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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 15, 2025, with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (7,499,735) in view of Harris (6,052,464).
Regarding claim 1, Murata discloses an electronic apparatus (fig. 1) including a chassis (10) with a top surface (extension of 10C), a keyboard (16, 20) disposed on the top surface (1 0A), and a pair of speakers (52, 54, fig. 8) in the chassis (10), wherein: the speakers (52, 54) are oriented to emit sound upward, a diaphragm (see fig. 3, 40A) below the keyboard (20) to emit sound, the keyboard (16, 20) has a sound transmission hole (44) that transmits sound from the speakers (52, 54) upward.
Murata fails to specifically disclose wherein, from the sound transmission hole, the sound is transmitted on a straight path to a keyhole between adjacent key switches.
Harris teaches an electronic apparatus wherein a keyboard (18 and 94) has a sound transmission hole (96), wherein, from the sound transmission hole (96), the sound is transmitted on a straight path (31) to a keyhole (32) between adjacent key switches (see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Harris and make Murata’s electronic apparatus wherein, from the sound transmission hole, the sound is transmitted on a straight path to a keyhole between adjacent key switches, in order to permit the sound generated by the speaker to be ported through the keyhole therefore allowing better transmission of sound from the apparatus to the user.
Regarding claim 2, Murata discloses the electronic apparatus (figs. 3 and 8) wherein the speakers (52, 54) are each fixed to the keyboard (16, 20) via a bracket (22), the bracket including: a speaker support (48, 50) that supports the speakers (52, 54); and a keyboard fixing part (22A) fixed to a lower surface of the keyboard (16, 20) at a position different from the speaker support (48, 50).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata and Harris, and further in view of Feder (US 4,081,631).
Regarding claim 3, Murata discloses the electronic apparatus wherein the
keyboard includes: a plate (20); and a plurality of key switches (16) each including a keytop (18) that defines an operation face, and the sound transmission hole (44) is in the plate (20, see fig. 9).
The modified Murata fails to specifically disclose the keyboard is of an isolation type and a guide mechanism that guides the keytops to be movable vertically relative to the plate, a frame segmenting the keytops that are adjacent to each other, and the sound transmission hole is at a position facing a gap between the frame and the keytops.
Feder teaches an electronic apparatus wherein a keyboard is of an isolation type (fig. 1) and a guide mechanism (17) that guides keytops (11) to be movable vertically relative to a plate (15), and includes a frame (10) segmenting the keytops (11) that are adjacent to each other, and a sound transmission hole (see 22 in fig. 2) is at a position facing a gap between the frame (10) and the keytops (11 ).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Feder and make the modified Murata's electronic apparatus with the keyboard being of an isolation type and a guide mechanism that guides the keytops to be movable vertically relative to the plate, a frame segmenting the keytops that are adjacent to each other, and the sound transmission hole is at a position facing a gap between the frame and the keytops, in order to provide the user with a positive and almost noiseless tactile indication of contact and to use the gap as an indirect path for sound from the speakers to the exterior.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata, Harris and Feder, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 7,963,709; hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Murata fails to specifically disclose the plurality of key switches include two shift keys that are horizontally long and at a distance between a left and a right of the keyboard, and the sound transmission hole is at a position facing a gap between the frame and at least the keytop of a left shift key of the two shift keys.
Watanabe teaches an electronic apparatus (fig. 2) wherein a plurality of key switches include various types of keys (col 3 lines 38-40) at a distance between a left and a right of a keyboard (see fig. 9), and sound transmission holes (11 ).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Watanabe and make the modified Murata's electronic apparatus wherein the plurality of key switches includes two shift keys that are horizontally long and at a distance between a left and a right of the keyboard, and the sound transmission hole is at a position facing a gap between the frame and at least the keytop of a left shift key of the two shift keys, in order to rearrange electronic elements such as speakers for the purpose of miniaturization of the electronic apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Murata fails to specifically disclose the plurality of key switches include two shift keys that are horizontally long and at a distance between a left and a right of the keyboard, and the diaphragm overlaps with a left shift key of the two shift keys.
Watanabe teaches an electronic apparatus (fig. 2) wherein a plurality of key switches include various types of keys (col 3 lines 38-40) at a distance between a left and a right of a keyboard (see fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Watanabe and make the modified Murata's electronic apparatus wherein the plurality of the key switches includes two shift keys that are horizontally long and at a distance between a left and a right of the keyboard, and the diaphragm overlaps with a left shift key of the two shift keys, in order to rearrange electronic elements such as speakers for the purpose of miniaturization of the electronic apparatus.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata and Harris, and further in view of Kee et al. (US 9,380,139; hereinafter Kee).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Murata fails to specifically disclose the sound transmission hole has a slit shape.
Kee teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a sound transmission hole (120, fig. 1) having a slit shape.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Kee and make the modified Murata's electronic apparatus with the sound transmission hole having a slit shape, in order to align with a partial offset beneath the keys of the keyboard (see col. 3, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Murata fails to specifically disclose the sound transmission hole is closed by a sound-permeable waterproof membrane.
Kee teaches an electronic apparatus wherein a sound transmission hole (120) is closed by a sound-permeable waterproof membrane (502)(see col 5, lines 10-31 ).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Kee and make the modified Murata's electronic apparatus with the sound transmission hole closed by a sound-permeable waterproof membrane, in order to seal the mechanical and electrical keyboard.
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.
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However, it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm. 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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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/patentcenter 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.
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845