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 .
Amendment
The Amendment, filed 03/13/2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the most recent Office Action, dated 11/13/2025, claims 1-2, and 7 have been amended, and claims 8-15 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 03/13/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's arguments have been rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8, 9, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-9 recites the limitation "the speed" in lines 1, and claim 13 recites the limitation “the position and speed” in line 1. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Ishii (US 20220270580), and further in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208).
Regarding claim 1: Bruwer teaches a switch mechanism for determining depression as a switch is actuated, said switch comprising a magnet that moves in response to a depression of a key and an inductor/ferrite combination the inductance of which is measured, wherein said measured inductance reflects the distance between the said magnet and the said inductor/ferrite combination (Figs. 7D-7G and paragraph [0089-0097] teach determining depression of a switch comprising a magnet 7.37, 7.103 that moves in response to depression of a key 7.38, 7.101 and an inductor/ferrite combination 7.32+7.30 the inductance of which is measured that reflects the distance between the said magnet and the said inductor/ferrite combination changed).
Bruwer does not explicitly disclose said magnet is a permanent magnet; and determining multiple points of depression as a switch is actuated.
However, Ishii teaches determining multiple points of depression as a switch is actuated (Figs. 3-4, 7-8 and paragraph [0035, 0041, 0049] teach determining continuous pressing amount as a switch is actuated and pressing amount is interpreted as multiple points of depression, and is measured based on change in induction). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bruwer’s invention by including above teachings of Ishii, because different points of depression can be utilized to output different function/result, enhancing the capability of the key, and since Bruwer already discloses to detect change in inductance similar concept can be applied to his key. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, Chiang teaches said magnet is a permanent magnet (Figs. 1B-2B and paragraph [0018-0019, 0029] teach a key or button comprising a permanent magnet). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bruwer’s invention by including above teachings of Chiang, because Bruwer already discloses to detect change in inductance based on movement of a magnetic member and using a permanent magnet as a magnetic member in Bruwer will result in similar outcome of induction change, to properly detect the key input. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 2: Bruwer teaches a method of implementing a non-ohmic contact switch by measuring the inductance of an inductor with a ferrite member adjacent to said inductor, said ferrite member being affected by a magnet being moved relative to the ferrite member under user actuation in such a way that the inductance measured in the inductor changes, and wherein said switch is configured to provide information about point of said movement during user actuation (Figs. 7D-7G and paragraph [0089-0097] teach determining depression of a non-ohmic contact switch comprising a magnet 7.37, 7.103 that moves in response to depression of a key 7.38, 7.101 and an inductor and ferrite 7.32+7.30 adjacently located the inductance of which is measured that reflects the distance between the said magnet and the said inductor/ferrite combination changed).
Bruwer does not explicitly disclose said magnet is a permanent magnet; and wherein said switch is configured to provide information about multiple points of said movement during user actuation.
However, Ishii teaches wherein said switch is configured to provide information about multiple points of said movement during user actuation (Figs. 3-4, 7-8 and paragraph [0035, 0041, 0049] teach determining continuous pressing amount as a switch is actuated and pressing amount is interpreted as multiple points of said movement during user actuation, and is measured based on change in induction). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bruwer’s invention by including above teachings of Ishii, because different points of depression can be utilized to output different function/result, enhancing the capability of the key, and since Bruwer already discloses to detect change in inductance similar concept can be applied to his key. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, Chiang teaches said magnet is a permanent magnet (Figs. 1B-2B and paragraph [0018-0019, 0029] teach a key or button comprising a permanent magnet). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bruwer’s invention by including above teachings of Chiang, because Bruwer already discloses to detect change in inductance based on movement of a magnetic member and using a permanent magnet as a magnetic member in Bruwer will result in similar outcome of induction change, to properly detect the key input. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 4: Combination of Bruwer and Ishii teach which includes the steps of using multiple switches in a keyboard wherein each switch is implemented as per claim 2 and of positioning a sealing layer between moving parts of the keyboard and the inductors of the switches (Bruwer in Figs. 7D-7G and paragraph [0085-0097] teach a seal is provided between moving key top and the inductors at the bottom of the switch. Ishii in Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0038-0041] teach using multiple switches 10 in a keyboard). See claim 2 rejection for combination reasoning of Bruwer and Ishii, same rationale is applied here.
Regarding claims 8-9: Combination of Bruwer, Ishii, and Chiang teach wherein the speed at which the key is pressed is determined from the measured inductance; and wherein said information includes the speed of said movement of permanent magnet (Ishii in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041], and Chiang in Figs. 1B-2B and paragraph [0018-0019, 0029] teach the magnet utilized in a key can be a permanent magnet). See claims 1 & 2 rejections for combination reasoning of Bruwer, Ishii, and Chiang, same rationale applies here.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Ishii (US 20220270580), and further in the view of Deokar (US 8854309).
Regarding claim 5: Bruwer does not explicitly disclose wherein said combination comprises a ferrite member adjacent a coil of an inductor which is located on a pcb and said pcb is sealed by means of a sealing layer or by said ferrite member which is provided as a sheet of ferrite.
However, Deokar teaches a ferrite member adjacent a coil of an inductor which is located on a pcb and said pcb is sealed by means of a sealing layer or by said ferrite member which is provided as a sheet of ferrite (Figs. 2-3 and column 7 line 18 line 37 teach a ferrite member 309 adjacent of an inductor 311 which is located on a pcb 333 and said pcb is sealed by means of sealing layer 332 or 335). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Bruwer and Ishii by including above teachings of Deokar, because utilizing a pcb and seal layers is just an alternative construction technique for an induction based key to accurately detect the switch actuation and protecting the components from external components such as moisture and dirt, as taught by Deokar. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 10: Combination of Bruwer and Deokar teach wherein said switch mechanism is implemented in a keyboard, said keyboard further comprising a frame member, a base member, a printed circuit board layer and a ferrite sealing layer adjacent to said printed circuit board layer, and wherein said inductor/ferrite combination is formed by the said ferrite sealing layer being adjacent to a coil inductor of said switch mechanism on said printed circuit board layer (Deokar in Figs. 2-3 and column 3 line 55-65, column 7 line 7 to column 8 line 37 teach keyboard 201 comprising said switch mechanism including a frame or housing 220, a base member 335, a pcb 333, and a ferrite sealing layer 332+331 adjacent to said printed circuit board layer 333, and wherein said inductor/ferrite combination is formed by the said ferrite sealing layer being adjacent to a coil inductor of said switch mechanism on said printed circuit board layer 333). See claim 5 rejection for combination reasoning of Bruwer and Deokar, same rationale applies here.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Ishii (US 20220270580), and further in the view of Rosenberg (US 20230012830).
Regarding claims 6 & 11: Combination of Bruwer and Ishii do not explicitly disclose which includes an LED and wherein the ferrite in said combination comprises a ferrite layer through which the LED protrudes; and wherein said non-ohmic contact switch includes and LED, and wherein said ferrite member is a ferrite sheet comprising a hole that aligns with the position of said LED.
However, Rosenberg teaches a LED and wherein the ferrite in said combination comprises a ferrite layer through which the LED protrudes; and wherein said non-ohmic contact switch includes and LED, and wherein said ferrite member is a ferrite sheet comprising a hole that aligns with the position of said LED (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0016-0018, 0065-0068] a LED 180 and magnet/ferrite 150 in layer 140 through which the LED protrudes. Figs. 5-6 and paragraph [0180-0181] teach aligning the holes or openings with the LED member 180 to further improve the light transmission). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Bruwer and Ishii by including above teachings of Rosenberg, because illuminated keys are easier to visualize in low light environment and enhances the look of the device, as taught by Rosenberg. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious to provide hole in the ferrite sheet that aligns with the position of said LED, since has been held that mere rearrangement parts of an invention in a way that does not modify the operation of the device is not a patentable improvement. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deokar (US 8854309), in the view of Bruwer (US 20200166376), and further in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208).
Regarding claim 7: Deokar teaches a switch mechanism which comprises a pcb, an inductor on the pcb, a ferrite member which overlies a coil of the inductor, a magnet which is movable by a user towards the coil and wherein the ferrite member and inductor are configured such that flux from the magnet affects properties of the ferrite which produce a change in the measured inductance of the inductor (Figs. 2-3 and column 3 line 55-65, column 7 line 18 line 37 teach a switch mechanism comprises a pcb 333, an inductor 311 on the pcb, a ferrite member 309 which overlies a coil of the inductor 311, a magnet 309 which is movable by user towards the coil and a change in the inductance is measured).
Deokar does not explicitly disclose said magnet is a permanent magnet; and a spring.
However, Bruwer teaches a spring (Figs. 7E and paragraph [0092] #7.58). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before effective filing date of the invention to modify Deokar’s invention by including above teachings of Bruwer, because a spring allows to bring the keytop back up after actuation, as taught by Deokar. Similarly, a spring can be utilized instead of elastic material of Deokar. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, Chiang teaches said magnet is a permanent magnet (Figs. 1B-2B and paragraph [0018-0019, 0029] teach a key or button comprising a permanent magnet). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deokar invention by including above teachings of Chiang, because Deokar already discloses to detect change in inductance based on movement of a magnetic member and using a permanent magnet as a magnetic member in Deokar will result in similar outcome of induction change, to properly detect the key input. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 12: Deokar teaches wherein said switch mechanism is used in key switches of a keyboard (Figs. 2-3 and column 3 line 55-65, column 7 line 18 line 37 teach keyboard 201 comprising said switch mechanism).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deokar (US 8854309), in the view of Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208), and further in the view of Ishii (US 20220270580).
Regarding claim13: Combination of Deokar and Chiang teach wherein the position of the permanent magnet is obtained from said change in the measured inductance of the inductor (Deokar in Figs. 2-3 and column 4 lines 12-30, column 9 lines 11-30 teach detecting position or location of which key of the plurality of keys is detected based on the measured inductance of the inductor. Chiang in Figs. 1B-2B and paragraph [0018-0019, 0028-0029] teach a key or button comprising a permanent magnet, and also teach detecting position change of the magnet based on change in inductance). See claim 7 rejection for combination reasoning of Deokar and Chiang, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Deokar and Chiang do not explicitly disclose wherein the speed of the permanent magnet is obtained from said change in the measured inductance of the inductor.
However, Ishii teaches wherein the speed of the magnet is obtained from said change in the measured inductance of the inductor (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Deokar and Chiang, by including above teachings of Ishii, because measuring speed can be further used for addition functions, enhancing the device capabilities. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deokar (US 8854309), in the view of Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208), and further in the view of Rosenberg (US 20230012830).
Regarding claim 14: Deokar teach said ferrite member is a ferrite sheet (Fig. 3 and column 7 lines 28-60 teach ferrite sheet 332).
Deokar do not explicitly disclose further comprising an LED, wherein said sheet with a hole that aligns with the position of the LED.
However, Rosenberg teaches further comprising an LED, wherein said sheet with a hole that aligns with the position of the LED (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0016-0018, 0065-0068] a LED 180 and magnet/ferrite 150 in layer 140 through which the LED protrudes. Figs. 5-6 and paragraph [0180-0181] teach aligning the holes or openings with the LED member 180 to further improve the light transmission). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before effective filing date of the invention to modify Deokar’s invention by including above teachings of Rosenberg, because illuminated keys are easier to visualize in low light environment and enhances the look of the device, as taught by Rosenberg. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious to provide hole in the ferrite sheet that aligns with the position of said LED, since has been held that mere rearrangement parts of an invention in a way that does not modify the operation of the device is not a patentable improvement. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 15: Deokar teach wherein said ferrite sheet also acts as a sealing layer against fluids (Figs. 2-3 and column 7 line 18 line 37 teach a ferrite member 309 adjacent of an inductor 311 which is located on a pcb 333 and said pcb is sealed by means of sealing layer ferrite sheet 332+331).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights