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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikan (9,472,361).
Regarding Claim 1: Mikan teaches an apparatus comprising: a housing (10) defining a plurality of holes (figs. 1-2); a plurality of keys (16), each key disposed in a respective hole of the housing (figs. 1-2); a set of first conductive pads (18), each first conductive pad coupled to a respective key (fig. 2); and a set of second conductive pads (20, 21), each second conductive pad coupled to a surface of the housing defining a respective hole (fig. 2); wherein a first conductive pad of a key is not in contact with a second conductive pad of a hole corresponding to the key when the key is in a first position (shown in fig. 2), and the first conductive pad of the key is in contact with the second conductive pad of the hole corresponding to the key when the key is in a second position (when the key is depressed as described from col. 1 line 66-col. 2 line 8, the position of the conductive pads will be in contact with each other).
Regarding Claim 2: Mikan teaches wherein the second position corresponds to actuation of the key (when the key is depressed as described from col. 1 line 66-col. 2 line 8, the position of the conductive pads will be in contact with each other).
Regarding Claim 3: Mikan teaches wherein the surfaces of the housing on which the second conductive pads are coupled are substantially parallel to the surfaces of the key on which the first conductive pads are coupled (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5: Mikan teaches wherein each first conductive pad is on a lower surface of the key (fig. 2) and each second conductive pad is on a surface of the housing disposed under the key (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8: Mikan teaches further comprising conductive traces (fig. 3) coupled to the housing and to the second conductive pads (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 18: Mikan teaches a system comprising: a keyboard (fig. 1) comprising: a housing (10); conductive traces (figs. 2-3) coupled to a surface of the housing (figs. 2-3); a set of keys (16), each key comprising a conductive pad (18) coupled thereto (fig. 2); and wherein actuation of a particular key causes the conductive pad coupled to the particular key to be in electrical connection with a conductive trace coupled to a surface of the housing (when the key is depressed as described from col. 1 line 66-col. 2 line 8, the position of the conductive pads will be in contact with each other); and circuitry coupled to the keyboard (figs. 2-3), the circuitry to receive signals from the conductive traces of the housing based on actuation of a key (col. 2 line 55 – col. 3 line 3).
Regarding Claim 20: Mikan teaches wherein each conductive pad is on a lower surface of the key (fig. 2) and the housing comprises a surface disposed under the key that has a conductive pad disposed thereon (fig. 2) that is connected to a conductive trace (figs. 2-3).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikan (9,472,361) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Sprenger (9,785,194).
Regarding Claim 4: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of wherein each key comprises a portion extending away from a main body of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing that at least partially defines the hole, and wherein the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key.
Sprenger teaches wherein each key comprises a portion (254) extending away (figs. 2c-2f) from a main body (256) of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing (figs. 2c-2f) that at least partially defines the hole (figs. 2c-2f), but Sprenger lacks a specific teaching of wherein the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein each key comprises a portion extending away from a main body of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing that at least partially defines the hole, and wherein the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key as disclosed by Sprenger in order to allow for a better physical connection between the key and the base of the device which decreases the chances of the key falling off of the device or becoming damaged in the process of using. It also would have been obvious to have the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key in order to allow for a more reliable connection between the key and the conductive traces in turn decreasing the chances of misinformation being sent from the keyboard to the devices logic board, wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the location of the already disclosed elements of the apparatus wherein it has been held that rearranging already disclosed parts of an invention involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 12: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of wherein apparatus is a laptop computing device, the housing is a base portion of the laptop computing device, and the surface of the housing defining the holes is a C cover of the base.
Sprenger teaches wherein apparatus is a laptop computing device (col 1 lines 11-19), the housing is a base portion of the laptop computing device (figs. 2a-2b), and the surface of the housing defining the holes is a C cover of the base (figs. 2a-2f).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein apparatus is a laptop computing device, the housing is a base portion of the laptop computing device, and the surface of the housing defining the holes is a C cover of the base as disclosed by Sprenger in order to allow for an overall apparatus use of the designed keyboard portions increasing the useability of the device while also adding a layer of reliability as well as durability to the keyboard portion of the laptop and in turn decreasing the chances of damage to the overall apparatus requiring repair or replacement of damaged components.
Regarding Claim 19: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of wherein each key comprises a portion extending away from a main body of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing that at least partially defines the hole, and wherein the conductive pad of the key is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key.
Sprenger teaches wherein each key comprises a portion (254) extending away (figs. 2c-2f) from a main body (256) of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing (figs. 2c-2f) that at least partially defines the hole (figs. 2c-2f), but Sprenger lacks a specific teaching of wherein the conductive pad of the key is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein each key comprises a portion extending away from a main body of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing that at least partially defines the hole, and wherein the conductive pad of the key is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key as disclosed by Sprenger in order to allow for a better physical connection between the key and the base of the device which decreases the chances of the key falling off of the device or becoming damaged in the process of using. It also would have been obvious to have the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key in order to allow for a more reliable connection between the key and the conductive traces in turn decreasing the chances of misinformation being sent from the keyboard to the devices logic board, wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the location of the already disclosed elements of the apparatus wherein it has been held that rearranging already disclosed parts of an invention involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikan (9,472,361) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Tom (2015/0194837).
Regarding Claim 6: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of wherein each key is coupled to a spring-like mechanism and to a mechanical frame within the housing.
Tom teaches wherein each key is coupled to a spring-like mechanism (30) and to a mechanical frame within the housing (figs. 2b and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein each key is coupled to a spring-like mechanism and to a mechanical frame within the housing as disclosed by Tom in order to allow for a more secure and reliable electrical and physical connection through the traces from the keys to the processor of the apparatus decreasing the chances of misinformation or incorrect information being sent.
Regarding Claim 7: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of wherein the spring-like mechanism is a scissor-switch mechanism.
Tom teaches wherein the spring-like mechanism is a scissor-switch mechanism (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein the spring-like mechanism is a scissor-switch mechanism as disclosed by Tom in order to allow for a more secure and reliable electrical and physical connection through the traces from the keys to the processor of the apparatus decreasing the chances of misinformation or incorrect information being sent.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikan (9,472,361) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Zhu (2023/0142935).
Regarding Claim 9: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of wherein the conductive traces comprise first traces arranged in rows and second traces arranged in columns, wherein the first traces and second traces are coupled to one another by second conductive pads at intersections of the rows and columns.
Zhu teaches wherein the conductive traces comprise first traces arranged in rows (fig. 4) and second traces arranged in columns (fig. 4), wherein the first traces and second traces are coupled to one another by second conductive pads at intersections of the rows and columns (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein the conductive traces comprise first traces arranged in rows and second traces arranged in columns, wherein the first traces and second traces are coupled to one another by second conductive pads at intersections of the rows and columns as disclosed by Zhu in order to allow for a more secure and reliable connection through the traces from the keys to the processor of the apparatus decreasing the chances of misinformation or incorrect information being sent.
Regarding Claim 10: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of comprising circuitry to apply an electrical signal to the first traces and detect actuation of the plurality of keys based on signals received via the second traces.
Zhu teaches comprising circuitry to apply an electrical signal to the first traces (fig. 4) and detect actuation of the plurality of keys based on signals received via the second traces (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having comprising circuitry to apply an electrical signal to the first traces and detect actuation of the plurality of keys based on signals received via the second traces as disclosed by Zhu in order to allow for a more secure and reliable connection through the traces from the keys to the processor of the apparatus decreasing the chances of misinformation or incorrect information being sent.
Regarding Claim 11: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of circuitry to apply an electrical signal to the second traces and detect actuation of the plurality of keys based on signals received via the first traces.
Zhu teaches circuitry to apply an electrical signal to the second traces (fig. 4) and detect actuation of the plurality of keys based on signals received via the first traces (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having circuitry to apply an electrical signal to the second traces and detect actuation of the plurality of keys based on signals received via the first traces as disclosed by Zhu in order to allow for a more secure and reliable connection through the traces from the keys to the processor of the apparatus decreasing the chances of misinformation or incorrect information being sent.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikan (9,472,361) in further view of Sprenger (9,785,194).
Regarding Claim 13: Mikan teaches a computing device comprising: a base (10), the base comprising: a lower housing portion (14); an upper housing portion (12) coupled to the lower housing portion (fig. 2), the upper housing portion comprising a set of holes (area where 16 is located in fig. 2); and a set of keys (16), each key disposed in a respective hole of the upper housing portion (fig. 2); wherein each key comprises a first conductive pad (18) coupled to a bottom surface of the key (fig. 2), wherein the upper housing portion comprises a second conductive pad (20, 21) on a surface defining each respective hole (fig. 2), and the set of keys are arranged such that the first conductive pad of the key contacts a corresponding second conductive pad when the key is actuated (fig. 2), but lacks a specific teaching of a lid; and the base coupled to the lid.
Sprenger teaches a lid (col. 1 lines 11-19 with laptop); and the base coupled to the lid (col. 1 lines 11-19 with laptop).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having a lid; and the base coupled to the lid as disclosed by Sprenger in order to allow for an overall apparatus use of the designed keyboard portions increasing the useability of the device while also adding a layer of reliability as well as durability to the keyboard portion of the laptop and in turn decreasing the chances of damage to the overall apparatus requiring repair or replacement of damaged components.
Regarding Claim 14: Mikan lacks a specific teaching of wherein each key comprises a portion extending away from a main body of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing that at least partially defines the hole, and wherein the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key.
Sprenger teaches wherein each key comprises a portion (254) extending away (figs. 2c-2f) from a main body (256) of the key (figs. 2c-2f) and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing (figs. 2c-2f) that at least partially defines the hole (figs. 2c-2f), but Sprenger lacks a specific teaching of wherein the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein each key comprises a portion extending away from a main body of the key and disposed under an overhanging portion of the housing that at least partially defines the hole, and wherein the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key as disclosed by Sprenger in order to allow for a better physical connection between the key and the base of the device which decreases the chances of the key falling off of the device or becoming damaged in the process of using. It also would have been obvious to have the first conductive pad is coupled to the portion of the key extending away from the main body of the key in order to allow for a more reliable connection between the key and the conductive traces in turn decreasing the chances of misinformation being sent from the keyboard to the devices logic board, wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the location of the already disclosed elements of the apparatus wherein it has been held that rearranging already disclosed parts of an invention involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 15: Mikan teaches wherein each first conductive pad is on a lower surface of the key and each second conductive pad is on a surface of the housing disposed under the key.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikan (9,472,361) in further view of Sprenger (9,785,194) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Zhu (2023/0142935).
Regarding Claim 16: Mikan teaches further comprising: conductive traces coupled to the upper housing and to the second conductive pads, but lacks a specific teaching of circuitry to apply electrical signals to a first subset of the conductive traces and detect actuation of keys based on electrical signals received via a second subset of the conductive traces.
Zhu teaches circuitry (fig. 4) to apply electrical signals to a first subset of the conductive traces (fig. 4) and detect actuation of keys based on electrical signals received via a second subset of the conductive traces (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having circuitry to apply electrical signals to a first subset of the conductive traces and detect actuation of keys based on electrical signals received via a second subset of the conductive traces as disclosed by Zhu in order to allow for a more secure and reliable connection through the traces from the keys to the processor of the apparatus decreasing the chances of misinformation or incorrect information being sent.
Regarding Claim 17: Mikan in view of Sprenger lacks a specific teaching of wherein the conductive traces comprise first traces arranged in rows and second traces arranged in columns, wherein the first traces and second traces are coupled to one another by second conductive pads at intersections of the rows and columns.
Zhu teaches wherein the conductive traces comprise first traces arranged in rows (fig. 4) and second traces arranged in columns (fig. 4), wherein the first traces and second traces are coupled to one another by second conductive pads at intersections of the rows and columns (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Mikan by having wherein the conductive traces comprise first traces arranged in rows and second traces arranged in columns, wherein the first traces and second traces are coupled to one another by second conductive pads at intersections of the rows and columns as disclosed by Zhu in order to allow for a more secure and reliable connection through the traces from the keys to the processor of the apparatus decreasing the chances of misinformation or incorrect information being sent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claim 1 the applicant first argues the prior art of Mikan does not disclose the second conductive pads as being coupled to a surface defining a hole wherein the examiner respectfully disagrees as the interior surface of 14 where the second conductive pads (20,21) are located clearly defines the hole of the keyboard where Key 16 is located as shown from the figure provided by the applicant on page 2 of the arguments. The applicant also argues the conductive pads 20 and 21 are not coupled to the elastomer 12 but are coupled to the PCB 14, wherein this argument is moot as 14 is part of the housing and wherein the elements 12 and 14 together form the hole for the key 16. The applicant continues to argue the keys 16 are not disposed in holes defined by the housing wherein the hole is formed by elements 12 and 14 of the prior art which is the area in which 16 is located. For at least these reasons and the rejections above the case is considered finally rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon relates through being keyboards for use with electronic devices and including keys with conductive pads.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841