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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed April 21, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7 and 10-18 remain pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 10-18 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.
Applicant argues Andre, Larsen, and Iida does not teach wherein a light emitting diode is arranged in the first key, and only when the first key operates in the touchpad assistant mode, the light emitting diode emits light. Examiner agrees, but notes Larsen teaches a light emitting diode (mode indicator 106), wherein only when the first key (200, corresponding to 112 in Figure 1) operates in the touchpad assistant mode (see Paragraph [0017]), the light emitting diode (106) emits light.
While Larsen does not teach the LED being arranged within the first key, Examiner notes to Ozias (US Publication No. 2010/0288607) teaches a light emitting diode (illumination device 414) arranged in the first key (key 300), wherein only when the first key (300) operates in a specific mode (see Paragraph [0023]), the light emitting diode (414) emits light (see Paragraphs [0023]).
US Publication/Patent Nos. 4334134 5239152 5408060 8698752 8748767 20060037848 20220107692 also teach LEDs within keys to indicate specific function modes.
For these reasons, and the reasons detailed below, claims 1-7 and 10-18 stand rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “light emitting diode arranged in the first key” 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 § 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 1-7, 10, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre (US Patent No. 10409412) in view of Larsen (US Publication No. 2007/0091070), Iida (US Publication No. 2013/0234734), and Ozias (US Publication No. 2010/0288607).
Regarding claim 1, Andre discloses an electronic device (electronic device 100), comprising: a body (enclosure 102), comprising a surface (top surface 104), wherein the surface (104) comprises a first portion (corresponding to touch pad 110) and a second portion (corresponding to keyboard 106) that are adjacent to each other (see Figure 1A); a touchpad (touchpad 110), arranged on the first portion (portion of 104 corresponding to 110); a keyboard module (keyboard 106), arranged on the second portion (portion of 104 corresponding to 106) and comprising a first key (spacebar 108), wherein the first key (108) comprises: a circuit layer (electrical switch) configured to generate a first input signal (see col. 6, ln. 54-67; col. 7, ln. 1-26); a key cap (top structure of 108); and a conductor layer (touch sensor of 108), arranged below the key cap (top structure of 108; see col. 6, ln. 54-67; col. 7, ln. 1-26) and divided into a plurality of regions (Figure 2, touch sensitive regions 130A-130D), wherein the regions are separated from each other (see Figure 2) and are configured to generate a plurality of second input signals (see col. 8, ln. 3-26; col 9, ln. 21-67; col 10, ln. 1-38); and a control unit (processing unit 138), electrically coupled to the first key (108), and configured to control, according to a switching signal (determine if a touch is a keypress or touch input based on touch characteristics), the first key (108) to operate in a key mode (keypress input) or a touchpad assistant mode (touch input) (see col. 13, ln. 18-34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processing unit from Figure 4 of Andre to the touchpad and touch key of Andre. Doing so would have aided in the determination of a force-touch input and a keypress input, and would have processed signals relating to certain touch and/or force characteristics of the force-touch input performed on the touch key (see col. 13, ln. 4-51 in Andre).
Andre does not explicitly disclose wherein the first key comprises: a base plate; a circuit layer arranged on the base plate; a resilient structure, arranged on the base plate; a key cap, arranged on the resilient structure, wherein the conductor layer is located on an upper surface of the base plate, and wherein the conductor layer is for detecting a user's finger, and a light emitting diode, wherein only when the first key operates in the touchpad assistant mode, the light emitting diode emits light.
However, Larsen teaches a keyboard module (Figure 1, keyboard 100) comprising a first key (Figure 2, key 200), wherein the first key (200) comprises: a base plate (comprised of bottom case 216 and silo portion 212); a circuit layer (mylar sheets 224; see Paragraphs [0025]-[0027]), arranged on the base plate (216, 212) and configured to generate a first input signal (see Paragraphs [0025]-[0027]); a resilient structure (comprised of key 202 and elastomeric dome 214), arranged on the base plate (216, 212); a key cap (key cover 206), arranged on the resilient structure (202, 214); and a conductor layer (comprised of touchpad 204, flexible conductor 218, and electrical connector 222), arranged below the key cap (206) configured to generate a plurality of second input signals (see Paragraphs [0025]-[0029]), wherein the conductor layer (204, 218, 222) is located on an upper surface of the base plate (upper surface of 216), and wherein the conductor layer (204, 218, 222) is for detecting a user’s finger (see Paragraphs [0025]-[0029]), and a light emitting diode (mode indicator 106), wherein only when the first key (200, corresponding to 112 in Figure 1) operates in the touchpad assistant mode (see Paragraph [0017]), the light emitting diode (106) emits light.
Because both Andre and Larsen teach touch-input, mechanical keys, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the first key of Andre to include the base plate, circuit layer, resilient structure, key cap, and conductor layer of Larsen, and to have combined LED of Larsen to the keyboard of Andre. Doing so would have provided the structure and circuitry required for the touch-input, mechanical key to received touch inputs and mechanical key depressions, and would have provided a visual indicator to allow a user to know when the first key is in touchpad mode (see Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs [0002]-[0004], [0017] in Larson).
Andre in view of Larsen does not explicitly teach wherein the regions are spaced apart from each other.
However, Iida teaches wherein touch sensitive regions are spaced apart from each other (see Figure 21A and Paragraph [0262], see also Figure 22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the touch sensitive areas of Andre as modified by Larsen to be spaced apart as taught in Iida, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)), and considering doing so would have increased touch accuracy and reduced detection sensitivity between the adjacent sensors (see Paragraph [0262] in Iida).
Andre in view of Larsen and Iida does not teach the light emitting diode arranged in the first key.
However, Ozias teaches a light emitting diode (illumination device 414) arranged in the first key (key 300), wherein only when the first key (300) operates in the specific mode (see Paragraph [0023]), the light emitting diode (414) emits light (see Paragraphs [0023]).
Because Andre also suggests the first key may be illuminated (see col. 9, ln. 21-41), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arrange the LED within the key to be illuminated during the specific function mode, as taught in Ozias, according to know methods to yield the predictable results of arranging/operating a light to illuminate a key during a specific function mode, and considering it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the first key (108 as modified by Larsen) is adjacent to the first portion (portion of 104 corresponding to 110).
Regarding claim 3, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the conductor layer (touch sensor of Andre as modified by Larsen, the touch sensor of Andre corresponding to 204, 218, 222 in Larsen) is divided into the regions (130A-130D) in a long-side direction of the first key (108).
Regarding claim 4, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the regions (130A-130D) comprise a left region (130A) and a right region (130D).
Regarding claim 5, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 4, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the left region (103A) and the right region (103D) have same dimensions (see Figure 2).
Because the first key of the claimed invention has similar structure and proportion to the first key of Andre as modified by Larsen, Iida, and Ozias, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship between the touch regions because doing so would have optimized the space occupied by the plurality of regions, allowing a user to easily locate and delineate between the different regions.
Regarding claim 6, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the regions comprise a left region (103A), a right region (103D), and an intermediate region (103B-103C).
Regarding claim 7, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the conductor layer (touch sensor of Andre as modified by Larsen, the touch sensor of Andre corresponding to 204, 218, 222 in Larsen) is located on a lower surface of the key cap (lower surface of 206).
Regarding claim 10, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the switching signal (determine if a touch is a keypress or touch input based on touch characteristics) is generated by the conductor layer (touch sensors of 108, corresponding to 204, 218, 222 in Larsen; see col. 8, ln. 3-28).
Regarding claim 12, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the regions comprise a left region (Figure 2, region 130A) and a right region (Figure 2, region 130D), and when the first key (108) operates in the key mode (keypress), the control unit (processing unit 138) executes a key function (keypress input) according to the first input signal (col. 12, ln. 48-67; col. 13, ln. 1-3; depressing 108 to collapse the dome switch; col. 13, ln. 4-51, “processing unit 138 receives the touch and/or force characteristics from the sensors of space bar 108 and may determine if a force-touch input was performed on space bar 108, or if a keypress input was performed”), and when the first key (108) operates in the touchpad assistant mode (after determining a force-touch input was made), the control unit (138) executes a touchpad function (see col. 7. ln. 61-67; col. 8, ln. 1-2) according to the second input signals (see col. 13, ln. 4-51, touch input via touch sensor) corresponding to the left region (130A) and the right region (130D).
Because Andre discloses touch sensitive regions 130A-130D are distinct input regions having different commands or functions (see col. 9, ln. 42-64), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the left and right regions to operate different touchpad functions (see col. 7. ln. 24-67; col. 8, ln. 1-2). Doing so would have increased the functionality of the spacebar, by allowing the space bar to input both keypress and specific touchpad functions based on different inputs (see col. 9, ln. 42-64; see col. 7. ln. 61-67; col. 8, ln. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the regions (130A-130D) comprise a left region (130A), a right region (130D), and an intermediate region (130B), and when the first key (108) operates in the key mode (keypress input), the control unit (138) executes a key function according to the first input signal (col. 12, ln. 48-67; col. 13, ln. 1-3; depressing 108 to collapse the dome switch), and when the first key (108) operates in the touchpad assistant mode (touch input), the control unit (138) executes a touchpad function (col. 7, ln. 24-67, “cursor control, gesture commands, other touch-based commands”; see also col. 7. ln. 61-67; col. 8, ln. 1-2) according to the second input signals (touch input via touch sensor) corresponding to the left region (130A) and the right region (130D) (col. 9, ln. 21-67; col. 10, ln. 1-38; touch sensitive regions being assigned a distinct input, such as those described in col. 7, ln. 24-67), and executes the key function (see col. 2, ln. 21-29, spacebar being configured to generate a keystroke via the touch sensor) according to the second input signal (touch input via touch sensor) corresponding to the intermediate region (130B).
Because Andre discloses touch sensitive regions 130A-130D are distinct input regions having different commands or functions (see col. 9, ln. 42-64) and because Andre also discloses executing a keypress via a touch input (see col. 2, ln. 21-29), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the left, right, and center regions to operate different touchpad and keypress functions (see col. 7. ln. 24-67; col. 8, ln. 1-2; col. 2, ln. 21-29). Doing so would have increased the functionality of the spacebar, by allowing the space bar to input both keypress and specific touchpad functions based on different inputs (see col. 9, ln. 42-64; see col. 7. ln. 61-67; col. 8, ln. 1-2; col. 2, ln. 21-29).
Regarding claim 14, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the switching signal (determine if a touch is a keypress or gesture input based on touch characteristic) is generated by the keyboard module (col. 8, ln. 3-28, “a touch characteristic may relate to or be based on a duration or predetermined amount of time since a previous keystroke was received by the one of the keys 106”; see also Figure 1B) (see also Paragraph [0017] in Larsen, “a key on keyboard 100 may be used to allow a user to manually select a keyboard mode, for example, to toggle between key mode and touchpad mode (or touch mode)”).
Regarding claim 15, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 14, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the keyboard module (106) comprises a second key (key of keyboard 106), the second key (key of keyboard 106) is different from the first key (108), and the switching signal (determine if a touch is a keypress or gesture input based on touch characteristic) is generated by the second key (col. 8, ln. 3-28, “a touch characteristic may relate to or be based on a duration or predetermined amount of time since a previous keystroke was received by the one of the keys 106”; see also Figure 1B) (see also Paragraph [0017] in Larsen).
Regarding claim 18, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Andre) wherein the first key (108) is a space bar (see col. 5. ln. 24 and Figures 1B, 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre (US Patent No. 10409412), Larsen (US Publication No. 2007/0091070), Iida (US Publication No. 2013/0234734), Ozias (US Publication No. 2010/0288607), and in further view of Hu (US Publication No. 2015/0261354).
Regarding claim 11, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 10, but does not teach wherein the switching signal is a double-click signal.
However, Hu teaches an electronic device comprising: a control unit (controller 43), electrically coupled to a first key (space bar 40), and configured to control, according to a switching signal (see Paragraph [0035]), the first key (40) to operate in a key mode (first operation state) or a touchpad assistant mode (second operation state), wherein the switching signal is a double-click signal (see Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Andre as modified by Larsen, Iida, and Ozias to interpret a double-click as a switching signal between a keypress mode and touch pad mode, as taught in Hu. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system by allowing a user to easily switch between modes through a designated input (see Paragraphs [0035]-[0037] in Hu).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre (US Patent No. 10409412), Larsen (US Publication No. 2007/0091070), Iida (US Publication No. 2013/0234734), Ozias (US Publication No. 2010/0288607), and in further view of Zhuang (CN Publication No. 102193637, as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, and Ozias teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the switching signal is generated by the touchpad.
However, Zhuang teaches an electronic device comprising: a control unit (switching unit 14), electrically coupled to a first key (space bar 120), and configured to control, according to a switching signal (touch input 11), the first key (120) to operate in a key mode (space key input function) or a touchpad assistant mode (command input function) (see Paragraph [0031]).
Because the control unit of Andre is also connected to both the touchpad and first key (see Figure 4 in Andre), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Andre as modified by Larsen, Iida, and Ozias to interpret a touch input on the touchpad as a switching signal between keypress mode and touchpad mode, as taught in Zhuang. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system by allowing a user to easily switch between modes through a designated input (see Paragraph [0031] in Zhuang).
Regarding claim 17, Andre in view of Larsen, Iida, Ozias, and Zhuang teaches the electronic device according to claim 16, and further teaches (in Zhuang) wherein the switching signal (touch input 11) corresponds to a contact area (area of touch panel 10 touched during touch input 11) of the touchpad (10), and when the contact area (area of touch panel 10 touched during touch input 11) is less than a preset value (>0), the control unit (14) controls the first key (120) to operate in the key mode (Paragraph [0032], when touch panel 10 senses a touch control input is not present, switching module in the controller 14 through the keyboard controller 20 makes the space key 120 and 122 perform a space key input function).
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 GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights