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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 05/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first input unit disposed in close contact with an inner surface of the housing and configured to detect …”; and “a second input unit disposed inside the housing and configured to detect …” in claims 1-13. The specification discloses a force sensor and touch sensor as structure performing the function of first input unit and second input unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Harjee et al in view of Bernstein et al and further in view of Jiang et al disclose a portable electronic device comprising: a housing; and a user input unit located inside the housing, wherein the user input unit includes: a first input unit disposed in close contact with an inner surface of the housing and configured to detect a touch input; and a second input unit disposed inside the housing and configured to detect a push input, wherein the inner surface on which the user input unit is mounted includes a first inclined surface wherein: the second input unit is located on an inner surface of the first input unit; wherein the first inclined surface to which the first input unit is coupled further includes: a first guide rib formed to cover an upper portion and side surfaces of the first input unit; further comprising: a carrier formed to support a rear surface of the user input unit and inserted into the housing, but do not expressly disclose wherein the carrier further includes: a second guide rib formed to surround a lower portion and a side portion of the user input unit.
None of the prior art of record disclose in their entirety or in combination the claimed limitation “wherein the carrier further includes: a second guide rib formed to surround a lower portion and a side portion of the user input unit”.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
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 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,956,587 B2 in view of Jiang. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,956,587 B2 but do not expressly disclose wherein the inner surface of the housing includes a first inclined surface. Jiang suggest a device wherein the inner surface of the housing includes a first inclined surface. One of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application can use the inclined surface taught by Jiang as housing surface in the device taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the aesthetics of the portable device
#18713310
US 11,956,587 B2
1. A portable electronic device comprising: a housing; and a user input unit located inside the housing, wherein the user input unit includes: a first input unit disposed in close contact with an inner surface of the housing and configured to detect a touch input; and a second input unit disposed inside the housing and configured to detect a push input, wherein the inner surface of the housing includes a first inclined surface.
2. The portable electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a carrier on which the user input unit is seated and inserted into the housing, wherein the first seating unit on which the first input unit of the carrier is seated includes a second inclined surface corresponding to the first inclined surface.
1. A portable electronic device comprising: a housing; a user input unit configured to detect touch input and push input; and a carrier, on which the user input unit is seated and which is inserted into the housing, wherein the user input unit comprises: a first input unit disposed on an inner surface of the housing in a manner so as to detect a touch input; and a second input unit disposed inside the first input unit in the state of overlapping the first input unit so as to detect a push input different from the touch input, the second input unit including a metal spring being changed in shape in response to the push input.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harjee et al (US 20210314696 A1) in view of Jiang et al (CN 209845247 U).
Regarding claim 1, Harjee et al disclose a portable electronic device (Yang et al; Fig 1; earphone interpreted as electronic device) comprising: a housing (Harjee et al; Fig 1B; Para [0049][0065]); and a user input unit located inside the housing (Harjee et al; Fig 1B; Para [0049][0065]; user input 104a and 104b), wherein the user input unit includes: a first input unit disposed in close contact with an inner surface of the housing and configured to detect a touch input (Harjee et al; Fig 1B; Para [0049][0065]; touch input 104b); and a second input unit disposed inside the housing and configured to detect a push input (Harjee et al; Fig 1B; Para [0049][0065]; force input 104a interpreted as push input), but do not expressly disclose wherein the inner surface of the housing includes a first inclined surface. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jiang et al disclose a device wherein the inner surface of the housing includes a first inclined surface (Jiang et al; Fig 1; inner surface of housing 1 includes an inclined surface). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the inclined surface taught by Jiang et al as inner surface of the housing taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid the influence of body effect on antenna structure (Jiang et al; Page 3; lines 35-65).
Regarding claim 2, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a carrier on which the user input unit is seated and inserted into the housing, wherein the first seating unit on which the first input unit of the carrier is seated includes a second inclined surface corresponding to the first inclined surface. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jiang et al disclose a device further comprising: a carrier on which the user input unit is seated and inserted into the housing (Jiang et al; Fig 1; carrier 4; user input 3 is seated on carrier 4), wherein the first seating unit on which the first input unit of the carrier is seated includes a second inclined surface corresponding to the first inclined surface (Jiang et al; Fig 1; user input is seated on carrier 4 through seat 5; seat 5 have an inclined surface corresponding to the curved surface of housing 1 along seat 5). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the inclined surface taught by Jiang et al as inner surface of the housing taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid the influence of body effect on antenna structure (Jiang et al; Page 3; lines 35-65).
Regarding claim 3, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a second inclined surface formed on an outer surface of the housing where the first input unit is located, and formed to correspond to the first inclined surface. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jiang et al disclose a device further comprising: a second inclined surface formed on an outer surface of the housing where the first input unit is located, and formed to correspond to the first inclined surface (Jiang et al; Fig 1; second inclined surface formed on an outer surface of the housing 1 where the first input unit is located, and formed to correspond to the first inclined surface). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the inclined surface taught by Jiang et al as inner surface of the housing taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid the influence of body effect on antenna structure (Jiang et al; Page 3; lines 35-65).
Regarding claim 12, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the housing includes: a main body in which a sound output unit is mounted (Harjee et al; Fig 1B; main body 102); and an extension portion, one end of which is coupled to the main body, and formed to have the user input unit mounted therein (Harjee et al; Fig 1B; extension portion 103).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harjee et al (US 20210314696 A1) in view of Jiang et al (CN 209845247 U) and further in view of Oikawa et al (US 2020/0125174 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 2, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: an elastic tape disposed between a rear surface of the first input unit and the carrier. However, in the same field of endeavor, Oikawa et al disclose a device further comprising: an elastic tape disposed between a rear surface of the first input unit and the carrier (Oikawa et al; Para [0009][0037]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the elastic member taught by Oikawa et al as touch input support in device taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to enable slight movement (Oikawa et al; Para [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 2, wherein: the carrier includes a second seating unit on which the second input unit is seated (Harjee et al; Fig 1B; second seating unit on the opposite side of the first seating unit on the first side for the touch input unit), but do not expressly disclose and further includes an elastic pad interposed between the second seating unit and the inner surface of the housing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Oikawa et al disclose a device and further includes an elastic pad interposed between the second seating unit and the inner surface of the housing (Oikawa et al; Para [0009][0037]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the elastic member taught by Oikawa et al as touch input support in device taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to enable slight movement (Oikawa et al; Para [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al and further in view of Oikawa disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 5, but do not expressly disclose wherein: the second seating unit includes a vertical surface, wherein the second seating unit and the first inclined surface of the housing are formed to have a larger upward gap. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jiang et al disclose a device wherein: the second seating unit includes a vertical surface (Jiang et al; Fig 1; second seating unit includes a vertical surface), wherein the second seating unit and the first inclined surface of the housing are formed to have a larger upward gap (Jiang et al; Fig 1; second seating unit and the first inclined surface of the housing are formed to have a larger upward gap). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the inclined surface taught by Jiang et al as inner surface of the housing taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid the influence of body effect on antenna structure (Jiang et al; Page 3; lines 35-65).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harjee et al (US 20210314696 A1) in view of Jiang et al (CN 209845247 U) and further in view of Roberts (US 2002/0175836 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 6, but do not expressly disclose wherein the elastic pad includes: a first elastic pad located above the second seating part; and a second elastic pad located below the second seating part and formed to have a larger size than the first elastic pad. However, in the same field of endeavor, Roberts disclose a device wherein the elastic pad includes: a first elastic pad located above the second seating part (Roberts; Para [0104]); and a second elastic pad located below the second seating part and formed to have a larger size than the first elastic pad (Roberts; Para [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the elastic member taught by Roberts as touch input support in device taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to reducing or eliminating the impact of tangential forces on force sensors (Roberts; Para [0104]).
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harjee et al (US 20210314696 A1) in view of Jiang et al (CN 209845247 U) and further in view of Bernstein et al (US 2019/0073036 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein: the second input unit is located on an inner surface of the first input unit. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bernstein et al disclose a device wherein: the second input unit is located on an inner surface of the first input unit (Bernstein et al; Fig 19; second input 42 located on an inner surface of first input unit 24; Para [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the sensor arrangement taught by Bernstein as touch input and push input arrangement in device taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to improve actuator efficiency (Bernstein et al; Para [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al and further in view of Bernstein et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first inclined surface to which the first input unit is coupled further includes: a first guide rib formed to cover an upper portion and side surfaces of the first input unit. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jiang et al disclose a device wherein the first inclined surface to which the first input unit is coupled further includes: a first guide rib formed to cover an upper portion and side surfaces of the first input unit (Jiang et al; Fig 1; guide rib formed to cover an upper portion and side surfaces of the first input unit). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the inclined surface taught by Jiang et al as inner surface of the housing taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to avoid the influence of body effect on antenna structure (Jiang et al; Page 3; lines 35-65).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harjee et al (US 20210314696 A1) in view of Jiang et al (CN 209845247 U) and further in view of Bernstein et al (US 2019/0073036 A1) and further in view of Oikawa et al (US 2020/0125174 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al and further in view of Bernstein et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 8, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: an elastic adhesive tape disposed between the second input unit and the first input unit. However, in the same field of endeavor, Oikawa et al disclose a device further comprising: an elastic adhesive tape disposed between the second input unit and the first input unit (Oikawa et al; Para [0009] [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the elastic member taught by Oikawa et al as touch input support in device taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been to enable slight movement (Oikawa et al; Para [0031]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harjee et al (US 20210314696 A1) in view of Jiang et al (CN 209845247 U) and further in view of Yang et al (US 2020/0100010 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Harjee et al in view of Jiang et al disclose the portable electronic device according to claim 12, but do not expressly disclose wherein the first input unit includes: a plurality of electrodes arranged in a longitudinal direction of the extension unit. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang et al disclose a device wherein the first input unit includes: a plurality of electrodes arranged in a longitudinal direction of the extension unit (Yang et al; Fig 1; electrodes 41-43 arranged in a longitudinal direction of the extension unit 6). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the sensor arrangement taught by Yang et al as sensor arrangement in device taught by Harjee. The motivation to do so would have been cost reduction (Yang et al; Para [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights