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
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarilio et al. (US Patent No. 2017/0262025; hereinafter Amarilio) in view of Henty (US Patent No. 5,838,138).
With reference to claims 1, 8, and 15, Amarilio discloses a keyboard (108) operatively couplable to an information handling system (100) (see paragraphs 24, 28; Fig. 1) comprising:
a keyboard top cover (114) including at least one keyboard key well formed therein (see paragraphs 39-41; Figs. 4A-B);
a keyboard key cap (202) having a lower extension structure extending from the bottom of the keyboard keycap with a vertical sliding surface to fit within the keyboard key well, where the vertical sliding surface slides adjacent to an interior vertical surface inside a keyboard key well sidewall during actuation of the keycap (in teaching retraction of keys into the base; see paragraphs 33-34, 41; Figs. 2A-B);
a keyboard key cap magnet (402) formed on an outer surface of the lower extension structure extending from the keyboard key cap aligned with the keyboard key well magnets (404, 406) arranged inside the keyboard key well (see paragraphs 40-41; Figs. 4A-B), wherein magnetic interaction between the keyboard key well magnet (404) and the keyboard key cap magnet (402) slidably holds the lower extension structure extending from [the] keyboard key cap (202) to the keyboard key well (see paragraphs 33-34, 40-41; Figs. 2A-B, 4A-B)
device (108) having key tops (202) having a magnet (402) and a key well (area between top (114) and base (103) for receiving the key tops (202) (see paragraph 29), wherein the key well includes a keyboard key well magnet (404/406) (see paragraphs 39-41; Figs. 4).
Amarilio disclose the features as explained above, however fails to specifically disclose the keyboard key cap is aligned parallel vertically with well magnets arranged on the well sidewall as recited.
Henty discloses a keyboard top cover (12) including at least one or a plurality of keyboard key well formed therein (in teaching a well formed by mandrel (48) imbedded within the base (12); see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6); a plurality of keyboard key cap (16/46) having a lower extension (44) structure extending from the bottom of the keyboard keycap (46) with a vertical sliding surface to fit within the keyboard key well (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 2a), where the vertical sliding surface slides adjacent to an interior vertical surface inside a keyboard key well sidewall during actuation of the keycap (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 2a); and a keyboard key cap magnet (40) formed on an outer surface of the lower extension structure extending from the keyboard key cap aligned in parallel vertically with the keyboard key well magnets arranged on the interior vertical surface inside the keyboard key well sidewall (in teaching the usage of coil (42), which is well-known to produce magnetic properties; see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 2a).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the placement of the well magnets similar to that which is taught b Henty to be carried out in a device using first and second magnet similar to that which is Amarillo to thereby provide attraction between the key top and the key well with an alternative arrangement to generate key input.
With reference to claim 3, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 1, wherein Henty further discloses a plurality of keyboard key well magnets (42) formed on the interior surface of keyboard key well sidewalls (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 2a), wherein a first keyboard key well magnet is formed on a first side vertical surface inside the keyboard key well sidewalls and a second keyboard key well magnet is formed on a second perpendicular side vertical surface inside the keyboard key well sidewalls (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 2a).
With reference to claim 4, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 1, wherein Henty further discloses a plurality of keyboard key cap magnets (40) formed on the lower extension structure extending from the keyboard key cap, wherein a first keyboard key cap magnet is formed on a first side of the keyboard key cap lower extension structure and a second keyboard key cap magnet is formed on a second, perpendicular side of the keyboard key cap lower extension structure (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 2a).
With reference to claim 7, Amarilio and Henty discloses the keyboard of claim 1, wherein Amarillo further discloses wherein the keyboard key well magnet (404/406) and the keyboard key cap magnet (402) are arranged to have opposite poles facing each other and relative to each other (see paragraphs 40-42).
With reference to claim 10, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 8, wherein Henty further discloses operatively coupling a second keyboard key well (16/46) magnet (42) vertically onto a second interior surface of a second keyboard key well sidewall of the keyboard key well, wherein the first keyboard key well (16/46) magnet (42) is formed on the first keyboard key well sidewall of the keyboard key well and the second keyboard key well magnet is formed on the second, keyboard key well sidewall of the keyboard key well that is perpendicular to the first keyboard key well sidewall of the keyboard key well (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Figs. 1-2a).
With reference to claim 11, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 8, wherein Henty further discloses operatively coupling a second keyboard key cap magnet (40) onto a second exterior side of the lower extension structure extending from the keyboard key cap (46), wherein the first keyboard key cap magnet (40) is formed on the first exterior side of the lower extension structure extending from the keyboard key cap and the second keyboard key cap magnet is formed on a second, perpendicular side of the lower extension structure extending from the keyboard key cap (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 1-2a).
With reference to claim 14, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 8, wherein Amarilio further discloses wherein the first keyboard key well magnet (404/406) and the key cap keyboard key cap magnet (402) are arranged to have opposite poles facing each other and relative to each other when the keyboard key cap lower extension (402) is installed in the keyboard key well (see paragraphs 40-42).
With reference to claim 17, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 15, wherein Henty further discloses a plurality of keyboard key well magnets (42) formed on the interior surfaces of the keyboard key well sidewalls of each of the plurality of keyboard key wells, wherein a first keyboard key well magnet is formed on a first keyboard key well sidewall in each of the plurality of keyboard key wells and a second keyboard key well magnet is formed on a second keyboard key well, perpendicular sidewall that is perpendicular to the first keyboard key well sidewall in each of the keyboard key wells (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 1-2a).
With reference to claim 18, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 15, wherein Henty further discloses a plurality of keyboard key cap magnets (40) formed on each of the keyboard key cap lower extensions of each of the keyboard key caps (46), wherein a first keyboard key cap magnet (40) is formed on a first side of each of the keyboard key cap lower extensions and a second keyboard key cap magnet is formed on a second, perpendicular side of each of the keyboard key cap lower extensions (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 1-2a).
With reference to claim 20, Amarilio and Henty discloses the keyboard of claim 15, wherein Amarilio further discloses wherein each of the plurality of keyboard key well magnets (404/406) and corresponding plurality of keyboard key cap magnets (402) are arranged parallel to have opposite poles facing each other and relative to each other when the keyboard key cap lower extensions (402) of each key cap (202) are installed within each corresponding keyboard key well (see paragraphs 40-42).
Claims 2, 9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarilio and Henty as applied to claim 1, 8, or 15 above, and further in view of Murakami et al. (US Patent No. 6,455,795; hereinafter Murakami).
With reference to claim 2, 9 and 16, Amarilio and Henty discloses the keyboard of claims 1, 8, or 15, however fails to disclose a lubricant layer as recited.
Murakami discloses a keyboard having a key cap (1) which vertically travels within a keyboard frame (13), wherein a lubricant layered (10) between the lower extension (2) and the sliding surface (9) of the keyboard key cap (1) and the interior surface of the keyboard key well (13) (see column 3, lines 4-15, 53-63; Figs. 1-2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a lubricant layer similar to that which is taught by Murakami to be included in the keyboard arrangement similar to that which is taught by Amarilio and Henty to thereby provide reduced resistance when the key travels within the vertical well (see Murakami; column 3, line 59-63).
With reference to claim 12, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 8, wherein Amarilio further discloses that the magnetic interaction between the keyboard key cap magnet (402) and keyboard key well magnet (404/406) slidably hold the keyboard key cap (402) at the keyboard key well (see paragraphs 39-41; Figs. 1, 4).
Further Amarilio and Henty fail to disclose the printed circuit board and rubber dome as recited.
Murakami further discloses forming a keyboard printed circuit board (PCB) (15) under the keyboard top cover (13) and forming a keyboard rubber dome layer having at least one keyboard key rubber dome (5, 6) over the keyboard PCB (15) (see column 3, lines 21-40; Figs. 1); and orienting the keyboard rubber dome layer (5, 6) under the keyboard top cover (13) to align and insert the at least one keyboard key rubber dome into the at least one keyboard key well (see Figs. 1), wherein the rubber dome (5, 6) provides an upward force on the keyboard key cap (see column 3, lines 21-40; Figs. 1).
Claims 5-6, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarilio and Henty as applied to claim 1, 8, or 15 above, and further in view of Peterson et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0169603; hereinafter Peterson).
With reference to claim 5, Henty discloses the keyboard of claim 1, and further discloses a keyboard key spring formed within the keyboard key well; wherein the spring provides an upward force on the keyboard key cap while the magnetic interaction between the keyboard key cap magnet and keyboard key well magnet slidable holds the lower extension structure extending from the keyboard key cap in the keyboard key well (see Fig. 2a).
Henty fails to specifically disclose the usage of a rubber dome as recited there fail to be disclosure of a rubber dome as recited.
Peterson discloses a keyboard key rubber dome (120/640) formed within the at least one keyboard key well (312/610) (see paragraphs 2-3, 68; Figs. 1, 6); wherein the rubber dome (120/640) provides an upward force on the keyboard key cap (see paragraphs 2-3, 68) while the magnetic interaction between the keyboard key cap magnet and keyboard key well magnet slidable hold the keyboard key cap at the keyboard key well (see paragraph 77).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a rubber dome similar to that which is taught by Peterson as an alternative to the spring as taught by Amarilio and Henty to provide a predetermined amount of cushioning (see Peterson; paragraph 68).
With reference to claim 6, Amarilio, Henty, and Peterson discloses the keyboard of claim 5, wherein Peterson further discloses a keyboard arrangement and further discloses a rubber dome (120/640) retention extension formed at a top surface of the rubber dome, wherein the rubber dome retention extension passes into a retention extension cavity formed on an underside surface of the keyboard key cap (320) lower extension to centrally align the keyboard key cap into the keyboard key well (312/610) (in teaching the dome (640) is attached to the underside of and the center of the key (320); see paragraphs 2-3, 68; Figs. 1, 6).
With reference to claim 13, Amarilio and Henty disclose the keyboard of claim 8, wherein Henty further discloses further comprising: the usage of a spring formed on an underside surface of the keyboard key cap to centrally align the keyboard key cap into the keyboard key well (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 1-2a), however fails to disclose the rubber dome as recited.
Peterson further discloses forming a rubber dome layer (120/640) with an array of keyboard key rubber domes under the keyboard top cover (see paragraphs 2-3, 68; Figs. 1, 6); and forming a rubber dome retention extension at a top surface of each of the rubber domes of the array of keyboard key rubber domes, wherein the rubber dome retention extension passes into a retention extension cavity formed on an underside surface of the keyboard key cap to centrally align the keyboard key cap into the keyboard key well (in teaching the dome (640) is attached to the underside of and the center of the key (320); see paragraphs 2-3, 68; Figs. 1, 6).
With reference to claim 19, Amarilio and Henty discloses the keyboard of claim 15, wherein Henty further discloses the keyboard further comprises: the usage of a spring formed on an underside surface of the keyboard key cap to centrally align the keyboard key cap into the keyboard key well (see column 3, line 54-column 4, line 6; Fig. 1-2a), however fails to disclose the rubber dome as recited.
Peterson further discloses a rubber dome (120/640) formed at a top surface of each of the plurality of rubber domes, wherein each of the rubber dome retention extensions passes into a retention extension cavity formed inside of the keyboard key cap (320) lower extensions of each of the plurality of keyboard key caps to centrally align each of the plurality of keyboard key caps into corresponding keyboard key wells (in teaching the dome (640) is attached to the underside of and the center of the key (320); see paragraphs 2-3, 68; Figs. 1, 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With reference to claims 1, 8, and 15 the applicant argues that Henty discloses the coil structures (42) are used to operate as a power generator, and the addition of magnets to the coils would ruin the operation of the coil in capturing electrical charge as a function of the device of Henty. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s opinion of the teaching of Henty. Particularly, the examiner finds that the keyboard arrangement as disclosed by Henty having coils arranged vertically and parallel to a magnet extended from the key cap inherently generates a magnetic property. Specifically, Lenz’s Law which states that the current induced in a circuit due to a change in a magnetic field is directed to oppose the change in flux ad to exert a mechanical force which opposes the motion. Therefore the examiner finds that Amarilio discloses the concept of using magnetic forces for key input by repelling and attracting the magnet of the key bottom to the magnet within the keyboard well, and Henty further discloses magnetic attraction provided by the coils that are positioned vertically parallel to the magnet of the key bottom as recited in the claims. For these reasons the examiner finds that the teachings of Amarillo in view of Henty discloses the invention as recited.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHAO (US2020/0373106) discloses a keyboard device including a key cap having a base with a first magnetic area and a bracket that has a second magnetic area corresponding to the first magnetic area, such that when the key cap is pressed the key cap and the bracket are engaged (see abstract; paragraphs 31-44; Figs. 2-4).
CHAO (US2020/0373106) discloses a key switch includes a key cap, a base with a first magnetic area, and a bracket having a second magnetic area corresponding to the first magnetic area for allowing magnetic attraction and repel forces for key input (see abstract; paragraphs 26-44).
LIU et al. (US20210343487) discloses a key arrangement consisting of a magnet located at the bottom of a key and an electromagnet and a coil for generating magnetic fields during operation of the key (see abstract; paragraphs 30-57; Figs. 1-6).
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 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 ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached M0n.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights