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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 09/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LO (US 2009/0201251) in view of BIDIVILLE et al (US 2007/0069088).
Regarding claim 1, LO discloses a mouse foot (abstract), comprising: a body, comprising an adhesive surface 64 and a top arranged on two sides thereof opposite to each other (Figure 11; paragraph 24-27); and a boss 63, arranged on the top of the body, and comprising at least one convex part and at least one concave part, a height difference defined between the convex part and the concave part adjacent to each other, and a corner disposed on an edge of the convex part (Figure 11; paragraph 24-27; concave and convex portion comprising curved portion of glide pads). However, LO does not expressly disclose a rounded corner disposed on an edge. In a similar field of endeavor, BIDIVILLE disclose a rounded corner disposed on an edge (Figure 1C; paragraph 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LO to include the teachings of BIDIVILLE, since BIDIVILLE states that such a modification would further reduce friction of a mouse foot pad on a surface. Furthermore, provisioning of a beveled edge is well known and conventional in the art and would be an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LO further discloses wherein an adhesive is disposed on the adhesive surface (paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 10, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LO further discloses a mouse device, comprising: a bottom case, comprising a bottom surface (Figure 9, 11); and a plurality of mouse feet according to claim 1, installed on the bottom surface (Figure 9, 11).
Regarding claim 11, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LO further discloses wherein an adhesive is disposed on the adhesive surface, and the adhesive surface is adhered to the bottom surface by the adhesive (paragraph 27).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LO (US 2009/0201251) in view of BIDIVILLE et al (US 2007/0069088) and further in view of LI (US 2008/0129695).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LO further discloses wherein the boss comprises a convex part, and the concave part surrounds the convex parts (Figure 9, 11). However, the combination of LO and BIDIVILLE does not expressly disclose a plurality of convex parts. In a similar field of endeavor, LI discloses wherein a boss comprises a plurality of convex parts 108, and a part surrounds the convex parts (Figure 1A, 1B; paragraph 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of LO and BIDIVILLE to include the teachings of LI, since such a modification would reduce surface area of the contact area within LO. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional design to the invention of LO based on those disclosed by LI.
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of LO, BIDIVILLE, and LI further discloses wherein the convex parts are bumps (LI – paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of LO, BIDIVILLE, and LI further discloses further discloses wherein the convex parts are arranged concentrically (LI – Figure 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of LO, BIDIVILLE, and LI further discloses wherein a part of the convex parts is arranged in a ring and coupled to each other (LI – Figure 1A, 1B; all portions connected via pad material).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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 6, and dependents, Prior Art fails to disclose alone or in combination “wherein the boss comprises a plurality of concave parts, and the convex part surrounds the concave parts.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624