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 following Office Action is in response to amendments filed on 11/20/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “control system configured to control the exercise machine based on the sensed strain forces” in claim 1, and “control system configured to receive the signal from the sensor and send command signals to the exercise machine” in claim 18.
In each of these limitations, “system” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language of control/configured to control the exercise machine based on the sensed strain forces/configured to receive the signal from the sensor and send command signals to the exercise machine without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The “control system” has been considered to have a corresponding structure of: a computing system that includes a processing system and input/output system, a microprocessor (see ¶ [56] and [66] of the specification), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 8-9, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arceta et al. (US 2021/0283465 A1) in view of in view of Sheng et al. (US 2021/0089182 A1) and Chung et al. (US 2012/0163028 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arceta teaches an exercise machine (10) configured for an exercise motion, the exercise machine comprising: an input module (i.e., 90 including various input devices 60 (i.e. 62, 64, 66), and 69A-69C in Fig. 2 is considered an input module) configured to receive an input from a user (abstract, ¶ [33]-[34], [46], [50]), the input module includes a sensor (i.e., 81) that is configured to sense forces as the user engages the input module and to generate a signal corresponding to the sensed forces (¶ [33]-[35], [46], [50], [60]); and a control system (100, Fig. 6, as interpreted under 112(f) claim interpretation cited above) configured to control the exercise machine based on the sensed strain forces (abstract, ¶ [37], [46], [50], [60]).
It is Office’s position that Arceta teaches the sensor being configured to sense strain forces for the following reason. Arceta teaches although the input module having input devices is capacitive based with capacitive touch sensors, resistive touch sensors or other non-moving controls can also or alternatively be used (see ¶ [28], [35]) and that additionally or alternatively, the input device(s) may utilize different intensity pressures for different control (¶ [60]). Since the operation of resistive touch sensors rely on deformation and change in the electrical resistance of its layers when a force is applied, the resistive touch sensors would (indirectly) sense the strain forces (causing the deformation) due to engagement of the user with the input module. However, if Applicant is not in agreement with the Office’s position such limitations are taught by Sheng.
Regarding claim 1, Sheng teaches an input module including a sensor configured to sense strain forces caused when the user engages the input module and to generate a signal corresponding to the sensed strain forces (¶ [36], please note that upon modification of Arceta’s invention with features of Sheng, the sensor would sense strain forces and generate a signal corresponding to the strain forces and the control system would control the exercise machine based on the sensed strain forces (also see ¶ [27]-[29], [33]-[35] and ¶ [43] for additional details)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arceta’s invention with a sensor that is configured to sense strain forces caused with the user engages the input module and generate a signal corresponding to the sensed strain forces as taught by Sheng in order to provide for a more accurate determination of input solely based on the user’s engagement with the input module without potential effects of the surrounding environment.
Arceta alone or in view of Sheng teaches that a plurality of LEDs (Arceta: 82) or other light emitters may be incorporated within the input device(s) of the input module (Arceta: ¶ [42], [46]). However, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng is silent about the input module including a light guide board with the sensor coupled thereto that is configured to sense the strain forces in the light guide board.
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches an input module configured to receive an input from a user (i.e. 100-400, abstract, a keypad assembly is configured to receive an input from the user), the input module includes a light guide board with a sensor coupled thereto (i.e., each of: 120 with 130 in Fig. 1, 220 with 230-250 in Fig. 2, 320 with 330-35 in Fig. 3, 420 with 430-450 in Fig. 4, is considered a light guide board, ¶ [2]: “An input device may adopt a capacitive sensing approach. Usually an input device may have a printed circuit board (referred to hereinafter as “PCB”) adapted to sense touching or pressing on a key plate member. The keyplate member may be a semi-transparent plate backlit by a light guide similar to those from an LCD screen. The light guide may be flexible and thin. By having multiple light guides and multiple light sources coupled to the light guides, the keypad may be illuminated partially and independently by the light sources to display specific colors on specific portions of the key plate member”; ¶ [18] teaches the substrate 120 (such as a printed circuit board, “PCB”) may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190), that is configured to sense forces in the light guide board as the user engages the input module (¶ [18] teaches the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190. Please note that upon modification of Arceta’s invention alone or in view of Sheng with features of Chung, the sensor would sense strain forces in the light guide board).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arceta’s invention alone or in view of Sheng wherein the input module including a light guide board with the sensor coupled thereto that is configured to sense the strain forces in the light guide board as taught by Chung in order to efficiently provide sufficient light to the input module and highlight specific features on the input module.
Regarding claim 2, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches wherein the exercise machine comprises a stationary bicycle or an elliptical machine (Arceta: ¶ [61], [69]).
Regarding claim 3, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches the exercise machine further comprising a resistance device (Arceta: i.e., 30, 17) that controls a resistance for performing the exercise motion (Arceta: ¶ [30], [70]); and wherein the control system is operatively coupled to the resistance device and configured to receive a resistance setting for controlling the resistance from the user via the input module and to control the resistance device based on the resistance setting (Arceta: ¶ [26], [30], [46], [70], [73]).
Regarding claim 8, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches wherein the light guide board includes: a printed circuit board assembly (Chung: i.e., substrates: 120, 220, 320, 420, 920, ¶ [7]-[8], [18], [20], [24], [27], [40]) to which the sensor is coupled (Chung: ¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190) and a light (Chung: i.e. 160, 260, 360, 460, 960) is coupled (Chung: Figs. 1-4 and 9); and a light guide assembly (Chung: i.e., 130 in Fig. 1, 230-250 with 271-272 in Fig. 2, 330-350 with 371-372 in Fig. 3, 430-450 with 470-479 in Fig. 4, 630-650 in Fig. 6, 930-950 in Fig. 9) configured to diffuse light emitted by the light (Arceta: ¶ [55]; Chung: ¶ [27]: the first layer flexible light guide films 440 and the second layer flexible light guide films 450 may be made of any sufficiently transparent material including poly ethylene (PET). PET diffuses light, ¶ [30]-[31]).
Regarding claim 9, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches wherein the input module further includes an overlay layer (Chung: i.e., 180, 280, 380, 480) coupled to the light guide board (Chung: Figs. 1-4) and defining an input zone (Chung: i.e. each key of keys: 190, 290, 390, 490, is considered an input zone, Figs. 1-4) which is configured to be engaged by the user (Chung: ¶ [18], [20], [25]-[26], the keys are each configured to be engaged by the user), wherein the sensor is configured to sense the strain forces in the light guide board as the user engages the input zone (Arceta: sensor sensing strain forces, ¶ [28], [35], [60]; Chung: ¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190), and wherein the light diffused by the light guide assembly propagates through the overlay layer (Chung: ¶ [22], i.e. at 281, 381, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches wherein the light is one of a plurality of lights (Chung: i.e., 460, 960, Figs. 4 and 9) coupled to the printed circuit board assembly (Chung: Figs. 1-4, 9), and wherein the light guide assembly includes: a plurality of light guides configured to diffuse light emitted by the plurality of lights (Chung: i.e., segments 401-403 of 430 along with segments of 440 and light extractors 470-476 in Fig. 4, segments 501-503 of 530a/530b with openings 536a/536b in Fig. 5, the segments of 630 and 640 in Fig. 6, are considered light guides, ¶ [27], [30]-[31]) and one or more barrier members (Chung: i.e., 435, 535a/535b/535c, 635) that isolate each light guide in the plurality of light guides from each other (Chung: Figs. 4-6 and 9), the barrier members being configured to prevent light diffused by one light guide in the plurality of light guides from propagating into another light guide in the plurality of light guides (Chung: ¶ [32], [36]).
Regarding claim 12, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches wherein the light guide assembly includes a diffusion layer is configured to diffuse light propagating from the plurality of light guides (Arceta: ¶ [55]; Chung: i.e., layer 450 diffuses light from 440 and 430, ¶ [27], the first layer flexible light guide films 440 and the second layer flexible light guide films 450 may be made of any sufficiently transparent material including poly ethylene (PET). PET diffuses light).
Regarding claim 13, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches the exercise machine further comprising: a frame (Arceta: 11) configured to support the user (Arceta: Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ [29]); and a stiffening plate (Arceta: as shown in Fig. 2 below) coupled to the frame and configured to isolate the light guide board from the frame thereby preventing non-input-zone-engagement forces applied to the frame from straining the light guide board (Arceta: the stiffening plate in Fig. 2, isolates the input module from the frame. Upon modification of Arceta’s invention with features (i.e. light guide board) of Chung, the stiffening plate (as taught by Arceta) would isolate the light guide board (as taught by Chung) from the frame thereby preventing non-input-zone-engagement forces applied to the frame from straining the light guide board).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Input module)][AltContent: textbox (Stiffening plate)]
PNG
media_image1.png
471
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Arceta teaches an input module (i.e., 90 including various input devices 60 (i.e. 62, 64, 66), and 69A-69C in Fig. 2 along with the control system 100 is considered an input module) configured to receive input from a user (abstract, ¶ [33]-[34], [46], [50]) using an exercise machine (10) which is configured for an exercise motion (Figs. 1A and 2), the input module comprising: a sensor (i.e., 81), the sensor configured to sense forces caused when the user engages the input module and to generate a signal corresponding to the sensed forces (¶ [33]-[35], [46], [50], [60]).
It is Office’s position that Arceta teaches the sensor being configured to sense strain forces for the following reason. Arceta teaches although the input module having input devices is capacitive based with capacitive touch sensors, resistive touch sensors or other non-moving controls can also or alternatively be used (see ¶ [28], [35]) and that additionally or alternatively, the input device(s) may utilize different intensity pressures for different control (¶ [60]). Since the operation of resistive touch sensors rely on deformation and change in the electrical resistance of its layers when a force is applied, the resistive touch sensors would (indirectly) sense the strain forces (causing the deformation) due to engagement of the user with the input module. However, if Applicant is not in agreement with the Office’s position such limitations are taught by Sheng.
Regarding claim 14, Sheng teaches an input module including a sensor configured to sense strain forces caused when the user engages the input module and to generate a signal corresponding to the sensed strain forces (¶ [36], please note that upon modification of Arceta’s invention with features of Sheng, the sensor would sense strain forces and generate a signal corresponding to the strain forces and the control system would control the exercise machine based on the sensed strain forces (also see ¶ [27]-[29], [33]-[35] and ¶ [43] for additional details)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arceta’s invention with a sensor that is configured to sense strain forces caused with the user engages the input module and generate a signal corresponding to the sensed strain forces as taught by Sheng in order to provide for a more accurate determination of input solely based on the user’s engagement with the input module without potential effects of the surrounding environment.
Arceta alone or in view of Sheng is silent about the input module comprising a printed circuit board assembly, wherein the sensor is coupled to the printed circuit board assembly and configured to sense forces in the printed circuit board assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Chung teaches an input module comprising: a printed circuit board assembly (i.e., substrates: 120, 220, 320, 420, ¶ [7]-[8], [18], [20], [24], [27]); and a sensor coupled to the printed circuit board assembly, the sensor configured to sense forces in the printed circuit board assembly caused when a user engages the input module and to generate a signal corresponding to the sensed forces (¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arceta’s invention alone or in view of Sheng wherein the input module comprising a printed circuit board assembly, wherein the sensor is coupled to the printed circuit board assembly and configured to sense forces in the printed circuit board assembly as taught by Chung in order to provide for a more efficient connection between various components of the input module and a control system of the exercise machine.
Regarding claim 18, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches the input module further comprising a control system (Arceta: 100, Fig. 6, ¶ [71]; Sheng: 310, Fig. 3, ¶ [22]-[24], as interpreted under 112(f) claim interpretation cited above) configured to receive the signal from the sensor and send command signals to the exercise machine (Arceta: abstract, ¶ [37], [46], [50], [60]).
Regarding claim 19, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches the input module further comprising an overlay layer (Chung: i.e., 180, 280, 380, 480) defining an input zone which is configured to be engaged by the user (Chung: i.e. each key of keys: 190, 290, 390, 490, is considered an input zone, Figs. 1-4), and wherein the sensor is configured to sense the strain forces in the printed circuit board assembly as the user engages the input zone (Chung: ¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190).
Regarding claim 20, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches wherein the input zone is part of a plurality of input zones (Chung: i.e., keys: 190 in Fig. 1, 290 in Fig. 2, 390 in Fig. 3, 490 in Fig. 4) defined by the overlay layer (Chung: Figs. 1-4) and the sensor is a one of a plurality of sensors which are each coupled to the printed circuit board assembly (Chung: ¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190), and wherein each sensor in the plurality of sensors corresponds to one input zone in the plurality of input zone such that each sensor is configured to sense engagement of one input zone in the plurality of input zones (Chung: ¶ [18]).
Claims 4-7, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Hermanns et al. (DE 102021203627A1, a copy of the translation of this document has been provided with this Office Action. The cited paragraphs, are with respect to the translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung teaches wherein the light guide board includes: a/the printed circuit board assembly having a top surface and a bottom surface (Chung: i.e., substrates: 120, 220, 320, 420, 920, Figs. 1-4 and 9, ¶ [7]-[8], [18], [20], [24], [27], [40]); a light (Chung: i.e. 160, 260, 360, 460, 960) coupled to the top surface (Chung: Figs. 1-4 and 9); a light guide assembly coupled to the top surface (Chung: i.e., 130 in Fig. 1, 230-250 with 271-272 in Fig. 2, 330-350 with 371-372 in Fig. 3, 430-450 with 470-479 in Fig. 4, 630-650 in Fig. 6, 930-950 in Fig. 9) and configured to diffuse light emitted by the light (Arceta: ¶ [55]; Chung: ¶ [27]: the first layer flexible light guide films 440 and the second layer flexible light guide films 450 may be made of any sufficiently transparent material including poly ethylene (PET). PET diffuses light, ¶ [30]-[31]).
Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung is silent about wherein the sensor is coupled to the bottom surface.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Hermanns teaches an input module (i.e. touch-sensitive display/screen) configured to receive an input from a user (¶ [1]), the input module includes a light guide board with a sensor (i.e. strain gauges 208, 308, 408) coupled thereto (Figs. 5-7) to sense strain forces in the light guide board as the user engages the input module and to generate a signal corresponding to the sensed strain force (¶ [7]-[9], [11]-[12], [19]), wherein the light guide board includes: a printed circuit board assembly (i.e., 206, 306, 404 having a top surface and a bottom surface (¶ [7]-[9], [11]-[12]), a light coupled (at least indirectly) to the top surface (i.e., lighting element located behind the glass disc (210, 310, 406), i.e., on the side opposite the side facing the viewer,¶ [13]-[14]), wherein the sensor is coupled to the bottom surface (Figs. 5-7, ¶ [38]-[42]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arceta’s invention alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung wherein the sensor is coupled to the bottom surface of the printed circuit board as taught by Hermanns in order to protect the sensor from being damaged overtime while ensuring force is detected.
Regarding claim 5, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung and Hermanns teaches wherein the input module further includes an overlay layer (Chung: i.e., 180, 280, 380, 480) coupled to the light guide board (Chung: Figs. 1-4) and defining an input zone (Chung: i.e. each key of keys: 190, 290, 390, 490, is considered an input zone, Figs. 1-4) which is configured to be engaged by the user (Chung: ¶ [18], [20], [25]-[26], the keys are each configured to be engaged by the user), wherein the sensor is configured to sense the strain forces in the light guide board as the user engages the input zone (Arceta: sensor sensing strain forces, ¶ [28], [35], [60]; Chung: ¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190; Hermanns: input zones on 210, 310, 406, Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 6, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung and Hermanns teaches wherein the input zone is one of a plurality of input zones (Chung: i.e., keys: 190 in Fig. 1, 290 in Fig. 2, 390 in Fig. 3, 490 in Fig. 4) defined by the overlay layer (Chung: Figs. 1-4) and the sensor is one of a plurality of sensors which are each coupled to the light guide board (Chung: ¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190; Hermanns: sensors 208, 408, Figs. 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung and Hermanns teaches wherein each sensor in the plurality of sensors corresponds to one input zone in the plurality of input zones such that each sensor is configured to sense the engagement of one input zone in the plurality of input zones (Chung: ¶ [18], the substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on key plate member 180 or on the keys 190).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Arceta in view of Chung teaches wherein the light guide assembly defines a cutout extending therethrough in which the light coupled to the top surface is received (Chung: i.e., openings 536a/536b, Figs. 5A-5B, ¶ [33]).
Regarding claim 17, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung and Hermanns teaches wherein the light is one of a plurality of lights (Chung: i.e., 460, 960, Figs. 4 and 9) coupled to the printed circuit board assembly (Chung: Figs. 1-4, 9), and wherein the light guide assembly includes: a plurality of light guides configured to diffuse light emitted by the plurality of lights (Chung: i.e., segments 401-403 of 430 along with segments of 440 and light extractors 470-476 in Fig. 4, segments 501-503 of 530a/530b with openings 536a/536b in Fig. 5, the segments of 630 and 640 in Fig. 6, are considered light guides, ¶ [27], [30]-[31]) and one or more barrier members (Chung: i.e., 435, 535a/535b/535c, 635) that isolate each light guide in the plurality of light guides from each other (Chung: Figs. 4-6 and 9), the barrier members being configured to prevent light diffused by one light guide in the plurality of light guides from propagating into another light guide in the plurality of light guides (Chung: ¶ [32], [36]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, stating that Arceta does not disclose sensors that sense strain forces applied to the input module, instead, Arceta indicates that it “generally focuses on capacitive-based controls”, the Examiner would like to mention the following. Although Arceta discloses the input devices including capacitive touch sensors, Arceta in various paragraphs also discloses that other types of sensors can also be used. For instance, Arceta in ¶ [34] recites: “…the input devices 60 incorporate one or more solid-state sensors such as those described in the patents referenced above or as otherwise known in other fields of art”, and in ¶ [35] recites: “However, it should be recognized that other capacitive or resistive touch sensors, aligned linearly or in other configurations as presently known in the art may also or alternatively be used”. Since the operation of resistive touch sensors rely on deformation and change in the electrical resistance of its layers when a force is applied, the resistive touch sensors would (at least indirectly) sense the strain forces (causing the deformation) due to engagement of the user with the input module. Arceta in ¶ [60] also describes that additionally or alternatively, the input device(s) may utilize different intensity pressures for different controls, including a pinch or click performing one control. However, as stated above, if applicant did not agree that Arceta discloses such sensor, Sheng taught such sensor.
In response to applicant’s further argument that there is no motivation or suggestion in Arceta to modify the input devices disclosed therein with the force sensors of Sheng as the input devices of Arceta include capacitive-based controls, and that the force sensors of Sheng are different from the capacitive-based controls disclosed by Arceta, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Arceta in ¶ [34]-[35], teaches various types of sensors can be used in addition to or instead of the capacitive-based sensors. For instance, Arceta in ¶ [35] recites: “However, it should be recognized that other capacitive or resistive touch sensors, aligned linearly or in other configurations as presently known in the art may also or alternatively be used”. Sheng in ¶ [36] recites: “Signals provided from force sensors 312 and 314 are received by touch detector 310 and may be conditioned for further processing. For example, touch detector 310 receives the strain measurements output by force sensors 312 and 314 and may utilize the signals to track the baseline signals (e.g. voltage, strain, or force) for force sensors 312 and 314. Strains due to temperature may also be accounted for by touch detector 310 using signals from a temperature sensor, such as temperature sensor 250. Thus, touch detector 310 may obtain absolute forces (the actual force on touch surface 320) from force sensors 312 and 314 by accounting for temperature”. Sheng in other paragraphs including ¶ [27]-[29], [33]-[35] and [43], describes that the force sensors 312 and 314 can include multiple strain sensors or they may be individual strain sensors. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Arceta’s invention such that the sensor is configured to sense strain forces as the user engage the input module and to generate a signal corresponding to the sensed strain forces as taught by Sheng in order to provide for a more accurate determination of input solely based on the user’s engagement with the input module without potential effects of the surrounding environment. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sheng in various paragraphs describes use of the resistive-based sensors being more suitable for curved input surfaces and that more accurate determination of input solely based on the user’s engagement with the input module (absolute force measurements can be obtained from the force sensors) without potential effects of the surrounding environment (i.e., temperature, etc.). Furthermore, such motivation to modify Arceta’s invention with features of Sheng is also found in knowledge generally available within one of ordinary skill in the art (as resistive-based sensors are more durable and they have high environmental resistance to various factors such as dust or moisture and they have high precision).
In response to applicant’s further arguments regarding claim 1, that Chung’s conductive elements are not sensors and Chung does not disclose that the conductive elements are capable of sensing strain forces in the substrate in which the conductive elements are located, therefore, the teachings of Arceta and/or Sheng with Chung do not disclose all the features of a sensor that is configured to sense strain forces in the light guide board, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As stated above, each of: 120 with 130 in Fig. 1, 220 with 230-250 in Fig. 2, 320 with 330-35 in Fig. 3, 420 with 430-450 in Fig. 4, in Chung, is considered a light guide board. Chung in ¶ [2] recites: “An input device may adopt a capacitive sensing approach. Usually an input device may have a printed circuit board (referred to hereinafter as “PCB”) adapted to sense touching or pressing on a key plate member. The keyplate member may be a semi-transparent plate backlit by a light guide similar to those from an LCD screen. The light guide may be flexible and thin. By having multiple light guides and multiple light sources coupled to the light guides, the keypad may be illuminated partially and independently by the light sources to display specific colors on specific portions of the key plate member”, and in ¶ [18] recites: “The keypad assembly 100 may comprise a substrate 120, such as a printed circuit board (referred to hereinafter as "PCB"), a rigid light guide layer 130, at least one light source 160 located on the substrate 120, and a key plate member 180 having a plurality of keys 190… The substrate 120 may comprise several conductive elements (not shown) configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching on the key plate member 180 or on the keys 190”. As such, since the conductive elements are configured to perform capacitive sensing to detect touching or punching, they are, each, considered a sensor. As stated above, upon modification of Arceta’s invention alone or in view of Sheng with features of Chung, the sensor would sense strain forces in the light guide board. Chung was not relied upon for teaching sensing strain forces (see above for details). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., Chung), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Claim 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding claims 2-13 are moot in view of the above provided explanation.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 4, stating that features of claim 4 are not disclosed by Arceta, Sheng and/or Chung, the Examiner would like to mention that Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung still teaches some of the features of claim 4. However, the limitations of claim 4 are taught by Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung and Hermanns (see above for details).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10, stating that claim 19 us currently amended to depend from claim 4 and that features of claim 1 are not disclosed by Arceta, Sheng and/or Chung, the Examiner would like to mention the followings. Applicant is referred to the Examiner’s explanation of rejection of claim 4 above, regarding applicant’s similar arguments for Claim 10 being dependent on claim 4. As shown above, Arceta alone or in view of Sheng as modified by Chung and Hermanns teach the limitations of claim 10 (see above for details). Specifically, Chung teaches the light guide assembly defining a cutout (i.e., openings 535a/535b), extending therethrough in which the light coupled to the top surface is received (see Figs. 5A-5B, ¶ [33] of Chung).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 13, that the component in Fig. 2 of Arceta, as shown by the Examiner, is not described by Arceta and appears to be a portion of the frame or tope surface 24, and therefore Arceta does not disclose the stiffening plate that isolates the light guide board from the frame, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Arceta teaches a frame (11) having a front end (12) and a back end (14). Figure 2 of Arceta shows the input module (i.e., 90 including various input devices 60 (i.e. 62, 64, 66), and 69A-69C in Fig. 2 is considered an input module). The component that is pointed to in Fig. 2 by the Examiner, is a rigid/stiff plate that, as shown, goes under the input module (90) and isolates/separates the input module (90) from the frame, therefore is considered a stiffening plate. As stated above, upon modification of Arceta’s invention with features (i.e. light guide board) of Chung, the stiffening plate (as taught by Arceta) would isolate the light guide board (as taught by Chung) from the frame thereby preventing non-input-zone-engagement forces applied to the frame from straining the light guide board.
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding claim 14, are moot in view of the above provided explanation.
Applicant’s similar arguments regarding Claims 15-20, specifically claim 15 reciting limitations similar to that of claim 4 and claim 16 reciting limitations similar to claim 10, are moot in view of the above provided explanation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 102007171 B1 to NOH (pertinent to claims 1-4 and 14-15).
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 SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. 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.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784