 20130308261; “Matsumoto” hereinafter), in view of Yu et al (US 20140090966; “Yu” hereinafter), and further in view of Watabe et al (US 20110051345; “Watabe” hereinafter), Minaguchi et al (US 20050115025; “Minaguchi” hereinafter), Dedrich et al (US 5855095; “Dedrich” hereinafter) and further in view of Goto et al (US 20070047189; “Goto” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto in view of Yu, Watabe, Minaguchi and Dedrich teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the boss and the positioning pin are slightly offset from each other in a front-rear direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and the thickness direction.
However, Goto discloses:
PNG
media_image4.png
545
529
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a boss (1301b, fig. 23) and a positioning pin (see annotated fig. 23 below, and fig. 24) are slightly offset from each other in a front-rear direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1 and 23 and the location of the friction members) and a thickness direction of a chassis (1301, fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic apparatus of Matsumoto as modified by Yu, Watabe, Minaguchi and Dedrich with Goto’s teaching of a boss and the positioning pin are slightly offset from each other in a front-rear direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and the thickness direction, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (fastening / fixing elements layout) were recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Goto. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2025 argue that the amended limitations including limitations of prior claim 4 overcomes the combination of references including Matsumoto, Yu, Watanabe, and Minaguchi. After further consideration, this is not found persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument:
“this rejection is moot with respect to cancelled claim 4”
Examiner’s Response:
All limitations of cancelled claim 4, except line 11 and part of line 12 were incorporated into claim 1. As such, the combination of Matsumoto, Yu, Watanabe, and Minaguchi applied to claim 4 in the previous office action teach these limitations now incorporated into claim 1.
Additional limitations were included into amended claim 1, however these limitations are taught by Matsumoto, Yu, Watanabe, Minaguchi, in combination with Dedrich which was not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Therefore, the combination of Matsumoto, Yu, Watanabe, Minaguchi and Dedrich teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Newly added claim 6 is also taught by Matsumoto, Yu, Watanabe, Minaguchi in combination with Dedrich and Goto which were not applied in the prior rejection of record as explained above.
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 PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached on (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841