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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the introductory phrase “the present invention provides” is unnecessary and should be deleted to improved conciseness and objectivity . Additionally, the abstract contains grammatical errors, including an improper sentence structure in the first sentence and incorrect phrasing in the final sentence, which renders the abstract unclear. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim objection
Claim 3 recites two elastic connectors, whereas claim 4 refers to “the elastic connector” in the singular, thereby creating ambiguity as whether the limitation refers to one or more elastic connectors. Similarly in claims 6 and 7, refer to “the elastic connector” in the singular.
Claim 3, “the elastic connectors” in line 2 and “the other end” in line 3 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek (US20210398403) in view of Lin (US20110036693).
Regarding claim 1, Ostdiek teaches a handheld device, comprising: a housing 302 having an opening 336; a button 312 contained in the housing and partially extending out of the housing from the opening; a sensor 316a-b connected to the button to detect pressing states of the button (paragraph 65); a chip 126 electrically connected to the sensor (Fig. 1); a vibration motor disposed on a side of the sensor away from the button (the haptic engine includes a vibration motor, see paragraph 43); and a connector 332a-b; wherein the button, the sensor, and the vibration motor is connected to the housing through the connector (Fig. 3a-3b), as required by claim 1; wherein a surrounding wall of the housing forming the opening 336 is spaced apart from the button 312 (Fig. 3b), as required by claim 2; wherein a number of the connectors (332a, 332b) is two, and one end 332a of each connector is connected to the vibration motor 314, and the other end (area near 338a) of each connector is fixed to the housing 302 (Figs. 3a-3b), as required by claim 3. Ostdiek does not teach the connector being an elastic connector; wherein a suspension structure composed of the button, is connected to the housing through the elastic connector. However, Lin teaches a handheld device that comprises a button 120, a housing 160 with an opening 161, and an elastic connector 124; wherein a suspension structure composed of the button, is connected to the housing through the elastic connector (Figs. 1-4). 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 Lin in the button structure of Ostdiek to achieve a flexible mechanical connection between the housing and the button assembly that simplifies the assembly process.
Regarding claim 8, Ostdiek teaches the handheld device wherein the button comprises an extension part 332a with a size smaller than a size of the opening and a stopper part 313 with a size larger than the size of the opening (Fig. 3c).
Regarding claim 9, Ostdiek teaches the handheld device wherein a vibration direction of the vibration motor is perpendicular to a pressing direction of the button (the pressing direction is perpendicular to the input surface, while the haptic vibration is lateral or parallel to the surface, making the two directions perpendicular, see Fig. 3a).
Ostdiek’s first embodiment does not teach the connecting block. However, Ostdiek teaches another embodiment that have a connecting block (fastener 572a of figure 5) disposed between the vibration motor 514 and the connector 532a, and the connector is connected and fixed to the vibration motor through the connecting block (Figs. 5a-5b and paragraph 91), as required by claim 4; wherein the connecting block is a plastic block or a metal block (Figs. 5a-5b and paragraph 91), as required by claim 5; wherein the connecting block is fixed to the connector (Figs. 5a-5b) as required by claim 6, but no teaching of welding or gluing. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production as long the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed device wherein the elastic connector comprises a first connecting portion partially connected to the connecting block and a second connecting portion bending and extending horizontally from the first connecting portion to connect to the housing, and the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are both sheet-like structures.
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