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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 9/28/26 are hereby entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/369,700, fails to provide adequate enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for Claim 21 of this application. Claim 21 includes the limitations of “wherein the plurality of pins are movable by the reset button”, the BRI of which would include that some physical linkage exists between the “reset button” and the ”pins”. The ‘700 application, however, only states that “[t]he bubbles are physically reset…by 10 plastic pins”. No mechanism is disclosed, in other words, in the ‘700 application whereby the “reset button” physically actuates the “pins”. Therefore, the effective filing date of Claim 21 is that of the non-provisional Application, namely 7/28/23.
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, 4, 6-7, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20130116050 A1 by Albrecht et al (“Albrecht”), in view of PGPUB US 20070170650 A1 by Shultz (“Schultz”).
In regard to Claim 1, Albrecht teaches a handheld electronic device comprising:
a housing and a printed circuit board assembly thereinside;
(see, e.g., F1, 18 in regard to “housing” and, e.g., F8, 30 in regards to PCB);
a plurality of resilient domes protruding from the housing, wherein each of the plurality of resilient domes covers a light emitting diode and a touch sensitive input, each of the resilient domes transitionable from a first convex position, in which an outer surface of the respective dome protrudes convexly from the housing to a second […] position […];
(see, e.g., F1, 18 and, e.g., p51-53 in regard to the buttons being “formed of a single material such a silicone, rubber, or other suitable material” that is “domed” and which are, thereby, capable of transforming from a first position to a second position when depressed; see, e.g., F6, 200 and p51 in regard to the button being “domed” and having a convex appearance before being deformed; see also, e.g., F8, 32 and p28 in regard to LED’s).
a programmable, interactive system including a microprocessor and the touch sensitive inputs mounted within the housing, wherein the touch sensitive inputs are electrically connected to the microprocessor and operative to sense when one or more of the plurality of resilient domes transitions from the first convex position to the second concave position; and
(see, e.g., F8, 31 (“microprocessor”); and, e.g., p53);
the light emitting diodes mounted within the housing, electrically connected to the printed circuit board assembly
(see, e.g., F8, 32 and p28).
Furthermore, to the extent that Albrecht may fail to specifically whereby the convex buttons adopt a second and concave position when depressed, however, in an analogous reference, Schultz teaches that feature (see, e.g., F4A and F4B and p28-29),
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have the convex buttons taught by Albrecht deform in a concave manner as taught by Schultz, in order to provide tactile feedback to the user.
In regard to Claim 4, Albrecht teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F8, 32 and p28.
In regard to Claim 6, Albrecht teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p69.
In regard to Claim 7, Albrecht teaches the buttons having certain decorative indicia printed on them (see, e.g., p52). To the extent that this may not necessarily teach the claimed visual appearance as a “discrete letter of the English alphabet” there is no functional relationship between that appearance and the button/dome upon which it appears and, thereby, it fails to distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claim 9, Albrecht teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p69.
In regard to Claim 20, Albrecht teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p64.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20230249093 A1 by Zhan (“Zhan”), in view of admitted prior art.
In regard to Claim 1, Zhan teaches a handheld electronic device comprising:
a housing and a printed circuit board assembly thereinside;
(see, e.g., F1, 1 in regard to “housing” and, e.g., F4, 4 in regards to PCB);
a plurality of resilient domes…covers a [light]…concave shape;
(see, e.g., F1, 2 in regard to the buttons; see, e.g., F4, 5 in regard to lights);
a programmable, interactive system including a microprocessor and the touch sensitive inputs mounted within the housing, wherein the touch sensitive inputs are electrically connected to the microprocessor and operative to sense when one or more of the plurality of resilient domes transitions from the first convex position to the second concave position; and
(see, e.g., F4, 4 and p59-60 (“microprocessor” and F4, 42 (“operative to sense”));
the light[s] mounted within the housing, electrically connected to the printed circuit board assembly
(see, e.g., F5, 5 and p71-72)
Furthermore, to the extent that Applicant claims “light emitting diodes” these were rendered admitted prior art in a prior Office action and it would have been obvious to have employed these as the lights of the device otherwise taught by Zhan, in order to save power.
In regard to Claim 21, Zhan teaches these additionally claimed limitations. See, e.g., F4, 33 and p36.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments made in its Remarks are addressed by the updated statements of rejection made supra, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
