The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions.
Detailed Action
Current Status of Claims
This action is issued in response to communication of February 24, 2026. By amendment of February 24, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 19 and added new claims 21-24. Claims 11-14 were canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 to 10 and 15-24 are currently active in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 3are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 19-20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciesla (US Patent Publication Application 2014/0210761 A1) in view of Lahr (US Publication Application 2008/0063456 A1).
In regard of claim 1, Ciesla discloses a device comprising: an elastic membrane (See at least Figure 1A of Ciesla illustrating a device (100) with elastic membrane (110) as discussed in paragraph [0021]); an array that comprises translatable elements extendable to elastically deform the elastic membrane to form a customizable arrangement of discrete keys, wherein the array comprises a bar array (See Figure 1B and 6 of Ciesla illustrating expanded membrane (11a) by translatable element comprising fluid as discussed in paragraph [0024] and array comprising a bar array (620b, 620c, 620d, 620e) as shown in Figure 6 of Ciesla); and sensor circuitry that senses actuation of each of the discrete keys (See Figure 2 of Ciesla illustrating a sensor (260) which senses actuation of keys array (210a, 210b, 210c) as discussed in paragraphs [0025-0026]).
However, the reference to Ciesla does not specifically illuminable element for identification of functions of one or more the discrete keys.
In the same field of endeavor, Lahr discloses a device (110) with an array of keys (22) shown in Figures 2A-2B and bar array (160) is extended and has illuminating element (400) shown in Figure 4 illuminating key elements for identification of function as discussed in paragraph [0151].
Therefore, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the illuminating element shown by Lahr with the device shown by Ciesla in order to provide translatable element extendable to elastically deform the upper membrane to form a key or other sensation for a user.
In regard of claim 19, Ciesla and Lahr further discloses a method comprising: receiving input to form a customized arrangement of discrete keys from a plurality of different customized arrangements of discrete keys; responsive to the input, extending some translatable elements of an array to form the customized arrangement of discrete keys, wherein some other translatable elements of the array are not extended, wherein the translatable elements are extendable to elastically deform an elastic membrane to form the customizable arrangement of discrete keys, wherein the array comprises a bar array, wherein the bar array comprises grouped sets of bar elements, and wherein each set comprises bar elements that form characters of an alphabet for identification of functions of one or more of the discrete keys; sensing one or more touches of one or more of the discrete keys; and responsive to the sensing, outputting a signal (See rejection of claim 1 provided above).
In regard of claim 20, Ciesla and Lahr further discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the outputting a signal outputs a signal to a computing device that translates the signal to one or more characters renderable to a display (See Figures 3B and 7 of Ciesla illustrating outputting signal to a display (280, 730) as discussed in paragraphs [0025-0026, 0039-0040])
In regard of claim 24, Ciesla, Lahr, Ullrich et al. and Levy further disclose A device comprising: an elastic membrane; an array that comprises translatable elements extendable to elastically deform the elastic membrane to form a customizable arrangement of discrete keys, wherein the array comprises a bar array, and wherein the bar array comprises grouped sets of bar elements, and wherein each set comprises at least seven bar elements that form characters of an alphabet for identification of functions of one or more of the discrete keys; and sensor circuitry that senses actuation of each of the discrete keys (See rejection of claim 1 provided above).
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciesla (US Patent Publication Application 2014/0210761 A1) in view of Lahr (US Publication Application 2008/0063456 A1) and further in view of Ullrich et al. (US Patent Publication Application 2009/0002328 A1).
In regard of claim 2, Ciesla and Lahr disclose the device of claim 1.
However, the combination of Ciesla and Lahr does not particularly show the device wherein each of the translatable elements comprises a spring.
In the same field of endeavor, Ullrich et al. disclose an array (812) of translatable elements (808) comprising a spring as shown in Figure 8 and discussed in paragraph [0056] of Ullrich et al.
Therefore, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the coil structure shown by Ullrich et al. with the device shown by Ciesla and Lahr in order to provide translatable element extendable to elastically deform the upper membrane to form a key or other sensation for a user.
In regard of claim 3, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 2, wherein the spring comprises a coil spring (See Figure 8 of Ullrich et al. illustrating coil spring (808) and paragraph [0056]).
In regard of claim 4, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 2, wherein the spring comprises a magnetic spring (See paragraph [0055] of Ullrich et al. discussing usage of an electro magnet (810) in the device).
In regard of claim 5, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 2, wherein the spring comprises a fluid spring (See at least Figure 5 of Ciesla illustrating a fluid spring (572, 574) as discussed in paragraph [0033-0034] of Ciesla).
In regard of claim 6, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the sensor circuitry comprises electronic circuitry (See Figure 7 of Ciesla illustrating the sensor circuitry (710, 740, 722) as discussed in paragraphs [0039]).
In regard of claim 7, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the sensor circuitry comprises electromagnetic circuitry (See Figure 8 of Ullrich et al. illustrating the sensor circuitry (804, 810) comprising electromagnetic circuitry).
In regard of claim 8, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 1, comprising memory that stores data for automatically extending a number of the translatable elements to form the customizable arrangement of discrete keys (See Figure 5-6, 8 of Ciesla illustrating memory (710) allowing automatically number of translatable elements forming discrete keys (210) as discussed in paragraphs [0008, 0031]).
In regard of claim 9, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 8, wherein the memory stores data for a plurality of customizable arrangements of discrete keys (See Figures 5-6, 8 of Ciesla illustrating memory (710) stores data for plurality of arrangements for many applications of keys as discussed in paragraphs [0008, 0031]).
In regard of claim 10, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 9, comprising buttons for selection of one of the plurality of customizable arrangements of discrete keys (See at least paragraph [0028] of Ullrich et al. discussing selective configuration of keys (120) meeting the application’s requirements).
In regard of claim 11, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the array comprises a dot array (See Figures 5-6 of Ciesla illustrating the device with a dot array (500) as discussed in paragraph [0032]) .
In regard of claim 12, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 11, wherein the dot array comprises illuminable elements for identification of functions of one or more of the discrete keys (See at least Figure 1 of Ullrich et al. wherein is shown that dot array (120) is illuminated by display (104) as discussed in paragraph [0026]).
In regard of claim 13, Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the array comprises a bar array (See at least abstract, and paragraphs [0009, 0035] of Ciesla wherein is discussed that keys could comprise subsets or complete sets).
Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciesla (US Patent Publication Application 2014/0210761 A1) in view of Lahr (US Publication Application 2008/0063456 A1) further in view of Ullrich et al. (US Patent Publication Application 2009/0002328 A1) and further in view of Levy (US Patent Publication Application 2002/0025837 A1).
In regard of claim 15, Ciesla, Lahr, and Ullrich et al. disclose the device of claim 14.
However, the combination of Ciesla, Lahr, and Ullrich et al. does not specifically discuss the device, wherein the illuminable elements comprise elements of the Siekoo alphabet.
In the same field of endeavor, Levy clearly discloses in Figure 15 providing illumination of keys (56) providing tactile sensing of the keys as convenient for blind individuals for which the Siekoo alphabet was developed.
Therefore, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the keyboard for blind shown by Levy with the device shown by Ciesla, Lahr and Ullrich et al. in order to provide visibility of keys for a user.
In regard of claim 16, Ciesla, Lahr, Ullrich et al. and Levy further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the discrete keys comprise customizable shapes (See at least Figures 10, 12, 16, 18) of Levy illustrating customized shapes of keys (2)) .
In regard of claim 17, Ciesla, Ullrich et al. and Levy further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the customizable arrangement comprises discrete keys of a QWERTY keyboard (See Figure 34 of Levy illustrating QWERTY keyboard layout as discussed in paragraph [0159]).
In regard of claim 18, Ciesla, Lahr, Ullrich et al. and Levy further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the customizable arrangement comprises discrete keys of a numeric keypad (See Figure 28 of Levy and paragraphs [0154-0155] illustrating and describing IACK keypad).
In regard of claim 21, Ciesla, Lahr, Ullrich et al. and Levy further disclose the method of claim 19, wherein the bar elements are illuminable (See Figure 4 of Lahr illustrating illuminating element (400)).
In regard of claim 22, Ciesla, Lahr, Ullrich et al. and Levy further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the illuminable elements comprise bar elements of the bar array (See Figure 15 of Levy illustrating illuminable elements (56) of the bar (18) array).
In regard of claim 23, Ciesla, Lahr, Ullrich et al. and Levy further disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the bar array comprises grouped sets of bar elements and wherein each set comprises at least seven bar elements (See Figure 38 illustrating array with 7 elements).
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Olga Aronovich whose telephone number is (571)270-7796. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri. from 7:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached on (571) 272-2963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. 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.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/OLGA V MERKOULOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights