DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 8/11/2026. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 18 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
3.1. Claims 1, 3-7, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya et al. (US 2020/0229761), in view of Lukens et al. (US 10831299).
CLAIM 1
Pandya teaches a computing device (Pandya: abstract) comprising:
a housing defining a cavity (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0055] “opening in the housing 206”; FIG. 2A);
a button assembly comprising (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0041] “button”, [0053]; FIG. 2A-2C):
an insert at least partially positioned within a recess defined by the housing (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0058] “opening through which a shaft 224 extends”; FIG. 2B);
a first sensor positioned within the cavity and configured to detect actuation of the insert via an input provided by a user (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0041] “input devices 102 may include…force sensors”, [0060] “sensor 226 within the housing 206 may sense aspects of shaft movement”; FIG. 2B); and
a second sensor configured to detect whether the user is touching the insert, wherein the insert and the second sensor are the same component (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0062] “sensor 230 within the housing 206 may sense when a user is touching the crown 210”, [0066] “may also include an electrode on the crown 210 and/or an electrode on the button 212”, [0068] “conductive surfaces of the crown 210 or button 212. In some cases, the crown 210 or button 212 may be conductive over its entire exterior surface”; FIG. 2B);
one or more processors positioned within the cavity, the one or more processors configured to (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0040] “a processor 106”; FIG. 1A):
obtain, via the first sensor, first data indicative of actuation of the insert (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0062] “sensors 226, 228, 230 may be provide signals or information to the processor 214”; FIG. 2B);
obtain, via the second sensor, second data indicative of the user touching the insert (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0062] “sensors 226, 228, 230 may be provide signals or information to the processor 214”; FIG. 2B); and
perform a task based, at least in part, on the first data and the second data (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0059]; FIGS. 1-2C).
Pandya may not teach the following:
wherein the first sensor comprises a force sensor.
Lukens, however, teaches the following:
wherein the first sensor comprises a force sensor (Lukens: abstract; col. 3, lns. 38-54 “one or more pressure sensors for detecting forces applied to the input device; such forces may be interpreted as inputs by the associated electronic device. In various embodiments, the pressure sensors detect inputs by measuring a pressure change in a compression chamber. The force-sensing input device may be configured to control or otherwise provide inputs to the electronic device. In various embodiments, the force-sensing input device may be used to control a visual or graphical output of a display of the electronic device. A force-sensing input device may be configured, for example, as a power button, a key of a keyboard, a control button (e.g., volume control), a home button, a watch crown, a joystick, a trackpad, and so on”; FIGS. 1A-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the force-sensing button for electronic devices, as taught by Lukens, with the wearable electronic device with electrodes for sensing biological parameters, as taught by Pandya, with the motivation of providing improved detection of user button manipulation (Lukens: col. 1, ln. 16-col. 2, ln. 11).
CLAIM 3
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the second sensor comprises a strain sensor (Pandya: ¶¶ [0041]).
CLAIM 4
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the second sensor further comprises an ultrasonic sensor (Pandya: ¶¶ [0041]).
CLAIM 5
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the computing device is a wearable computing device, and wherein the insert is positioned at a periphery of the housing (Pandya: abstract; ¶¶ [0053]; FIG. 2A).
CLAIM 6
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the computer device is a mobile device or a laptop (Pandya: ¶¶ [0039], [0072]).
CLAIM 7
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the task is to measure an electrocardiogram (ECG) reading and an electrodermal activity (EDA) reading (Pandya: ¶¶ [0059]).
CLAIM 10
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the second sensor is a dry electrode, and wherein the task is adjusting an analog front-end (AFE) setting based on the first data and the second data (Pandya: ¶¶ [0041]-[0043]).
CLAIM 11
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the button assembly further comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive interposed between the insert and an exterior surface of the housing (Pandya: ¶¶ [0070]).
CLAIM 12
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, the one or more processors are part of a printed circuit board (PCB), and the computing device further comprising a PCB adhesive interposed between the PCB and an interior side of the cavity (Pandya: ¶¶ [0096]).
CLAIM 13
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the second sensor is an analog component that emits an analog electrical signal associated with a change in capacitance in response to the user touching the insert, and wherein the second data is the analog electrical signal (Pandya: ¶¶ [0067]-[0069]).
CLAIM 14
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the second sensor is a digital component having a capacitive touch controller that transforms an analog signal associated with a change in capacitance in response to the user touching the insert into digital data, wherein the second data is the digital data (Pandya: ¶¶ [0044]).
CLAIM 15
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the second data includes a touch location of the insert that is determined based on a change in capacitance and a time duration of the user touching the insert, and wherein the task performed is further based on the touch location and the time duration (Pandya: ¶¶ [0044]).
CLAIM 16
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the housing further includes an upper side and a lower side, wherein the lower side of the housing is opposite to the upper side of the housing and is configured to be in contact with a body part of the user when the computing device is worn by the user; a user interface on the upper side of the housing; and an optical sensor, coupled on the lower side of the housing, configured to detect a reflected light from the body part of the user (Pandya: ¶¶ [0055]; FIG. 2A).
CLAIM 17
Pandya teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the insert is a stainless-steel pill-shape button (Pandya: ¶¶ [0060]-[0063]; FIG. 2A-2C).
CLAIM 18 AND 20
Claims 18 and 20 repeat substantially the same limitations as those in claim 1. As such, claims 18 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for claim 1 and are incorporated herein.
3.2. Claims 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya et al. (US 2020/0229761), in view of Lukens et al. (US 10831299), and further in view of Edgar et al. (US 2019/0348983).
CLAIM 8
Pandya and Lukens may not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the task is resetting the computing device when: the first data includes an actuation force that is above a force threshold value for at least a specific period of time; and the second data includes a change in capacitance value associated with the user touching the insert that is above a capacitance threshold value.
Edgar, however, teaches wherein the task is resetting the computing device when: the first data includes an actuation force that is above a force threshold value for at least a specific period of time; and the second data includes a change in capacitance value associated with the user touching the insert that is above a capacitance threshold value (Edgar: abstract; ¶¶ [0027]-[0038]; FIGS. 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the touchpad, as taught by Edgar, with the force-sensing button for electronic devices, as taught by Lukens, with the wearable electronic device, as taught by Pandya, with the motivation of providing an improved user function and touchpad actuation (Edgar: ¶¶ [0001]-[0006]).
CLAIM 9
Pandya and Lukens may not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the task is overriding a button-push event when: the first data includes an actuation force that is above a force threshold value; and the second data includes a change in capacitance value associated with the user touching the insert that is below a capacitance threshold value.
Edgar, however, teaches wherein the task is overriding a button-push event when: the first data includes an actuation force that is above a force threshold value; and the second data includes a change in capacitance value associated with the user touching the insert that is below a capacitance threshold value (Edgar: abstract; ¶¶ [0027]-[0038]; FIGS. 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the touchpad, as taught by Edgar, with the force-sensing button for electronic devices, as taught by Lukens, with the wearable electronic device, as taught by Pandya, with the motivation of providing an improved user function and touchpad actuation (Edgar: ¶¶ [0001]-[0006]).
CLAIM 19
Pandya and Lukens may not explicitly teach computer-implemented method of claim 18, further comprising: determining that the first data includes an actuation force that is above a force threshold value for a specific period of time; determining the second data includes a change in capacitance value associated with the user touching the insert that is above a capacitance threshold value; and resetting the computing device based on the determination that the actuation force is above the force threshold value for the specific period of time and the determination that the change in capacitance associated with the user touching the inset that is above the capacitance threshold value.
Edgar, however, teaches determining that the first data includes an actuation force that is above a force threshold value for a specific period of time; determining the second data includes a change in capacitance value associated with the user touching the insert that is above a capacitance threshold value; and resetting the computing device based on the determination that the actuation force is above the force threshold value for the specific period of time and the determination that the change in capacitance associated with the user touching the inset that is above the capacitance threshold value (Edgar: abstract; ¶¶ [0027]-[0038]; FIGS. 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the touchpad, as taught by Edgar, with the force-sensing button for electronic devices, as taught by Lukens, with the wearable electronic device, as taught by Pandya, with the motivation of providing an improved user function and touchpad actuation (Edgar: ¶¶ [0001]-[0006]).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 8/13/2026.
4.1. Applicant argues, on page 7 of the response, that Pandya fails to teach or disclose “a second sensor configured to detect whether the user is touching the insert, wherein the insert and the second sensor are the same component.”
In response, Examiner notes that Pandya teaches a wearable device with “an electrode on the crown 210 and/or an electrode on the button 212” (See, for example, Pandya: ¶¶ [0066]-[0068]). Pandya further teaches that the wearable device may include “conductive surfaces of the crown 210 or button 212. In some cases, the crown 210 or button 212 may be conductive over its entire exterior surface” (See, for example, Pandya: ¶¶ [0066]-[0068]). Examiner submits that a button have a conductive surface thereon to sense touch is one component comprising an insert and sensor.
As such, it is submitted that Pandya does teach and/or suggest “a second sensor configured to detect whether the user is touching the insert, wherein the insert and the second sensor are the same component” under a broad and reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the cited prior art teach and/or suggests all of the limitations of the claims under a broad and reasonable interpretation and thus, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4.2. Applicant argues, on page 7-8 of the response, that Pandya fails to teach or disclose “a first sensor positioned within the cavity defined by the housing and configured to detect actuation of the insert via an input provided by a user, wherein the first sensor comprises a force sensor.”
In response, Examiner notes and respectfully submits that Pandya teaches the use of various sensors including force sensors and at least suggests interchanging different sensors with one another (i.e., interchanging a tactile sensor with a force sensor) (See, for example, Pandya: ¶¶ [0040]-[0041] “input devices 102 may include any suitable components for detecting inputs. Examples of input devices 102 include audio sensors (e.g., microphones), optical or visual sensors (e.g., cameras, visible light sensors, or invisible light sensors), proximity sensors, touch sensors, force sensors”).
Nevertheless, it is submitted that new prior art (i.e., Lukens) has been applied to this amended feature. As such, Applicant's remarks with regard to this feature are addressed in the Office Action above. Essentially, newly applied prior art, Lukens, specifically teaches a “Force-Sensing Button For Electronic Devices” (See, for example, Lukens: abstract).
As such, it is respectfully submitted that the cited prior art teach and/or suggests all of the limitations of the claims under a broad and reasonable interpretation and thus, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
5. 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 Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights