Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/522,288

KEY STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Examiner
CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Merry Electronics(Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
769 granted / 990 resolved
+9.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1023
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
40.8%
+0.8% vs TC avg
§102
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 990 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 12/01/2025. These drawings are acceptable. 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. [Huang hereinafter, US 8,759,702]. In regard to claim 1, Huang discloses [in Figs. 1-5] a key structure of an electronic device, comprising: a substrate [20]; a light source [42] disposed on the substrate [20]; an elastic member [22a] disposed on the substrate; and a key cap [50] disposed on the elastic member [22a], wherein the elastic member [22a] has a tunnel [Fig. 4] for light generated by the light source [42] to be projected to the key cap [50] through the tunnel, and an inner diameter of the tunnel is gradually expanded from the light source [42] toward the key cap [50], wherein the elastic member [22a, see Fig. 4] has a base portion [223], a crumple portion [222] and an abutment portion [221], which are centered around the light source [42], sequentially stacked layer by layer from the substrate [20] toward the key cap [50] and away from the light source [42], the base portion [223] leans against the substrate [20], the crumple portion [222] connected between the base portion [223] and the abutment portion [221], and the abutment portion [221] leans against the key cap [50] constantly. In regard to claim 2, Huang discloses [in Figs. 1-5] the key structure of the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the elastic member [22a] leans against the substrate [20] through a structure [223] at an inlet of the tunnel and surrounds the light source [42], the elastic member [22a] leans against the key cap [50] through a structure [221] at an outlet of the tunnel, the substrate [50], the elastic member [22a] and the key cap [50] form a closed space, and an inner diameter of the inlet is smaller than an inner diameter of the outlet. In regard to claim 3, Huang discloses [in Figs. 1-5] the key structure of the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, in which the expanding angle of the tunnel is greater than or equal to the emission angle of the light source [42]. 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. [Huang hereinafter, US 8,759,702] in view of Chiu [US 11,373,819]. Huang discloses [in Figs. 1-5] the key structure of the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. Huang does not disclose that the key cap comprises a first component and a second component, the first component leans against the elastic member and is movably clasped onto a casing of the electronic device, and the second component is detachably disposed on the first component. Chiu teaches [in Figs. 1-5] that the key cap [30] comprises a first component [40] and a second component [50], the first component [40] leans against the elastic member [20] and is movably clasped onto a casing [101] of the electronic device, and the second component [50] is detachably disposed on the first component [40]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the key cap of Chiu with the keycap of Huang in order to provide the user with a sturdier actuator. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. [Huang hereinafter, US 8,759,702] in view of Chiu [US 11,373,819] further in view of Muller [US 9,728,350]. Huang and Chiu teach the key structure of the electronic device as claimed in claim 9. Huang and Chiu do not teach that at least one of the first component and the second component has a diffusion agent and is translucent. Muller teaches [in Fig. 6B] that the second component has a diffusion agent and is translucent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a translucent second component of the key cap in order to communicate switch actuation with the user as desired. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-8 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the "light source" (42) of Huang is not "disposed on the substrate (conductive membrane 20)," but rather should be characterized as "disposed below the substrate (conductive membrane 20)." The Examiner disagrees. The word “on” can be defined as “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on]. Huang clearly discloses [in Figs. 1-5] that the light source [42] is disposed on the substrate as recited in claim 1. Applicant also argues that “Huang clearly exhibits a tunnel inner diameter variation that is contrary to that of the present application. The tunnel of Huang actually tapers from the light source toward the key cap.” However, the Examiner would like to point out that the elastic member relied upon for this limitation is the elastic member shown in Fig. 4, which does disclose that “an inner diameter of the tunnel is gradually expanded from the light source toward the key cap as recited in claim 1. 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 2833
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 01, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603237
PUSH BUTTON FOR ACTUATING SWITCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597571
BUTTON APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592351
PYROTECHNIC CIRCUIT BREAKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586740
STACK KEY STRUCTURE AND BALANCE-SHAFT SEAT THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578802
ELECTRICAL KEY SUPPORT MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 990 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month