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 Amendment
1. This office action is in response to communications filed 11/06/2025 Claims 1-20 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on remarks filed 11/6/2025 that…
1. Salman does not teach the claimed "material," which must be "proximate to the sensor. The
Office Action points to Salman's "material 502 below the activating button 802 in Fig. 7A" for
allegedly meeting the "material" of claim 1. (See Office Action, 4.) But Figure 7A of Salman
does not show any material 502. Additionally, Salman describes 502 as an "outer casing 502,"
which, as shown in Figure 5A, is not below the activating button 802, as the Office Action
alleges. (See Salman, [0101], Figs. 5A, 7A.).
Further, Salman does not mention "an amount of deflection of the outer casing 502." And a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not understand Salman to teach outputting a sensor signal indicating an amount of deflection of outer casing 502. This is because using external magnetic buttons, such as Salman's buttons 802, allows for efficient and accurate control of an endoscope without using material deflection information. (See Salman, [0005] ("the handle of the endoscope is configured to efficiently and accurately allow a user to control operation of the endoscope utilizing a user interface activating unit which includes external magnetic buttons, allowing interaction and control of cameras of the endoscope on one end and/or interaction with an external control unit on the other end.").) And a POSITA would have understood that there is limited space within the housing that requires specific configurations between magnetic buttons and sensors on the printed circuit board (PCB), thereby the configuration is not favorable to using material deflection for identifying button presses. (See Salman, [0009] ("the handle disclosed herein exhibits an advantageous architectural internal structuring, that allows the accommodation of the various electrical and mechanical components required for the operation of the handle, within the limited internal space of the handle achieving an efficient mode of action (for example, in signal processing and communication of the signals) and advantageously, allow a very accurate and sensitive control, resulting in improved control/operation/activation of the endoscope by the user. The internal architectural structuring of the handle and in particular the user interface activating unit advantageously allow maintaining a sealed environment within the handle (1.e. preventing fluids from entering the internal regions of the handle), and furthermore allow a more sensitive and accurate control of operation by a user generating excessive amount of internal heat."), see also [0102], [0116].)
Second, neither Salman nor Konstorum teaches "a sensor signal indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor," as required by independent claim 1. The Office Action acknowledges that Salman does not disclose this limitation but then relies on Konstorum for allegedly teaching this limitation. (See Office Action, 4.) Specifically, the Office Action maps the claimed "sensor" to Konstorum's pressure sensitive sensor. (See id.) However, Konstorum's pressure sensitive sensor does not "output a sensor signal indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor."
Examiner’s response to arguments above…
The argument is not persuasive. Salman in [0104] teaches “the outer casting 502 may be made of materials configured to prevent fluid and debris from entering the handle chamber…the outer casing may be made of plastic and/or silicon.” In [0117] of Salman further explains… “The user interface activating unit 800 may be part of a medical device endoscope handle, for example user interface activating unit (555, 602) of handle (500, 600) having an external activating/control buttons (552, 604) includes magnets, or magnetic properties, (605) and an internal activating element/unit (556, 603) includes sensors (606) as described with reference to FIGS. 5A and 5C, respectively. The activating button 802 can be at an “off” state 804 i.e., not interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, or at “on” state 806 i.e., interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, the difference between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height/distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812.”
Salman explicitly teaches an outer casing 502 that forms the exterior of the endoscope handle and separates the external activating buttons (e.g., 802, with magnetic regions) from the internal sensors (e.g., analog magnetic sensor 812) (Salman, [0101-[0102], [0116]; Fig. 5A). The buttons are positioned on or integrated with this outer casing, and pressing the button (in the direction of arrow 808) changes the position of the button’s lower (magnetic) surface relative to the sensor, reducing the height/distance difference 810 (Salman, [0118]; Fig. 7A). This change in distance necessarily involves deflection of the material proximate to the sensor specifically, the outer casing 502 or the flexible portion thereof that allows the button to move inward without physically contact between the button and sensor (Salman, [0101], [0109], [0124], emphasizing no physical interaction, i.e., the casing acts as a barrier that deflects to alter proximity). The sensor 812 is mounted internally on PCB within the handle (Salman, [0118]; Fig. 5A), making the outer casing 502 the material proximate to it. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that pressing the external button deflects this casing material to bring the magnetic region closer to the sensor, enabling the magnetic interaction without breaching the sealed handle (Salman, 5B [0107]-[0108], [0116]).
Applicant’s assertion that Fig. 7A does not show material 502 is unavailing, as Figure 7A is a schematic block diagram illustrating the operational principle of the user interface activating unit, while Figure 5A explicitly shows the outer casing 502 enclosing the internal components, including the sensors. The figures must be read together, and Salman consistently describes the casing as the structural element enabling sealed, non-contact operation (Salman, [0009], [0104]).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
391
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2. Regarding Konstorum, Applicant argues that it does not teach outputting a sensor signal indicating an amount of deflection, as Konstorum’ s pressure sensitive sensor is a switch that responds to pressure changes by closing or opening an electrical connection (Konstorum, Fig. 9; [0071], “The hermetic barrier 61 is an integral part of the housing 11, such as, but not limited to, a recessed portion, defining a keypad socket 75, in the housing 11, wherein the housing 11 comprises a material that allows communication between the sensor target 60 external to the housing 11 and the switch sensor 55 that is internal to the housing 11.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
576
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive, as it overlooks Konstorum’ s explicit disclosure of a strain gage as an exemplary pressure sensitive sensor (Konstorum, [0077]: “The switch sensor is a pressure sensitive sensor, such as, but not limited to, a strain gage and dome switch”). A strain gage outputs a continuous signal proportional to the amount of strain (deflection) applied to the material proximate to the sensor-here, the thin sheet barrier that flexes under finger pressure (Konstorum, [0077]: “The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection.”). The barrier deforms to transmit pressure to the sensor, and for a strain gage, the output signal directly indicates the amount of this deflection (e.g., via resistance changes proportional to strain). While, dome switches provide binary output, the inclusion of strain gages teaches analog output indicating amount. In the combination, Konstorum’ s strain gage sensor modifies Salman’s analog magnetic sensor to explicitly incorporate pressure-based deflection measurement, where the signal correlates to the deflection of the proximate material (thin sheet barrier in Konstorum, analogous to Salman’s outer casing).
Applicant’s focus on the dome switch embodiment ignores the broader teaching of strain gages, which squarely meets the limitation.
3. Regarding the motivation to combine Salman and Konstorum.
Applicant argues that the Office Action’s motivation to combine to improve detection accuracy, robustness, reliability of input detection systems is incorrect. Applicant contends that neither reference disclose the limitation of outputting a signal indicating an amount of deflection, that Salman already provides an advantageous internal architecture without needing Konstorum’ s sensor, and that a POSITA would not be motivated to modify Salman with capitative sensors (citing references like Gore, Garlock and Dow Chem. For non-obviousness). Applicant further asserts that the combination would not allow for enhanced gesture or input recognition, as alleged.
This argument is not persuasive. As detailed above, both references teach or suggest sensors outputting signals indicating amounts of deflection (Salman’s analog/linear sensors via distance/magnetic field changes; Konstorum’ s strain gage via proportional strain output). The motivation stems from Konstorum’ s teaching of using pressure sensitive sensors (including strain gages) in sealed medical devices to achieve precise, reliable control under finger pressure, which deforms a proximate barrier material (Konstorum, [0071], [0077]). Incorporating this into Salman’s magnetic button system would have been obvious to a POSITA to enhance accuracy in detecting variable user inputs (e.g., partial vs full presses), improving robustness in limited-space environments like endoscope handles (Salman, [0005], [0009]; Konstorum, [0077] emphasizing hermetic sealing for moisture resistance). Salman’s emphasis on calibration for maximal sensitivity (Salman, [0009]) aligns with Konstorum’ s flexible barrier deformation, allowing for more nuanced control beyond binary ON/OFF (e.g., proportional to deflection amount for functions like variable zoom or focus, as in Konstorum’ s motorized focusing system).
The cited references (Gore, Garlock, Inc., and Dow Chem.) do not demonstrate non-obviousness, as they pertain to general hindsight knowledge or unrelated processes (e.g., patentability determination in Dow Chem. focuses on templates, not sensor integration). No objective evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long-felt need) has been provided to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. The combination does not require bodily incorporation but rather the application of Konstorum’ s deflection-indicating sensor to Salman’s system, yielding predictable results of improved input detection in a sealed handle.
4. Regarding dependent claims (e.g., claims 16 and 20).
Applicant’s arguments for dependent claims rely on the same assertions as for claim 1 and are not persuasive for the reasons above. Specifically, for features like the controller identifying signal values greater than a threshold indicating a button press (e.g., [0118] in Applicant’s disclosure), Salman teaches analogous threshold-based activation via distance/voltage changes (Salman, [0109], [0118], [0121]; Figs. 5, 7A, 7B) and Konstorum reinforces this with pressure-responsive electrical connections (Konstorum, Fig. 9; [0071], [0077]).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2022/0395160 Salman et al. (hereinafter Salman) in view of U.S. Patent Application 2005/0267329 Konstorum et al. (hereinafter Konstorum).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Salman discloses A system (abstract) comprising a camera head (abstract, multi-camera endoscope), the system comprising:
a button (Fig. 7A, activating button 802; par. [0117]);
a material (see material 502 below the activating button 802 in Fig. 7A, [0104]);
a sensor configured to output a sensor signal (Fig. 7A, analog magnetic sensor 812; par. [0117]-[0118]); and
a controller configured to identify a value of the sensor signal being greater than a signal threshold, wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold indicates a button press (par. [0117]: “The activating button 802 can be at an “off” state 804 i.e., not interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, or at “on” state 806 i.e., interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, the different between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812 [i.e. value of sensor signal].”, par. [0118]).
However, Salman may not disclose a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor
Konstorum teaches a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
3. Regarding Claim 2, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses in para [0014], a magnetic sensor
However, Salman does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is an inductive sensor, a capacitive sensor, Or a piezo sensor
Konstorum teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive sensor (claimed in the alternative), a capacitive sensor ([0027]-[0029], In another embodiment of the keypad, the sensor is a capacitive sensor circuit), Or a piezo sensor (Claimed in the alternative)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
4. Regarding Claim 3, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
register the button press in accordance with the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold (par. [0095]: “In some embodiments, the data signal may include such data as, but not limited to: data related to the operation of the endoscope (such as, activating buttons’ status, internal registers). Par. [0118], “when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808), for example, by a user, activating button 802 changes its position from “on” position at state 804 to “off” position at state 806 such, the height/distance difference 810 between the lower (magnetic) surface of the activating button 802 and the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812 is changed).
5. Regarding Claim 5, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine a position of the button based on the sensor signal, wherein the position of the button comprises an initial position (applicant’s spec [0105] and [0108], “not pushing the button at all”) and a final position ([0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808); and
wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold occurs in accordance with the button being between the initial position and the final position (Figs. 7A, 7B; [0117], the difference between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height/distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812. [0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808), by a user, activating button 802 changes its position from “on” position at state 804 to “off” position at state 806 such, the height/distance difference 810 between the lower (magnetic) surface of the activating button 802 and the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812 is changed, such as to be decreased/reduced… the height difference may be in the range of about 0.1-0.9 mm…the distance between the lower surface of the external activating button and the internal sensor at an “off state” may be in the range of about 1-9 mm. [0121], when the external button is pressed, a change in voltage (i.e., a delta/change in voltage) is detected by the corresponding sensor.).
6. Regarding Claim 6, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
identify a second value of the sensor signal being less than a second signal threshold,
wherein the second value of the sensor signal being less than the second signal threshold indicates a button release ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802. Examiner notes that the activating button returns to off state once the user releases the button 802).
7. Regarding Claim 8, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
identify a second value of the sensor signal being less than a second signal threshold; and
register the button press as a long press in accordance with a duration being longer than a long press duration threshold ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802), wherein the duration is between the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold ([0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808) and the identification of the second value of the sensor signal being less than the second signal threshold ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802. Examiner notes that the activating button returns to off state once the user releases the button 802)
8. Regarding Claim 9, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising:
Salman discloses a plurality of buttons (Fig 1A: 52C 52B 52A), wherein each of the plurality of buttons is associated with one or more of: a unique sensor signal and a unique signal threshold ([0109], on the lower surface of the activating buttons 604A-C (i.e., the surface that faces the internal activating element/unit 603), magnets, (such as, magnets 605A-C) are placed/located. Magnets are a portion of the lower surface of the external activating buttons 604A-C, is magnetized or has magnetic properties. The sensors 606 of the internal activating element 603 can interface with the external activating buttons 604, to exert operating commands from the external activating buttons to the internal space of the handle, via the sensors, to allow control and operation of the handle 600 and hence of the endoscope. The sensors 606 are magnetic sensors, interacting/interfacing with the magnet (or magnetized region) of the external activating buttons 604. In some embodiments, the sensors 606 are linear sensors. In some embodiments, the sensors 606 are analog sensors).
9. Regarding Claim 16, Salman discloses A method of detecting a button press of a button on a camera head (abstract, multi-camera endoscope), the method comprising:
receiving a sensor signal from a sensor (Fig. 7A, analog magnetic sensor 812; par. [0117]-[0118]);
identifying a value of the sensor signal being greater than a signal threshold, wherein
the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold indicates the button press (par. [0117]: “The activating button 802 can be at an “off” state 804 i.e., not interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, or at “on” state 806 i.e., interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, the different between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812 [i.e. value of sensor signal].”, par. [0118]); and
registering the button press in accordance with the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold (par. [0095]: “In some embodiments, the data signal may include such data as, but not limited to: data related to the operation of the endoscope (such as, activating buttons’ status, internal registers). Par. [0118], “when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808), for example, by a user, activating button 802 changes its position from “on” position at state 804 to “off” position at state 806 such, the height/distance difference 810 between the lower (magnetic) surface of the activating button 802 and the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812 is changed).
However, Salman does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor signal indicates an amount of deflection of a material proximate to the sensor
Konstorum teaches wherein the sensor signal indicates an amount of deflection of a material proximate to the sensor ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
10. Regarding Claim 17, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The method of claim 16,
Konstorum teaches wherein the amount of deflection of the material ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20) is associated with one or more of:
a strength of an electromagnetic field of the sensor (claimed in the alternative), an amount of capacitive coupling ([0027]-[0029], In another embodiment of the keypad, the sensor is a capacitive sensor circuit), and an amount of stretching of the sensor (claimed in the alternative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
11. Regarding Claim 19, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The method of claim 16,
Salman discloses further comprising:
determining a position of the button based on the sensor signal, wherein the position of the button comprises an initial position (applicant’s spec [0105] and [0108], “not pushing the button at all”) and a final position ([0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808); and
wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold occurs in accordance with the button being between the initial position and the final position ([0117], the difference between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height/distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812).
12. Regarding Claim 20, Salman discloses An apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a button (Fig. 7A, activating button 802; par. [0117]);
a material (see material below the activating button 802 in fig. 7A);
a sensor configured to output a sensor signal (analog magnetic sensor 812; par. [0117]-[0118]); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions which, when executed by a processor ([0221], a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium), cause the processor to:
identify a value of the sensor signal being greater than a signal threshold, wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold indicates a button press ((par. [0117]: “The activating button 802 can be at an “off” state 804 i.e., not interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, or at “on” state 806 i.e., interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, the different between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812 [i.e. value of sensor signal].”, par. [0118]).
However, Salman may not disclose a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor
Konstorum teaches a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 10, 12 13, 14, 15, and 18 are 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:
Regarding Claim 4, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses register the button press in accordance with an elapsed time of the timer being greater than a time threshold (para. [0101], [0117], [0118]).
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
start a timer in accordance with the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold;
Regarding Claim 7, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to:
Salman discloses identify a second value of the sensor signal being less than a second signal threshold ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802. Examiner notes that the activating button returns to off state once the user releases the button 802); and
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose register the button press as a short press in accordance with a duration being shorter than a short press duration threshold,
wherein the duration is between the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold and the identification of the second value of the sensor signal being less than the second signal threshold.
Regarding Claim 10, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises a first button associated with a first sensor signal and a second button associated with a second sensor signal, wherein the controller further is configured to:
compare the first sensor signal to the signal threshold;
compare the second sensor signal to a second signal threshold; and
determine whether the button press corresponds to the first button, the second button, or a multi-button press based on the comparisons.
Regarding Claim 12, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose wherein the amount of deflection is between 5-200 microns.
Regarding Claim 13, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose wherein the material comprises one or more raised features or one or more recessed features corresponding to one or more buttons, and
wherein a thickness of the material at locations of the one or more raised features or the one or more recessed features is greater than a thickness of the material at locations of non-raised features or non-recessed features.
Regarding Claim 14, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising:
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose a keypad comprising a plurality of buttons located on a plurality of planes, wherein the plurality of planes comprises different planes that form a geodesic dome ([0118]).
Regarding Claim 15, Salman in view of Konstorum discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose wherein the button is associated with a first time threshold, the system further comprising:
a side button associated with a second time threshold, wherein the second time threshold is longer than the first time threshold.
Claim 18 is a method claim objected with respect to the same limitations objected in system claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422