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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-7, 9-12 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, line 3, “a corresponding circuitry” it is unclear what the circuitry is corresponding to.
Claim 16, line 8, “circuitry” is improper grammar, and it should be changed to-circuitry- OR -a circuit-.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-11, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,705,295.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim language is substantially similar with only slight differences in terminology and arrangement, such as “the positioning portion with an aperture” vs “ positioning portion extending to a through-hole.”
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, 4, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yen (US20200273642) in view of Chen (US. Pat. 9,040,856).
Regarding claim 1, Yen teaches a keyboard, comprising: a backlight module, comprising a light source 23a and a reflective layer 21a, wherein the light source and a corresponding circuitry 25a are arranged on the reflective layer, and a circuitry connecting portion 25a extends from the reflective layer; a base plate 110G, disposed on the backlight module, wherein the base plate has a positioning portion 120G with an aperture (where the hook of the support unit 400a is positioned), and a membrane circuit 200a, disposed on the base plate; and a plurality of keycaps 300a, disposed on the membrane circuit (Fig. 5c). Yen does not teach a portion of the reflective layer contacts the base plate or the positioning portion. However, Chen teaches a similar keyboard comprising backlight module with a reflective layer 56; and a base plate 51, disposed on the backlight module, and a portion 561 of the reflective layer contacts the base plate (Fig. 6); wherein the portion of the reflective layer does not extend to the aperture (Fig. 6), as required by claim 15. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Chen in the keyboard of Peng to provide a better illuminated keyboard.
Regarding claim 4, Yen teaches the keyboard wherein the backlight module further comprises a light guide layer 22g disposed between the base plate 110g and the reflective layer 21a, and the positioning portion 120g is disposed corresponding to a through-hole of the light guide layer (Fig. 5c).
Regarding claim 8, Yen teaches the keyboard wherein a part 122g of the positioning portion 120g protrudes toward the membrane circuit 200a, and the positioning portion has a recess (where the hook of the support unit 400a is positioned) corresponding to the through-hole of the light guide layer (the recess is disposed or arranged withing the through hole, see Fig. 5c).
Claim 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (US20200273642) in view of Fu (US. Pat. 10,629,395).
Regarding claim 16, Yen teaches a keyboard, comprising: a backlight module, comprising a light source 23a, a reflective layer 21a, and a shielding layer 24g, wherein the light source is electrically connected to a circuitry 25a arranged on the reflective layer or the shielding layer; a base plate 110G, disposed on the backlight module, wherein the base plate has a positioning portion 120G; a membrane circuit 200A, disposed on the base plate, wherein a portion (the opening where positioning portion is extending from) of the membrane circuit corresponding to the positioning portion; and a plurality of keycaps 300A, disposed on the membrane circuit (Fig. 5C). Yen does not teach membrane the circuit having a non-uniform thickness corresponding to the positioning portion. However, Fu teaches a similar keyboard comprises with a membrane circuit 30 and base plate 10; wherein the membrane circuit has a non-uniform thickness 315 that corresponds to a positioning portion 13 of the base plate (Figs. 4-5 and col. 4, lines 60-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Fu in the keyboard of Yen to provide a waterproofing function (col. 5, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 17, Yen teaches the keyboard wherein a connecting portion 25a electrically connected to the light source 23a extends from the corresponding reflective layer 21g (Fig. 5c).
Regarding claim 18, Yen teaches the keyboard wherein a portion of the of the shielding layer 24g where the light source 23a is arranged contacts the base plate 110G (Fig. 5c).
Regarding claim 19, Yen teaches the keyboard wherein the light source 23a is arranged optically corresponding to a light transmissive portion 24A1 of the shielding layer 24a (paragraph 88).
Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani (US. Pat. 9,418,798) in view of Peng (US20140009903).
Regarding claim 16, Nakatani teaches a keyboard, comprising: a base plate 38 wherein the base plate has a positioning portion (opening portion on the base plate where sidewall 34 is positioned when the keycap is pressed); a membrane circuit 46, disposed on the base plate, wherein a portion of the membrane circuit has a non-uniform thickness corresponding to the positioning portion (the opening portion of the membrane has zero thickness); and a plurality of keycaps 31, disposed on the membrane circuit (Figs. 5-7). Nakatani does not teach the backlight module. However, Peng teaches a keyboard that comprises a backlight module 200 with a light source 226, a reflective layer 220, and a shielding layer 230, wherein the light source is electrically connected to a circuitry 224 arranged on the reflective layer; a base plate 100, disposed on the backlight module; and a plurality of keycaps 120 (Figs. 1-2), as required by claim 16; wherein a connecting portion 224 electrically connected to the light source 226 extends from the corresponding reflective layer 220 (Figs. 1-2), as required by claim 17; wherein the light source 226 is arranged optically corresponding to a light transmissive portion 232 of the shielding layer 230 (Fig. 2 and paragraph 25), as required by claim 19. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Peng in the key switch of Nakatani to provide an illuminated keyboard.
Regarding claim 20, Nakatani teaches the keyboard wherein the membrane circuit 46 has a first portion corresponding to a position between two adjacent keycaps and a second portion adjacent to the first portion covered by one of the keycaps, and a thickness of the first portion is less than a thickness of the second portion (the first portion has zero thickness, see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED M SAEED whose telephone number is (571)270-7976. The examiner can normally be reached 10-8pm.
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.
/AHMED M SAEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833