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 .
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 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi [US 6,743,994] in view of Hamada et al. [Hamada hereinafter, US 2015/0253914].
In regard to claims 1 and 9, Adachi discloses [in Fig. 1] a device, comprising: a layer [2]; a switch section [5-10] situated on a back surface side of the layer [2], wherein the switch section includes a plurality of contact points [5, 8] including a vertically movable contact point [5], a junction layer [11] interposed between the layer [2] and the switch section, wherein the junction layer [11] is an adhesive or a pressure-sensitive adhesive; a resin layer [4] interposed between the layer [2] and the junction layer [11]; the layer [2] is configured such that when pushed, the layer [2] elastically deforms and the plurality of contact points [5,8] switch between a continuous state and a non-continuous state, and a space [Fig. 1] between the layer [2] and the switch section. Adachi does not disclose a glass layer having a thickness of 20 µm or greater and 150 µm or less. Hamada teaches [in Fig. 1 and Par. 0036] a glass layer [4] having a thickness of 20 µm or greater and 150 µm or less. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a glass layer that is 20 µm or greater and 150 µm or less to enable light-weighting while imparting flexibility [Hamada, par. 0036].
In regard to claim 10, Adachi discloses [in Fig. 1] some of the limitations of the switch device according to claim 1, wherein the switch section is a membrane switch.
In regard to claim 11, Adachi discloses [in Fig. 1] some of the limitations of the switch device according to claim 1, wherein the switch section is a tactile switch.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi [US 6,743,994] in view of Hamada et al. [Hamada hereinafter, US 2015/0253914] further in view of Van Zeeland et al. [Van Zeeland hereinafter, US 5,747,757]
In regard to claim 2, Adachi and Hamada teach the limitations of the switch device of claim 1. Adachi and Hamada do not teach a support section on the back surface side of the glass layer, the support section supporting the glass layer. Van Zeeland teaches [in Figs. 2-5] a support section [38] on the back surface side of the glass layer [24], the support section [38] supporting the glass layer [24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the support section of Van Zeeland with the switch device of Adachi, as modified by Hamada, in order to provide increased stability to the switch device during actuation.
In regard to claim 3, Adachi and Hamada teach some of the limitations of the switch device of claim 2. Adachi and Hamada do not teach that the support section is constituted by part or an entirety of the switch section. Van Zeeland teaches [in Figs. 2-5] that the support section [38] is constituted by part or an entirety of the switch section [at 34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the support section of Van Zeeland with the switch device of Adachi, as modified by Hamada, in order to provide increased stability to the switch device during actuation.
In regard to claim 4, Adachi and Hamada teach some of the limitations of the switch device of claim 2. Adachi and Hamada do not teach that the support section is situated on an outer side of the switch. Van Zeeland teaches [in Figs. 2-5] that the support section [38] is situated on an outer side of the switch section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the support section of Van Zeeland with the switch device of Adachi, as modified by Hamada, in order to provide increased stability to the switch device during actuation.
In regard to claims 5 and 6, Adachi and Hamada teach some of the limitations of the switch device of claim 1. Adachi and Hamada do not teach a plurality of switch sections, each of the plurality of switch sections being the switch section, wherein the switch sections are arranged two-dimensionally. Van Zeeland teaches [in Figs. 2-5] a plurality of switch sections [at 34], each of the plurality of switch sections being the switch section, wherein the switch sections are arranged two-dimensionally. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of switch sections arranged two-dimensionally, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
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.
Conclusion
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