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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
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 1-2 and 6-16, 21-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu et al., U.S. Patent 6,084,576 (hereinafter “Leu”) in view of Hargreaves et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,689,253 (hereinafter “Hargreaves”) further in view of McNamara et al., US 2004/0037604 A1 (hereinafter “McNamara”).
Regarding claim 1, Leu a keyboard (col. 4, lines 28-end and col. 5, lines 1-5 – generally describing key board structure; FIGS. 27-34 with key boards 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, col. 23, lines 42-46, 64-67; col. 24, lines 16-32, 42-45; col. 25, lines 30-36, 58-61) including:
an inner thumb row including a plurality of inner thumb keys (FIG. 27 thumb domain blocks 54 and 55 col. 23, lines 36-38; FIG. 34 describing R9 described at col. 26, lines 1-7) configured to be actuated by a thumb which includes a thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint (col. 6, lines 34-38 describing palm activation of keys including distal end of the metacarpal where the thumb and palm bones come together; FIGS. 19-22 illustrating path of thumb and related joint capable of activating that lowest row as defined in FIG. 34 as R9 as described col. 26, lines 1-7), such that a critical contact point of each of the plurality of inner thumb keys is arranged along an inner thumb arc on an inner thumb key plane (see FIGS. 22 and 27-34 describing R9 at col. 26, lines 1-7); and
an outer thumb row (see FIGS. 22 and 27-34 with R7 described at col. 21, lines 43-60 and col. 26, lines 1-7) including a plurality of outer thumb keys configured to be actuated by the thumb (see FIG. 34, or example, comma R7C7, shift case R7C8, backspace R7C9; described at col. 25, lines 51-end and col. 26, lines 1-49), a critical contact point of each of the plurality of outer thumb keys is arranged along an outer thumb arc on an outer thumb key plane (see FIG. 34, or example, comma R7C7, shift case R7C8, backspace R7C9; described at col. 25, lines 51-end and col. 26, lines 1-49, these keys serving as contact points), where the palm plane is the plane upon which a user’s palm lies when the keyboard is in use (see FIGS. 13-22 illustrating palm rest described as joypad 24 which is the plane upon which the hand’s palm rests, described at Abstract and further at col. 20, lines 36-end).
However, Leu does not explicitly disclose wherein the inner and outer thumb key planes are non-coplanar, such that, when the keyboard is in use, said inner and outer thumb key planes intersect with each other and a palm plane; and
wherein, where the inner thumb arc lies on the inner thumb key plane, said inner thumb arc follows a circular path from an inner thumb arc center at an inner arc radius, where the inner thumb arc center also lies on the inner thumb key plane;
wherein, where the outer thumb arc lies on the outer thumb key plane, said outer thumb arc follows a circular path from an outer thumb arc center at an outer arc radius, where the outer thumb arc center also lies on the outer thumb key plane; and
wherein, the inner arc center and outer arc center have an arc center spacing of up to 15mm, where the arc center spacing is a distance between the arc centers.
In the same field of endeavor, Hargreaves discloses an ergonomic keyboard with thumb keys (see generally FIGS. 1, with thumb/auxiliary key arrays 120 and 122 described at col. 10, lines 4- 30) wherein the inner and outer thumb key planes are non-coplanar (see FIG. 1, 2, 13-17 and col. 10, lines 30-32; illustrating inner row with keys 124, 126, 131, 132 and top row keys 128 and 130 described at col. 11, lines 16-end), such that, when the keyboard is in use, said inner and outer thumb key planes intersect with each other and a palm plane (FIGS. 1 and 4 illustrating palm rest 136 and 138 and col. 19, lines 37-44, further illustrating intersecting planes at FIGS. 8 and 9 wherein inner keys 124, 126, 131, 132 and top row keys 128 and 130 intersect due to angling and design of keys for each row as described at col. 11, lines 5-end, further see FIG. 2, cross section of FIG. 1, illustrating palm rest angling plane).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard structure and planar aspects of various components of Leu to incorporate the angling and non-coplanar elements of the keyboard as disclosed by Hargreaves because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, ergonomic keyboards with additional thumb keys. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve touch detection and differentiation of the keys more easily (see Hargreaves at least at col. 11, 25-40). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
However, although Leu in view of Hargraves discloses the planes and arcs of the thumbs (Leu at FIGS. 1-8 with radial movements of the thumb and Hargreaves at FIGS. 1, 2, 13-17 and col. 10, lines 30-32 with movement and radial positioning of keys) Leu in view of Hargreaves does not explicitly disclose wherein, where the inner thumb arc lies on the inner thumb key plane, said inner thumb arc follows a circular path from an inner thumb arc center at an inner arc radius, where the inner thumb arc center also lies on the inner thumb key plane;
wherein, where the outer thumb arc lies on the outer thumb key plane, said outer thumb arc follows a circular path from an outer thumb arc center at an outer arc radius, where the outer thumb arc center also lies on the outer thumb key plane; and
wherein, the inner arc center and outer arc center have an arc center spacing of up to 15mm, where the arc center spacing is a distance between the arc centers.
In the same field of endeavor, McNamara discloses wherein, where the inner thumb arc lies on the inner thumb key plane, said inner thumb arc follows a circular path from an inner thumb arc center at an inner arc radius (FIGS. 1-2, buttons 18 and [0016]-[0019] with two sets of buttons 18 on different intersecting planes and different lengths for radius r and radius R at [0020]), where the inner thumb arc center also lies on the inner thumb key plane (FIGS. 1-2 with x marking the key plane for both inner keys and thumb key plane at [0016]-[0020]);
wherein, where the outer thumb arc lies on the outer thumb key plane, said outer thumb arc follows a circular path from an outer thumb arc center at an outer arc radius (FIGS. 1-2 with outer arc radius formed in FIG. 2 at radius R and at [0016]-[0020]), where the outer thumb arc center also lies on the outer thumb key plane (FIGS. 1-2 with x marking the key plane for both inner keys and thumb key plane at [00016]-[0020]); and
wherein, the inner arc center and outer arc center have an arc center spacing of up to 15mm (FIG. 2 with X being the arc center for both therefore having no spacing which is less than 15mm), where the arc center spacing is a distance between the arc centers (FIG. 2 with X being the arc center for both therefore having no spacing which is less than 15mm).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the keyboard construction of Leu in view of Hargreaves to incorporate the radial arcs, planes and key positioning as disclosed by McNamara because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, key placement for thumb actuated keys. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve ergonomics of the key placement for a device with thumb actuated data input (see McNamara at [0003] and [0016]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim2 (see above), wherein the inner and outer thumb key planes and palm plane, when the keyboard is in use, are configured to intersect at a CMC plane passing through the user’s thumb CMC joint, such that said CMC plane is perpendicular to a line parallel a user’s forearm (see at least Hargreaves at Abstract, discussing the accommodation of the natural angle of the thumb of the user/operator to the index finger, further describing angles of operation that are natural and accommodating for the user for ergonomic purposes at FIG. 1 and col. 19, lines 65-end, and col. 20, lines 1-61; as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the planes of intersection as disclosed by Hargreaves would allow for the CMC joint to be substantially perpendicular to user’s forearm for the commonly understood benefit of ergonomically accommodating operation of the keyboard with the least amount of strain to the user (i.e., ergonomic ease and accessibility), a goal common within the art; noting Leu center lines 4 and 5 in FIG. 1, and describing angling in accordance with natural movements at col. 17, lines 50-60, and movement of thumb at FIGS. 2 and 3 and F51-F53 and col. 18, lines 13-30).
Regarding claim 6, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 5 (see above), wherein, when the keyboard is in use, at least one arc center is coincident with the user’s thumb CMC joint (Leu FIGS. 27-34 arc of thumb in line with keys of R7 requiring arc to be accessible by the thumb and therefore on the key plane and centered in accordance with the joint as would be understood by one of ordinary skill).
Regarding claim 7, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 6 (see above), wherein both arc centers are coincident with the user’s thumb CMC joint (Leu at FIGS. 19-21, the joint and thumb placement as illustrated).
Regarding claim 8, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 7 (see above), wherein the keyboard further includes a plurality of keys, finger keys (Leu at FIGSS 33-34 with keys in matrix C1-C6 and R1-R5 for left hand and matrix C15-C20 with R1-R5 for right hand col. 25, lines 30-61), configured to be actuated by a user’s fingers, said finger keys are arranged such that when the keyboard is in use the user’s palm does not require substantial movement to actuate them (Leu at FIGS. 27-34 the palm would remain stationary on the palm rest structure 24 as illustrated therein, further described at least at FIG. 13-17 and col. 20 and lines 36-end and col. 21, lines 1-19).
Regarding claim 9, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 8 (see above) wherein, the finger keys have a layout selected from a group consisting of, an ortho-linear layout, a columnar stagger layout, a uniform stagger layout, a symmetric stagger layout and any combination thereof (Leu at FIG. 28 with 62 illustrating linear configuration for the keys 62 for each half 63 and 64).
Regarding claim 10, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 9 (see above),wherein, the keyboard includes two portions (Leu at FIG. 28 with keys 62 for each half 63 and 64, col. 23, lines 43-63), a first portion and a second portion (Leu at FIG. 28 with keys 62 for each half 63 and 64, col. 23, lines 43-63), such that each portion includes a plurality of finger keys and a thumb cluster, where the thumb cluster is the combination of the inner thumb keys and outer thumb keys of that portion (Leu at FIG. 34 with thumb keys 81 and 82 of the keys 80, col. 25, lines 58-end; col. 26, lines 1-56).
Regarding claim11, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 10 (see above) wherein, the first portion and second portion are separate parts of the keyboard (Leu at FIGS. 27-34, clearly two distinct parts of the keyboard at 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80).
Regarding claim 12, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 10 (see above) wherein, the first portion and second portion are releasably joined (Hargreaves at FIG. 11, and sliding linkage 1102a, 1106,1102b described at col. 18, lines 14-55).
Regarding claim 13, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard of claim 12 (see above), wherein when the keyboard is in use the movement of the thumb from any one of the thumb keys to any other thumb key in the same thumb row is substantially and primarily through flexion or extension (Leu at FIG. 8, illustrating movement of thumb flexion and extension to reach keys on that row col. 19, lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 14, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 13 (see above), wherein, when the keyboard is in use, the angle between the palm plane and at least one of the inner and outer thumb key planes, as those planes intersect the CMC plane, is a primary palm thumb key plane angle Θ, and said primary palm thumb key plane angle Θ is from 160 to 180 degrees (see Hargreaves FIGS. 1-6 and col. 9, lines 46-end and col. 10, lines 1-3, and col. 10, lines 32-end).
Regarding claim 15, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 14 (see above) wherein, the primary palm thumb key plane angle Θ for each of the thumb key planes is independently selected from a range of 160 to 180 degrees (see Hargreaves FIGS. 1-6 and col. 9, lines 46-end and col. 10, lines 1-3, and col. 10, lines 32-end; adjustment of the degree would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on known methods in the art).
Regarding claim 16, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard of claim 15 (see above) wherein, the thumb key planes are coincident at the CMC plane (see Hargreaves at FIGS. 1-7 and 13-17 as described at col. 10, lines 21-56).
Regarding claim 21, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 1 (see above) wherein, where the inner thumb arc lies on the inner thumb key plane, said inner thumb arc follows a circular path from an inner thumb arc center at an inner arc radius (McNamara at FIGS. 1-2, buttons 18 and [0016]-[0019] with two sets of buttons 18 on different intersecting planes and different lengths for radius r and radius R at [0020]), where the inner thumb arc center also lies on the inner thumb key plane (McNamara at FIGS. 1-2 with x marking the key plane for both inner keys and thumb key plane at [0016]-[0020]) and/or the outer thumb arc lies on the outer thumb key plane, said outer thumb arc follows a circular path from an outer thumb arc center at an outer arc radius (McNamara at FIGS. 1-2 with outer arc radius formed in FIG. 2 at radius R and at [0016]-[0020]), where the outer thumb arc center also lies on the outer thumb key plane (McNamara at FIGS. 1-2 with x marking the key plane for both inner keys and thumb key plane at [00016]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 22, it is similar in scope to claim 8 above; therefore, claim 22 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, it is similar in scope to claim 13 above; therefore, claim 23 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, it is similar in scope to claim 14 above; therefore, claim 24 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 14.
Regarding claim 26, it is similar in scope to claim 14 above; therefore, claim 24 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 14.
Claims 17-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara as applied to claims 16 above, and further in view of Axthelm, US Patent No. 5,367,298 (hereinafter “Axthelm”).
Regarding claim17, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 16 (see above).
However, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara does not explicitly disclose wherein, each thumb key has a key cap with a cylindrical profile, with an axis of each key cap substantially aligned with a radius of the respective thumb arc.
In the same field of endeavor, Axthelm discloses wherein, each thumb key has a key cap with a cylindrical profile (FIGS. 2-3 and keys 14, 15, 16 and col. 4, lines 50-60), with an axis of each key cap substantially aligned with a radius of the respective thumb arc (FIGS. 2-3 and keys 14, 15, 16 and col. 6, lines 20-42, alignment would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for improving ergonomics for the user).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ergonomic keyboard of Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara to incorporate the cylindrical key caps as disclosed by Axthelm because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, ergonomic keyboards thumb actuation keys. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve facilitation of keys with the thumb (see Axthelm at least at col. 6, lines 20-42). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara further in view of Axthelm discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 17 (see above) wherein there are at least three thumb keys in each thumb row (see Leu at FIGS. 27-34 with multiple keys in R7 and R9).
Regarding claim 19, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara further in view of Axthelm discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 18 wherein (see above), a number of thumb keys in the inner thumb row is greater than the number of thumb keys in the outer thumb row (see Hargreaves at FIG. 1, with top row having 3 keys and closer two having 4 keys).
Regarding claim 25, it is similar in scope to claim 17 above; therefore, claim 25 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 17.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara further in view of Axthelm as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rader, US Patent No. 5,122,786 (hereinafter “Rader”).
Regarding claim 20, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara further in view of Axthelm discloses the keyboard as claimed in claim 18 (see above).
However, Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara further in view of Axthelm does not explicitly disclose wherein, the number of thumb keys in the outer thumb row is greater than the number of thumb keys in the inner thumb row.
In the same field of endeavor, Rader discloses wherein, the number of thumb keys in the outer thumb row is greater than the number of thumb keys in the inner thumb row (FIGS. 1-2 and 14 illustrating outer thumb row with 4 keys, and inner row with either 1 or 2 keys, col. 3, lines 37-65 describing protrusion 2 and protrusion 5 therein).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ergonomic keyboard of Leu in view of Hargreaves further in view of McNamara further in view of Axthelm to incorporate the thumb key structure as disclosed by Rader because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, ergonomic keyboard input devices with thumb functionality. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve ergonomic positioning of the keys to permit full use of the user’s thumbs while maintaining optimum access to all keys (see Rader at col. 1, lines 42-65). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burroughs, US 2005/0052419 A1;
Goddard, US 6,698,952 B1;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARVESH J NADKARNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7562. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, LunYi Lao can be reached at (571) 272-7671. 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.
/SARVESH J NADKARNI/Examiner, Art Unit 2621