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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/01/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings [filed 09/26/2023] are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the membrane sheet recited in claims 12-14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 7, 9, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng [US 2020/0042101].
In regard to claims 7 and 10, Cheng discloses [in Fig. 2A] a keycap, comprising: a keycap main body [11]; a plurality of metal oxides [par. 0045]; and a character layer [par. 0045] disposed on an outer surface of the keycap main body [11], the character layer comprises an opaque region [region outside 11a] and a light-transmitting region [11a], and a transmittancy of the light-transmitting region is greater than a transmittancy of the opaque region, a shape of the light-transmitting region is a character or a graphic [Fig. 5B], wherein the plurality of metal oxides are distributed throughout the character layer [par. 0045], and wherein the light-transmitting region has a thickness to cover the keycap main body [11]. With respect to the limitations that the metal oxides are doped in the character layer and the light-transmitting region is formed by irradiating a portion of the opaque region with an energy beam, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, these limitations have not been given significant patentable weight. 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
In regard to claim 9, Cheng discloses [in Fig. 2A] the keycap according to claim 7, wherein the character layer comprises ink [par. 0045].
In regard to claims 12 and 13, Cheng discloses [in Fig. 2A] a keycap, comprising: a keycap main body [11]; a plurality of metal oxides [par. 0045]; and a membrane sheet [par. 0045] disposed on an outer surface of the keycap main body [11], the membrane sheet comprises an opaque region [region outside of 11a] and a light-transmitting region [region of 11a], and a transmittancy of the light-transmitting region is greater than a transmittancy of the opaque region, and a shape of the light-transmitting region is a character or a graphic [Fig. 5B], wherein the plurality of metal oxides are distributed throughout the membrane sheet [par. 0045], and wherein the membrane sheet [par. 0045] is covered on the outer surface of the keycap main body [11]. With respect to the limitations that the metal oxides are doped in the membrane sheet and the light-transmitting region is formed by irradiating a portion of the opaque region with an energy beam, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, these limitations have not been given significant patentable weight. 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
In regard to claim 14, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given significant patentable weight. 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan et al. Cheng [US 2020/0042101] in view of Shi et al. [Shi hereinafter, US 2023/0223212]. Cheng discloses [in Fig. 2A] the keycap according to claim 7. Cheng does not disclose that the character layer comprises a light curing layer. Shi teaches [in Fig. 3 and par. 0023] that the character layer comprises a light curing layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a character layer comprising a light curing layer in order to enhance the durability of the keycap.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwan et al. Cheng [US 2020/0042101] in view of Huang et al. [Huang hereinafter, US 2022/0189716]. Cheng discloses [in Fig. 2] the keycap according to claim 7. Cheng does not disclose that the light-transmitting region has the transmittancy of more than 20%. Huang teaches [in Fig. 10B and par. 0063] a light-transmitting region has the transmittancy of more than 20%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a light-transmitting region that has the transmittancy of more than 20% in order to illuminate the keycap as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed. In regard to claim 1, in combination with other limitations, the plurality of metal oxides being distributed throughout the kecap main body is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7 and 12 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
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.
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