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 .
This action is responsive to the following communication Request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 14-16 have been amended, while claims 2 and 11 have been canceled.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “Gengler does not teach or suggest this structure. During the interview, paragraph [0091] of Gengler was specifically discussed as reading on the claim elements …….. Gengler neither teaches nor suggests this coordinated, keyboard-centric system” (Remarks, p. 9-10). However, the Examiner respectfully disagree.
As disclosed in the previous office action, in paragraph [0091-0092] states “the support element have different widths at different locations along its length”, meaning multiple locations of the support element 106 can be designed to have different width from another location of the support element, multiple varying widths will result in multiple varying channels including a first channel with a first width, a second channel with a second width, a third channel with a third width, and each of the widths can be different from one another. Paragraph [0059, 0090-0091] specifically states angle of the electronic device changes based on the width of the groove channel. Utilizing the above teaching will result in “wherein the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are contiguous along the upper portion of the keyboard to define three laterally arranged regions, wherein the second width defines a minimum width across the first, second, and third channels and the third width defines a maximum width across the first, second, and third channels, and wherein the first set viewing angle, the second set viewing angle, and a third viewing angle associated with the third channel are simultaneously available along the upper portion of the keyboard without insertion, removal, or modification of any component of the apparatus, such that a user may reposition the mobile electronic device laterally between the first, second, and third channels while actively typing on the keyboard” as recited in newly amended claim limitations.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the three channels of Gengler to have three varying widths, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Note applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed shape limitation.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains his rejection.
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, 10, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gengler (US 20120327580).
Regarding claim 1: Gengler teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-4 #100) comprising: a keyboard (Figs. 1-4 and paragraph [0040-0044] teach comprising a keyboard 108); a first channel disposed along an upper portion of the keyboard, the first channel having a first width configured to hold a mobile electronic device at a first set viewing angle, wherein the first channel is located a first side region of the upper portion of the keyboard; and a second channel disposed along the upper portion of the keyboard, the second channel having a second width, and the second width is configured to hold the electronic device at a second set view angle; wherein the second channel is located at a middle region of the upper portion of the keyboard; and wherein the first set viewing angle and the second set viewing angle of the electronic device are between 60 and 70 degrees; and a third channel disposed along the upper portion of the keyboard, the third channel having a third width, wherein the third channel is located at a second side region of the upper portion of the keyboard; wherein the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are contiguous along the upper portion of the keyboard to define three laterally arranged regions, and wherein the first set viewing angle, the second set viewing angle, and a third viewing angle associated with the third channel are simultaneously available along the upper portion of the keyboard without insertion, removal, or modification of any component of the apparatus, such that a user may reposition the mobile electronic device laterally between the first, second, and third channels while actively typing on the keyboard (Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0042-0044, 0055-0066, 0091-0092] teach a support element 106 arranged along an upper portion of the keyboard and is configured to hold a mobile electrode device at a first set viewing angle, the support element 106 comprising a first channel as left portion of the support element and a second channel as middle portion of the support element to hold a mobile electrode device at a second set viewing angle and the support element have different widths at different locations along its length, and the viewing angles can be different as desired including sixty degrees, para [0059, 0065], and also a support element 106 comprising a third channel as right portion of the support element along the upper portion of the keyboard, having a third width; above construction results in a support element 106 comprising the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are interconnected or contiguous along the upper portion of the keyboard; and each channel with different width will result in different viewing angle, all channels are simultaneously available along the upper portion of the keyboard without insertion, removal, or modification of any component of the apparatus, such that a user may reposition the mobile electronic device laterally between the first, second, and third channels while actively typing on the keyboard).
Gengler does not explicitly disclose the second width is smaller than the first width; a second set view angle which is different from the first set viewing angle; wherein the third width is greater than the first width and the second width; wherein the second width defines a minimum width across the first, second, and third channels and the third width defines a maximum width across the first, second, and third channels,.
However, Gengler in paragraph [0091-0092] states “the support element have different widths at different locations along its length”, meaning multiple locations of the support element 106 can be designed to have different width from another location of the support element, including a first channel with a first width, a second channel with a second width, a third channel with a third width, and each of the widths can be different from one another; and it would be obvious to design wherein the second width defines a minimum width across the first, second, and third channels and the third width defines a maximum width across the first, second, and third channels and paragraph [0059, 0090-0091] specifically states angle of the electronic device changes based on the width of the groove channel, so different channel width will result in two different viewing angles. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the three channels of Gengler to have three varying widths, including the second width is smaller than the first width and the third width is greater than the first width and the second width, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claims 3 and 12: Gengler teaches wherein the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are interconnected to form a monolithic continuous channel comprising the first width, the second width, and the third width respectively; wherein the at least one channel comprising at least three regions of varying widths is monolithic (Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0042-0044, 0055-0066, 0091-0092] teach a support element 106 comprising the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are interconnected to form a monolithic continuous channel or recess, and paragraph [0091-0092] states “the support element have different widths at different locations along its length, meaning multiple locations of the support element 106 can be designed to have different width from another location of the support element, including a first channel with a first width, a second channel with a second width, a third channel with a third width, and each of the widths can be different from one another).
Regarding claims 4-6: Gengler teaches wherein the first width is between 11 mm and 12 mm; wherein the second width is between 9.5 mm and 10.5 mm; and wherein the third width is between 12 mm and 13 mm (Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0042-0044, 0055-0066, 0091-0092] teach the width of the channel can be between 6.35mm to 25.40mm). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the three channels of Gengler to have three widths as claimed, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious, and since Gengler already teaches the width is varying at different portions of the support elements and it would matter of design choice to design the width of three channels as claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Note applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed shape limitation.
Regarding claim 7: Gengler does not explicitly disclose wherein the first set viewing angle of the mobile electronic device is 65 degrees.
However, Gengler teaches wherein the set viewing angle of the mobile electronic device is 60° (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0059-0065] teach the mobile electronic can be designed to set at variable different viewing angles and one of them being 60 degrees). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the mobile device to have any desired viewing angle by altering the shape of the support element 106, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious, and since Gengler already in paragraph [0059, 0090-0091] specifically states angle of the electronic device changes based on the width of the groove channel teaches the width is varying at different portions of the support elements and it would matter of design choice to design the width to achieve 65 degrees viewing angle. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Note applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed shape limitation.
Regarding claims 8 & 14: Gengler teaches wherein at least one channel further comprises ridges on at least one side wall of the channel (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 10: Gengler teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-4 #100) comprising: a channel in a keyboard configured to hold a mobile electronic device, the channel comprising a first region having a first width and a first set viewing angle for the mobile electronic device, wherein the first region is located at left portion of the channel, and a second region having a second width and a second set viewing angle for the mobile electronic device, and wherein the second region is located at a middle portion of the channel, a third region having a third width and wherein the third region is located at a right portion of the channel; wherein the first region, the second region, and the third region are contiguous along the channel to define three laterally arranged regions, and wherein the first set viewing angle, the second set viewing angle, and a third viewing angle associated with the third region are simultaneously available along the channel without insertion, removal, or modification of any component of the apparatus, such that a user may reposition the mobile electronic device laterally between the first, second, and third regions while actively typing on the keyboard (Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0042-0044, 0055-0066, 0091-0092] teach a support element 106 arranged along an upper portion of the keyboard and is configured to hold a mobile electrode device at a first set viewing angle, the support element 106 comprising a first channel as left portion of the support element and a second channel as middle portion of the support element to hold a mobile electrode device at a second set viewing angle and the support element have different widths at different locations along its length, and the viewing angles can be different as desired including sixty degrees, para [0059, 0065], and also a support element 106 comprising a third channel as right portion of the support element along the upper portion of the keyboard, having a third width; above construction results in a support element 106 comprising the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are interconnected or contiguous along the upper portion of the keyboard; and each channel with different width will result in different viewing angle, all channels are simultaneously available along the upper portion of the keyboard without insertion, removal, or modification of any component of the apparatus, such that a user may reposition the mobile electronic device laterally between the first, second, and third channels while actively typing on the keyboard); and a fabricated insert disposed on a first side of the channel, wherein a gap between a second side of the channel and the fabricated insert comprises a first width and a second width (Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0059, 0091-0092] teach a permanent or removable insert disposed in the channel of the support element 106, wherein the insert changes the width or opening of the support element 106, which can results in support element varying widths along the length of the support element 106, incorporating a first width and a second width).
Gengler does not explicitly disclose the second width is smaller than the first width; a second set view angle which is different from the first set viewing angle; wherein the third width is greater than the first width and the second width; wherein the second width defines a minimum width across the first, second, and third regions and the third width defines a maximum width across the first, second, and third regions.
However, Gengler in paragraph [0091-0092] states “the support element have different widths at different locations along its length”, meaning multiple locations of the support element 106 can be designed to have different width from another location of the support element, including a first channel with a first width, a second channel with a second width, a third channel with a third width, and each of the widths can be different from one another, and it would be obvious to design wherein the second width defines a minimum width across the first, second, and third channels and the third width defines a maximum width across the first, second, and third channels, and paragraph [0059, 0090-0091] specifically states angle of the electronic device changes based on the width of the groove channel, so different channel width will result in two different viewing angles. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the three channels of Gengler to have three varying widths, including the second width is smaller than the first width and the third width is greater than the first width and the second width, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 13: Gengler teaches wherein the first set viewing angle and the second set viewing angle of the mobile electronic device are between 60° and 70° (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0059-0065] teach the mobile electronic can be designed to set at variable different viewing angles and one of them being 60 degrees). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the mobile device to have any desired viewing angle by altering the shape of the support element 106, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious, and since Gengler already teaches the width is varying at different portions of the support elements and it would matter of design choice to design the width of three channels as claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Note applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed shape limitation.
Regarding claim 16: Gengler teaches a keyboard (Figs. 1-4 teach a keyboard apparatus 100) comprising: forming a channel along a side of the computer keyboard device (Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0042-0044, 0055-0066, 0091-0092] teach a support element 106 or channel arranged along an upper portion of the keyboard and is configured to hold a mobile electrode device); and disposing a fabricated insert on a first side of the channel to form a gap between a second side of the channel and the fabricated insert comprising a first region having a first width configured to hold a mobile electronic device at a first set viewing angle, wherein the first region is located at a left portion of the channel, a second region having a second width configured to hold the mobile electronic device at a second set viewing angle, wherein the second region is located at a middle portion of the channel, and a third region having a third width configured to hold the mobile device at a third set viewing angle, wherein the third region is located at a right portion of the channel; wherein forming the channel and disposing the fabricated insert comprises forming three contiguous laterally arranged regions along the channel and wherein the first set viewing angle, the second set viewing angle, and the third set viewing angle are simultaneously available along the channel without subsequent insertion, removal, or modification of any component of the keyboard, such that a user may laterally reposition the mobile electronic device between the first, second, and third regions during active typing (Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0059, 0091-0092] teach a permanent or removable insert disposed in the channel of the support element 106 and is configured to hold a mobile electronic device at a viewing angle, wherein the insert changes the width or opening of the support element 106, which can results in support element varying widths along the length of the support element 106, having at least two regions having different widths, the support element 106 with fabricated insert comprising a first region as left portion of the support element configured to hold a mobile electronic device at a first set viewing angle and a second region as middle portion of the support element configured to hold a mobile electronic device at a second set viewing angle, and also a support element 106 comprising a third channel as right portion of the support element along the upper portion of the keyboard, having a third width configured to hold a mobile electronic device at a second set viewing angle; above construction results in a support element 106 comprising the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel are interconnected or contiguous along the upper portion of the keyboard which can include permanent fabricated inserts to vary the width of a region/channel of the support element 106; and each channel with different width will result in different viewing angle, all channels are simultaneously available along the upper portion of the keyboard without insertion, removal, or modification of any component of the apparatus, such that a user may reposition the mobile electronic device laterally between the first, second, and third channels while actively typing on the keyboard).
Gengler does not explicitly disclose the second width is smaller than the first width; a second set view angle which is different from the first set viewing angle; wherein the third width is greater than the first width and the second width; wherein the second width defines a minimum width across the first, second, and third regions and the third width defines a maximum width across the first, second, and third regions.
However, Gengler in paragraph [0091-0092] states “the support element have different widths at different locations along its length”, meaning multiple locations of the support element 106 can be designed to have different width from another location of the support element, including a first channel with a first width, a second channel with a second width, a third channel with a third width, and each of the widths can be different from one another, and it would be obvious to design wherein the second width defines a minimum width across the first, second, and third channels and the third width defines a maximum width across the first, second, and third channels, and paragraph [0059, 0090-0091] specifically states angle of the electronic device changes based on the width of the groove channel, so different channel width will result in two different viewing angles. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the three channels of Gengler to have three varying widths, including the second width is smaller than the first width and the third width is greater than the first width and the second width, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 17: Gengler teaches the method further comprises molding ridges along at least one side wall of the at least one region of the fabricated insert to assist in holding a mobile electronic device at the first viewing angle and the second viewing angle (paragraph [0059-0060], also see claim 1 rejection).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gengler (US 20120327580) in the view of Shirata (US 20160252971).
Regarding claims 9 and 15: Gengler does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one channel of the first channel and the second channel comprises a rubber lining along at least one side wall of the at least one channel; wherein the channel further comprises a rubber along at least one side wall of the channel.
However, Shirata teaches wherein at least one channel of the first channel and the second channel comprises a rubber lining along at least one side wall of the at least one channel; wherein the at least one channel further comprises a rubber along at least one side wall of the channel (Fig. 2 & 6 and paragraph [0047-0055] teach at least one channel comprises a rubber lining 130 or 140 along at least one side wall of the channel). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gengler’s invention by including above teachings of Shirata, because a rubber lining can help keep the mobile device into the channel more securely without slipping, as taught by Shirata. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624