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 .
This action is responsive to the following communication Request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 09/01/2026.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “At para, [0050] Ishii discusses that the distance between the active circuit substrate 700 and the passive circuit s ubstrate 750 is measured by a signal which is obtained from the active circuit substrate 700. This technique is an application of Lenz's law. Chiang at relies on Faraday's law of induction (see para. [0011]) and describes movement of a magnet 152 relative to a coil 154 to generate current in a coil 154 (see para. [0019]). That is, each citation relied on by the Office is based on the use of a respective physical principle. It is submitted that a combination of the aforementioned principles does not anticipate the subject matter of amended claim 1 …. and that amended claim 1 is allowable over the art. The claims attached which are dependent on claim 1 are, similarly, allowable. Also, for claim 7 It is noted that Deokar the component 309 is a permeable material and it is not a magnet …. Addionally it is pointed out that in Bruwer and Deokar the permeable material is moved with actuation. In the presently claimed invention a magnet is moved and the permeable material which is the ferrite member in claim 7 is stationary (Remarks, p. 9-10)”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagree.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As disclosed in the previous office action, Bruwer is the primary reference disclosing majority of the features in Figs. 7D-7G and paragraph [0089-0097] 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. Ishii’s reference is merely introduced to teach that measured inductance can be interpreted as multiple points of depression, as described in previous office action. Bruwer already disclosed to measure the inductance change, so it would have been obvious to determine multiple points of depression of key similar to Ishii’s.
Chiang’s reference was also merely introduced to teach a permanent magnet which causes change in inductance of a button. Bruwer already disclosed a magnet which causes change in inductance but does not explicitly suggest that the magnet is a permanent magnet, which is remedy by teachings of Chiang.
Similarly, for arguments related to claim 7, Bruwer already discloses in Figs. 7D-7G and paragraph [0089-0097] a magnet is moved, and the inductor/ferrite combination remains stationary as claimed. Therefore, the Examiner maintains his rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recites “wherein change in the ferrite properties reflects the change in distance between the said permanent magnet and said ferrite”, and claim 2 recites “the method comprising the steps of causing a measurable change in the properties of said ferrite member”. None of these features are presented in specification and/or drawings. Specification in paragraph [0005] states “the inductance is indicative of the distance between the magnet and the combination”, nowhere in specification discloses “a measurable change in the properties of said ferrite member” or “wherein change in the ferrite properties reflects the change in distance between the said permanent magnet and said ferrite”. When a magnet is brought near the ferrite member the change in ferrite properties are inherent concept, but current application specification does not disclose measuring of such change in ferrite properties or using it to determine a change in distance, as argued and recited in new amended claims.
For the purpose of the examination, it is interpreted as the inductance is indicative of the distance between the magnet and the combination, as recited in the specification.
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 of a switch and an inductor and ferrite combination, wherein the inductance of inductor is measured, and wherein the magnet’s flux causes a change in the properties of the ferrite, said change in ferrite properties causing a change in the measured inductance of the inductor, and wherein change in the ferrite properties reflects the change in distance between the said magnet and the said ferrite (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 and change in ferrite properties will occur based on magnet moving closer to the ferrite and the inductance is measured that reflects the distance between the said magnet and the ferrite).
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, the method comprising the steps of causing a measurable change in the properties of said ferrite member due to the flux from a magnet being moved relative to the ferrite member under user actuation, the flux passing through the ferrite, measuring the inductance change in the inductor due to change in properties of the ferrite member, and relating said inductance change to a change in distance between the magnet and the ferrite member, and wherein said switch is configured to provide information about point of said distance 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, and change in ferrite properties will occur based on magnet moving closer to the ferrite and the inductance is measured that reflects the distance between the said magnet and the ferrite).
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 a speed at which the key is pressed is determined from the measured inductance; and wherein said information includes a speed of said change in distance of the permanent magnet due to said user actuation (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), in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208), 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 and ferrite combination is formed by the said ferrite sealing layer being adjacent to a coil of the 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 an 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 Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Deokar (US 8854309) and further in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208).
Regarding claim 7: A switch mechanism which comprises an inductor, a ferrite member, a spring, a magnet which is movable by a user against action of the spring towards the coil, wherein the ferrite member and inductor are configured such that flux from the permanent magnet affects properties of the ferrite member which produce a measurable change in the inductance of the inductor, and wherein a change in the properties of the ferrite member is related to a change in distance between the magnet and the ferrite member (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, a spring 7.40, and an inductor/ferrite combination 7.32+7.30 and change in ferrite properties will occur based on magnet moving closer to the ferrite and the inductance is measured that reflects the distance between the said magnet and the ferrite member)
Bruwer does not explicitly disclose a printed circuit board an inductor on the pcb, a ferrite member which overlies a coil of the inductor; and said magnet is a permanent magnet.
Deokar teaches a printed circuit board an inductor on the pcb, a ferrite member which overlies a coil 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). 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 Deokar, utilizing a pcb and such arrangement of an inductor and ferrite is just an alternative construction technique for an induction-based key to accurately detect the switch actuation, as taught by 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 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 12: Combination of Bruwer and Deokar teach 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). See claim 7 rejection for combination reasoning of Bruwer and Deokar, same rationale applies here.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Deokar (US 8854309), in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208), and further in the view of Ishii (US 20220270580).
Regarding claim 13: Combination of Bruwer, Deokar, and Chiang teach wherein the position of the permanent magnet is obtained from said change in the measured inductance of the inductor (Bruwer in Figs. 7D-7G and paragraph [0089-0097] teach position or key depression is determined based on 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 Bruwer, Deokar and Chiang, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Bruwer, 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 Bruwer, 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 Bruwer (US 20200166376), in the view of Deokar (US 8854309), in the view of Chiang (US 20230004208), and further in the view of Rosenberg (US 20230012830).
Regarding claim 14: Combination of Bruwer and Deokar teach said ferrite member is a ferrite sheet (Deokar in Fig. 3 and column 7 lines 28-60 teach ferrite sheet 332). See claim 7 rejection for combination reasoning of Bruwer and Deokar, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Bruwer and 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 combination of Bruwer and Deokar 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: Combination of Bruwer and Deokar teach wherein said ferrite sheet also acts as a sealing layer against fluids (Deokar in 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). See claim 7 rejection for combination reasoning of Bruwer and Deokar, same rationale applies here.
Conclusion
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