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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 15 October 2025, in which:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are amended.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2007/0097077, hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Young et al. (US 2015/0138093, hereinafter “Young”).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Ishikawa teaches an input component of a computing device, comprising:
a foot pad configured to movably rest on a surface (Ishikawa: Fig. 1, 2, 6 and 7, posture changing means 2 which includes a sliding portion 2b that is movable via a coil spring 2a. Third embodiment explicitly describes a foot mouse operated by a foot 12 where the housing itself acts as a large, movable foot pad);
a tactile switch (Ishikawa: Para. [0108] – [0110]; Fig. 1, 2, 6, leaf spring 2a) configured to be attached to the foot pad, the tactile switch configured to generate an optical signal based at least on compression of the foot pad (Ishikawa: Fig. 1-2 and corresponding disclosure, compression of the posture changing means 2 (which includes the foot pad) changes the distance of the optical detecting unit 5 from the surface. This change in distance alters the reflected light 5d detected by the light receiving unit 5b switching the device between a valid state and an invalid state);
and an optical sensor circuit configured to detect the optical signal, wherein the optical sensor circuit is mechanically coupled to the foot pad (Ishikawa: Fig. 1-2, detecting unit 5 which includes the light receiving unit 5b is the optical sensor circuit. It is contained within the housing 1. The posture changing means 2 (foot pad assembly) is also attached to the housing. Therefore, the optical sensor circuit and the foot pad are mechanically coupled via the common housing).
Regarding the limitation of an optical signal commensurate to a pressure applied, Ishikawa teaches switching between a binary “valid” and “invalid” state. Regarding the limitation of the optical sensor and foot pad mounted on a bracket so that movement of the foot pad causes corresponding movement of the optical sensor, Ishikawa teaches that components are mechanically linked via a common housing. Ishikawa fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the optical signal is commensurate to a pressure applied by a user on a top surface of the input component , and
wherein the optical sensor and the foot pad are mounted on a bracket so that a movement of the foot pad causes corresponding movement of the optical sensor
However, Young discloses:
wherein the optical signal is commensurate to a pressure applied by a user on a top surface of the input component (Young: Para. [0041], [0043], [0063], a mouse with a wheel bracket and a force adjustment component that adjusts the amount of force required to rotate a component. Young further discloses that a reflective optical sensor can sense etchings or contrast with deviations in thickness or depth), and
wherein the optical sensor and the foot pad are mounted on a bracket so that a movement of the foot pad (Young: Para. [0043], Claim 8, Fig. 4E and 4F, optical encoder 32 and the moving barrel are mounted within the same swing arm 36/bracket structure so that the sensor and the moving component pivot in synchronization to maintain alignment while sensing force) causes corresponding movement of the optical sensor (Young: Para. [0043], Claim 8, Fig. 2A-2C, the mechanical “corresponding movement” of the entire bracket assembly (including the sensor) in response to physical input).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input device, as taught by Ishikawa, to mount the sensor and pad of Ishikawa on a synchronized bracket, as taught by Young, in order to ensure mechanical stability and signal accuracy during the corresponding movement of the sensing assembly (Young: Para. [0021], [0043]).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 1, further comprising a core (Ishikawa: Fig. 1-2, housing 1) with a bottom front edge and a bottom rear edge, each of the bottom front edge and the bottom rear edge configured to rest on the surface, wherein the foot pad is configured near the bottom rear edge of the core (the first embodiment of Ishikawa expressly discloses “a sliding portion 4 in the front… of the bottom surface” and “posture changing means 2 in the rear of the bottom surface,” where the posture changing means includes the movable sliding portion 2b (foot pad)).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 2, wherein the foot pad is at least partially enclosed within the core along the bottom rear edge and is partially protruding from the bottom rear edge (Ishikawa: Fig. 1-2, depict the sliding portion 2b attached to the bottom of the housing 1 (core) in a way that is partially enclosed by the housing structure while protruding downward to make contact with the surface 7. This is a standard and inherent design for such a component).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 2, wherein the foot pad is configured to be compressed away from the surface and into the core based at least on pressure on top of the core (Ishikawa: Para. [0107], “when a predetermined load is applied to the rear of the mouse by a hand 3, the coil spring 2a is compressed.” The figures clearly show the sliding portion 2b and spring 2a being compressed upwards, into the housing (core)).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 2, wherein each of the foot pad, the tactile switch, and the optical sensor circuit are mounted using a bracket such that the movement of
each of the foot pad, the tactile switch, and the optical sensor circuit are synchronized based at least on to pressure on the core (While Ishikawa does not use the term “bracket,” it does teach that the detecting unit 5 and the posture changing means 2 are both contained within or attached to the housing 1. The housing serves as the unifying structure ensuring the components are mechanically linked and their relative positions are synchronized).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 6, further comprising a metal clip mechanically attached to the bracket, wherein the metal clip is configured to provide a spring mechanism to the bracket (Ishikawa teaches the use of a coil spring 2a and a leaf spring 2a. It further states that “it is also possible to use other elastic bodies such as a leaf spring instead of the coil spring 2a. A metal clip is a form of leaf spring).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 6, further comprising a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) housed within the core, wherein the PCBA receives signals from the optical sensor circuit and determines the pressure level on the core (Ishikawa: Para. [0110], Fig. 3, signal processing unit 9 receives signals from the detecting unit 5 and determines a binary state: whether the applied load is greater or less than a predetermined load to switch between valid and invalid states).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 2, wherein a top surface of the core is seamless with no openings (Ishikawa: Fig. 1-2, 6-7, top surface of housing 1 has no openings and is seamless).
Apparatus claims (10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 & 17) are drawn to the substantially analogous apparatus as claimed in claims (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8). Therefore, apparatus claims (10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 & 17) correspond to apparatus claims (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8), and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
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.
Claims 5, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Zucker et al. (US 2011/0310016, hereinafter “Zucker”) and Young.
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Young teaches the input component of claim 2.
Ishikawa fails to disclose wherein the core is an arc shaped core.
However, Zucker teaches that an “arc shaped” or “curved configuration” for a mouse is a known design for improving ergonomics and portability (Para. [0016] – [0017]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input device, as taught by Ishikawa, to incorporate the known ergonomic mouse shape, as taught by Zucker, in order to enhance user comfort (Zucker: Para. [0016] – [0017]).
Apparatus claim (14) is drawn to the substantially analogous apparatus as claimed in claim (5). Therefore, apparatus claim (14) corresponds to apparatus claim (5), and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
With respect to Claim 18 (Currently Amended), Ishikawa teaches a mouse device, comprising:
an active foot pad configured to movably rest on a surface (Ishikawa: Fig. 1, 2, 6 and 7, posture changing means 2 which includes a sliding portion 2b that is movable via a coil spring 2a. Third embodiment explicitly describes a foot mouse operated by a foot 12 where the housing itself acts as a large, movable foot pad);
a tactile switch configured to be attached to the active foot pad, the tactile switch configured to generate an optical signal based at least on compression of the active foot pad (Fig. 1-2 and corresponding disclosure, compression of the posture changing means 2 (which includes the foot pad) changes the distance of the optical detecting unit 5 from the surface. This change in distance alters the reflected light 5d detected by the light receiving unit 5b switching the device between a valid state and an invalid state);
an optical sensor circuit configured to detect the optical signal, wherein the optical sensor circuit is mechanically coupled to the active foot pad (Fig. 1-2, detecting unit 5 which includes the light receiving unit 5b is the optical sensor circuit. It is contained within the housing 1. The posture changing means 2 (foot pad assembly) is also attached to the housing. Therefore, the optical sensor circuit and the foot pad are mechanically coupled via the common housing); and
wherein the active foot pad is configured near the bottom rear edge of the core.
Ishikawa fails to expressly disclose an arc shaped core with a bottom front edge and a bottom rear edge, each of the bottom front edge and the bottom rear edge configured to rest on the surface.
However, Zucker teaches that an “arc shaped” or “curved configuration” for a mouse is a known design for improving ergonomics and portability (Para. [0016] – [0017]). Additionally, Zucker discloses, at Para. [0051], a foot member 114 provides a sooth hard area that is easily slid across a surface during operation of the computer mouse 10.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input device, as taught by Ishikawa, to incorporate the known ergonomic mouse shape, as taught by Zucker, in order to enhance user comfort (Zucker: Para. [0016] – [0017]).
Regarding the limitation of an optical signal commensurate to a pressure applied, Ishikawa teaches switching between a binary “valid” and “invalid” state. Regarding the limitation of the optical sensor and foot pad mounted on a bracket so that movement of the foot pad causes corresponding movement of the optical sensor, Ishikawa teaches that components are mechanically linked via a common housing. Ishikawa fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the optical signal is commensurate to a pressure applied by a user on a top surface of the input component , and
wherein the optical sensor and the foot pad are mounted on a bracket so that a movement of the foot pad causes corresponding movement of the optical sensor
However, Young discloses:
wherein the optical signal is commensurate to a pressure applied by a user on a top surface of the input component (Young: Para. [0041], [0043], [0063], a mouse with a wheel bracket and a force adjustment component that adjusts the amount of force required to rotate a component. Young further discloses that a reflective optical sensor can sense etchings or contrast with deviations in thickness or depth), and
wherein the optical sensor and the foot pad are mounted on a bracket so that a movement of the foot pad (Young: Para. [0043], Claim 8, Fig. 4E and 4F, optical encoder 32 and the moving barrel are mounted within the same swing arm 36/bracket structure so that the sensor and the moving component pivot in synchronization to maintain alignment while sensing force) causes corresponding movement of the optical sensor (Young: Para. [0043], Claim 8, Fig. 2A-2C, the mechanical “corresponding movement” of the entire bracket assembly (including the sensor) in response to physical input).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input device, as taught by Ishikawa, to mount the sensor and pad of Ishikawa on a synchronized bracket, as taught by Young, in order to ensure mechanical stability and signal accuracy during the corresponding movement of the sensing assembly (Young: Para. [0021], [0043]).
With respect to Claim 19, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Zucker and Young teaches the mouse device of claim 18, wherein each of the active foot pad, the tactile switch, and the optical sensor circuit are mounted using a bracket such that the movement of each of the active foot pad, the tactile switch, and the optical sensor circuit are synchronized based at least on pressure on the core (While Ishikawa does not use the term “bracket,” it does teach that the detecting unit 5 and the posture changing means 2 are both contained within or attached to the housing 1. The housing serves as the unifying structure ensuring the components are mechanically linked and their relative positions are synchronized).
With respect to Claim 20, the combination of Ishikawa as modified by Zucker and Young teaches the mouse device of claim 19, further comprising a metal clip mechanically attached to the bracket, wherein the metal clip is configured to provide a spring mechanism to the bracket (Ishikawa teaches the use of a coil spring 2a and a leaf spring 2a. It further states that “it is also possible to use other elastic bodies such as a leaf spring instead of the coil spring 2a. A metal clip is a form of leaf spring, making this an obvious mechanical equivalent).
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625