DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to an amendment filed on March 10, 2026 regarding Application No. 18/962,157. Applicants amended claim 1, canceled claim 8, and added new claims 11-15. Claims 6-7 and 10 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-7 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 20, 2025 - claims 1-5 and 8-9 were indicated as reading on the elected species (Species A , Figures 4-5). In the December 11, 2025 Office action, the Office noted that claim 8 appears to correspond to non-elected Species D, Figure 8. Applicants canceled claim 8 in the March 10, 2026 amendment.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). A certified copy of the CN 202411535898.2 application filed in China on October 30, 2024 has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments to claim 1 and cancelation of claim 8 and remarks regarding claims 1 and 8 (Remarks/Arguments, p. 5) are acknowledged. In view of the amendments, the claim objections are moot.
Applicants’ arguments filed on March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the discussion below, the Office respectfully submits that all features of newly amended independent claim 1 are taught and/or suggested by the cited references and as discussed. For example, figures 2B-3B and page 5, paragraphs 2 and 5 of Su teach: a soft connection structure 106/108 disposed within the shaft hole 202 of the encoder 20, and comprising a connecting segment corresponding to 106/108 outward from 110 into 202, wherein an inner surface of the connecting segment corresponding to 106/108 outward from 110 into 202 has a plurality of connecting surfaces corresponding to the polygonal rod, wherein the soft connection structure 106/108 is formed by a two-stage molding process. Also, figures 2 and 6-10 and column 8, lines 22-23 of Yamazaki teach: an encoder disc 10. Thus, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches and/or suggests: a soft connection structure disposed within the shaft hole of the encoder disc, and comprising a connecting segment. However, it is noted that Su as modified by Yamazaki does not teach: wherein the soft connection structure is formed in the encoder disc by a double injection molding process, but which would have been obvious to include, such that Su as modified teaches: the claimed features, as an obvious reversal of parts (soft connection structure disposed within the shaft hole of the encoder disc: formed in the encoder disc, and formed on the polygonal rod, where the polygonal rod is inserted into the shaft hole of the encoder disc) and since it would have been within the general skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select features on the basis of their suitability for the intended use for parts fabrication.
In response to the argument regarding the designs of the present application and Su (Remarks/Arguments, p. 7), without conceding the argument, the Office respectfully submits that the argument is not commensurate with the claim language and rejections and all features of newly amended independent claim 1 are taught and/or suggested by the cited references and as discussed, as discussed above and in the rejections.
In response to the argument regarding Yamazaki, encoder architecture, and soft connection structure (Remarks/Arguments, p. 7), without conceding the argument, the Office respectfully submits that the argument is not commensurate with the rejections.
In response to the arguments regarding Su, Yamazaki, “a soft connection structure within an encoder disc formed via double injection molding”, and allowance of newly amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 and 9 (Remarks/Arguments, p. 7), the Office respectfully submits that the arguments are not commensurate with the rejections and all features of newly amended independent claim 1 are taught and/or suggested by the cited references and as discussed, as discussed above and in the rejections. As such, newly amended independent claim 1 is not allowable. In addition, claims 2-5 and 9 are not allowable by virtue of their individual dependencies from newly amended independent claim 1, and as discussed in the rejections.
For the reasons discussed above and in the rejections, the pending claims are not allowable.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. in CN 218848728 U (hereinafter Su; an original copy and a full machine translation thereof was provided with the December 11, 2025 Office action) in view of Yamazaki in US 6,507,334 B1 (hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches:
A mouse scroll wheel module, comprising (Su: see FIGs. 1-3B, see also FIGs. 4-8):
a scroll wheel (10 in FIGs. 2A-B) comprising a wheel body (102) and a rotating shaft (104), wherein the rotating shaft is located at an axis (A in FIG. 2B) center of the wheel body, and a polygonal rod is formed on a first end (E) of the rotating shaft (Su: FIGs. 2A-B and p. 5, ¶ 2 and ¶ 4 (including; “The first end E of the roller 104 can be a hexagonal shaft….”), see also FIGs. 3A-B);
an encoder (20 in FIGs. 2A-B) comprising a first shaft tube (corresponding to the first end E of shaft hole 202 in FIG. 2B), wherein the first shaft tube has a shaft hole (202) (Su: see FIGs. 2A-B and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“The encoder 20 has an opening 202.”)); and
a soft connection structure (106/108 in FIG. 3B) disposed within the shaft hole of the encoder, and comprising a connecting segment (corresponding to 106/108 outward from 110 into 202 in FIGs. 2B and 3B), wherein an inner surface of the connecting segment has a plurality of connecting surfaces corresponding to the polygonal rod (Su: see FIGs. 2B-3B and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“The scroll wheel 10 includes… an auxiliary contact portion 106.”) and ¶ 5 (“The auxiliary contact portion 106 [in FIGs. 3A-B] is an elastic element 108 that wraps around the first end E [of the roller 104]. With the auxiliary contact portion 106 including the elastic element 108, the first end E of the roller 104 can be a hexagonal shaft to prevent slippage between the elastic element 108 and the encoder 20…. The roller 104 may include a groove 110 at the first end E, into which the elastic element 108 extends. The elastic element 108 is disposed on all surfaces of the roller 104. The elastic element 108 can be in close contact with the roller 104. For example, the elastic element 108 can be a two-dimensionally molded thermoplastic elastomer head. The thermoplastic elastomer can be a polyolefin elastomer (commonly known as TPE soft rubber) or a polyurethane elastomer (commonly known as TPU material). Utilizing the plasticity of the thermoplastic elastomer to fill the gap between the roller 104 and the opening 202 can achieve the purpose of vibration reduction and noise reduction. Furthermore, the flexibility of thermoplastic elastomers can avoid the problem of excessive roller pressure caused by interference fit between the shaft and hole….”), see also FIGs. 2A and 4-8),
wherein when the polygonal rod is inserted into the shaft hole, the polygonal rod is closely attached on the plurality of connecting surfaces, so that the scroll wheel and the encoder are combined together (Su: FIG. 2B and p. 5, ¶ 5, see also FIGs. 3A-B),
wherein the soft connection structure is formed by a two-stage molding process (Su: p. 5, ¶ 5 (“... (“The auxiliary contact portion 106 [in FIGs. 3A-B] is an elastic element 108 that wraps around the first end E [of the roller 104].... [T]he elastic element 108 can be a two-dimensionally molded thermoplastic elastomer head.... [T]he thermoplastic elastomer head is manufactured using a two-stage molding process....”)).
However, it is noted that Su does not teach:
the encoder is an encoder disc.
Yamazaki teaches:
an encoder disc (10 in FIG. 6) (Yamazaki: FIGs. 2 and 6 and col. 8, ll. 22-23 (“The rotary encoder 1 comprises a rotation member 10….”) and l. 53 (“The rotation member 10 comprises a disk….”), see also FIGs. 7-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include: the feature taught by Yamazaki, such that Su as modified teaches: an encoder disc comprising a first shaft tube (encoder and first shaft tube of Su combined with the encoder disc of Yamazaki); and a soft connection structure disposed within the shaft hole of the encoder disc, and comprising a connecting segment (soft connection structure and encoder of Su combined with the encoder disc of Yamazaki), wherein when the polygonal rod is inserted into the shaft hole, the polygonal rod is closely attached on the plurality of connecting surfaces, so that the scroll wheel and the encoder disc are combined together (when and encoder of Su combined with the encoder disc of Yamazaki), to provide an encoder.
However, it is noted that Su as modified by Yamazaki does not teach:
wherein the soft connection structure is formed in the encoder disc by a double injection molding process,
but which would have been obvious to include, such that Su as modified teaches: wherein the soft connection structure is formed in the encoder disc by a double injection molding process (soft connection structure, encoder disc, and molding process of Su as modified further modified as discussed), as an obvious reversal of parts (soft connection structure disposed within the shaft hole of the encoder disc: formed in the encoder disc, and formed on the polygonal rod, where the polygonal rod is inserted into the shaft hole of the encoder disc) and since it would have been within the general skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select features on the basis of their suitability for the intended use for parts fabrication).
Regarding claim 2, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 1, wherein the soft connection structure further comprises a guiding segment (corresponding to 106/108 corresponding to 110 in FIG. 3B of Su), wherein the guiding segment is connected with the connecting segment, and the guiding segment is arranged between the connecting segment and an opening side (corresponding to the first end E) of the shaft hole (Su: see FIGs. 2B-3B and p. 5, ¶ 5 (“… The roller 104 may include a groove 110 at the first end E, into which the elastic element 108 extends. The elastic element 108 is disposed on all surfaces of the roller 104. The elastic element 108 can be in close contact with the roller 104….”)).
Regarding claim 3, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 2, wherein an inner diameter of the guiding segment (12a in FIG. 3 of Yamazaki) gradually increases in a direction from the connecting segment (corresponding to 12b) to the opening side (corresponding to the left side of 1) of the shaft hole (12) (Yamazaki: FIG. 3, col. 8, ll. 56-58 (“… [A] hexagonal hole 12 to which an operation shaft 29… is to be inserted is formed at the one end of the rotation shaft 11….”), and col. 9, ll. 5-11 (“… On the inside circumferential surface of the hole 12 of the rotation shaft 11, a taper 12a having the diameter that decreases gradually from a large diameter at the one end of the rotation member 10 to a small diameter at the other end is formed. The terminal end of the taper 12a forms a small diameter portion 12b that is parallel to the rotation shaft line R….”), see also FIGs. 16 and 18-19; claims 1-2 (guiding and connecting segments and shaft hole opening side). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include: the features taught by Yamazaki, such that Su as modified teaches: the claimed features (guiding and connecting segments and shaft hole opening side of Su combined with the guiding segment inner diameter, connecting segment, and shaft hole opening side of Yamazaki), to guide a rod into a connecting segment.), and an inner surface of the guiding segment has a plurality of first guiding surfaces, which are connected with each other and correspond to the polygonal rod, wherein when the polygonal rod of the rotating shaft is inserted into the shaft hole, the polygonal rod is guided into the connecting segment through the first guiding surfaces (Su: see FIGs. 2B-3B and p. 5, ¶ 5 (“The auxiliary contact portion 106 [in FIGs. 3A-B] is an elastic element 108 that wraps around the first end E. With the auxiliary contact portion 106 including the elastic element 108, the first end E of the roller 104 can be a hexagonal shaft to prevent slippage between the elastic element 108 and the encoder 20…. The roller 104 may include a groove 110 at the first end E, into which the elastic element 108 extends. The elastic element 108 is disposed on all surfaces of the roller 104. The elastic element 108 can be in close contact with the roller 104. For example, the elastic element 108 can be a two-dimensionally molded thermoplastic elastomer head…. Utilizing the plasticity of the thermoplastic elastomer to fill the gap between the roller 104 and the opening 202 can achieve the purpose of vibration reduction and noise reduction. Furthermore, the flexibility of thermoplastic elastomers can avoid the problem of excessive roller pressure caused by interference fit between the shaft and hole….”), see also FIGs. 2A and 4-8).
Regarding claim 4, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 2, wherein the guiding segment of the soft connection structure is formed as the first shaft tube (Yamazaki: a guiding segment 12a of a connection structure 12a and 12b is formed as a first shaft tube corresponding to the left side of shaft hole 12; FIG. 3, col. 8, ll. 56-58 (“… [A] hexagonal hole 12 to which an operation shaft 29… is to be inserted is formed at the one end of the rotation shaft 11….”), and col. 9, ll. 5-11 (“… On the inside circumferential surface of the hole 12 of the rotation shaft 11, a taper 12a having the diameter that decreases gradually from a large diameter at the one end of the rotation member 10 to a small diameter at the other end is formed. The terminal end of the taper 12a forms a small diameter portion 12b that is parallel to the rotation shaft line R….”), see also FIGs. 6-10, 16, and 18-19; claims 1-2 (guiding segment, soft connection structure, and first shaft tube)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include: the features taught by Yamazaki, such that Su as modified teaches: the claimed features (guiding segment, soft connection structure, and shaft tube of Su combined with the guiding segment, connection structure, and first tube shaft of Yamazaki), to guide a rod into a connecting segment. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include: the claimed features, to guide a polygonal rod into a connecting segment (i.e., the guiding segment of the soft connection structure formed as the first shaft tube into which the polygonal rod is inserted obvious over formed disposed on all surfaces of and in close contact with the polygonal rod inserted into the first shaft tube).).
Regarding claim 5, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 2, wherein a first tube structure (corresponding to the first end E of shaft hole 202 in FIG. 2B of Su)is protruded from a side of the encoder disc facing the scroll wheel, and the first tube structure is formed as the first shaft tube (Su: see FIGs. 2A-B and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“The encoder 20 has an opening 202.”); claim 1 above (encoder disc)).
Regarding claim 9, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 1, wherein a second tube structure is protruded from a side of the encoder disc opposed to the first shaft tube (Su: see FIGs. 2A-B and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“The encoder 20 has an opening 202.”); claim 1 above (encoder disc)).
Regarding claim 13, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 1, wherein the soft connection structure comprises thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (Su: p. 5, ¶ 5 (“... (“The auxiliary contact portion 106 [in FIGs. 3A-B] is an elastic element 108 that wraps around the first end E [of the roller 104].... [T]he elastic element 108 can be a two-dimensionally molded thermoplastic elastomer head. The thermoplastic elastomer can be... a polyurethane elastomer (commonly known as TPU material)....”)).
Regarding claim 14, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 1, wherein the soft connection structure comprises thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (Su: p. 5, ¶ 5 (“... (“The auxiliary contact portion 106 [in FIGs. 3A-B] is an elastic element 108 that wraps around the first end E [of the roller 104].... [T]he elastic element 108 can be a two-dimensionally molded thermoplastic elastomer head. The thermoplastic elastomer can be a polyolefin elastomer (commonly known as TPE soft rubber)....”)).
Regarding claim 15, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 1, wherein the soft connection structure has a thickness between 0.1 mm and 0.3 mm (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include: the claimed features, since it would have been within the general skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select features on the basis of their suitability for the intended use to reduce vibration and noise. See Su: p. 5, ¶ 5 (... (“The auxiliary contact portion 106 [in FIGs. 3A-B] is an elastic element 108 that wraps around the first end E [of the roller 104].... The elastic element 108 can be a two-dimensionally molded thermoplastic elastomer head.... Utilizing the plasticity of the thermoplastic elastomer to fill the gap between the roller 104 and the opening 202 can achieve the purpose of vibration reduction and noise reduction. Furthermore, the flexibility of thermoplastic elastomers can avoid the problem of excessive roller pressure caused by interference fit between the shaft and hole. Since the thermoplastic elastomer head is manufactured using a two-stage molding process, there is no risk of it detaching.”)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Yamazaki, in further view of Fuchs et al. in US 2022/0382389 A1 (hereinafter Fuchs).
Regarding claim 11, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 1.
However, it is noted that Su as modified by Yamazaki does not teach:
wherein the soft connection structure comprises liquid silicone (LSR).
Fuchs teaches:
wherein a soft connection structure (416 in FIG. 4E) comprises liquid silicone (LSR) (Fuchs: FIGs. 4E-F and “[0075]... Referring first to FIG. 4E, a shaft 406 of a hybrid controller (which may be joined to an interior of a top portion 402 either directly or with a ball joint or other joint) or a manipulatable shaft or button of a trackpoint 410 may include a bottom surface or portion of the shaft 411 that is conductive, or a conductive disc 411 may be attached to the shaft 406, 410. The conductive disc or portion 411 may be connected to a substrate 412 (which may comprise a portion of bottom portion 408 of the controller) via an elastic joint or elastomeric material 416, which may comprise a silicone glue or other flexible adhesive allowing the shaft 406, 410 and conductive disc or portion 411 to be slightly rocked or rotated by the user....”, see also FIGs. 4B-D).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include: the features taught by Fuchs, such that Su as modified teaches: wherein the soft connection structure comprises liquid silicone (LSR) (soft connection structure of Su as modified combined with the soft connection structure and liquid silicone of Fuchs), to provide a soft connection structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Yamazaki, in further view of Moussette et al. in US 2018/0364815 A1 (hereinafter Moussette).
Regarding claim 12, Su as modified by Yamazaki teaches:
The mouse scroll wheel module according to claim 1.
However, it is noted that Su as modified by Yamazaki does not teach:
wherein the soft connection structure comprises silicone.
Moussette teaches:
wherein a soft connection structure (416 in FIG. 4) comprises silicone (Moussette: FIG. 4 and “[0045] The crown 408 may be coupled to the housing 402 such that the crown 408 can... rotate.... To facilitate these movements, the electronic device may include one or more interface components 416 between the crown 408 (e.g., the stem 400) and the housing 402. The interface components 416 may be any suitable material or component, including an O-ring formed from or including rubber, elastomer, silicone, or any other suitable material. The interface components 416 may... deform... relative to the housing 402 and the crown 408, thus allowing the crown 408 to move relative to the housing 402. The interface components 416 may also maintain a seal between the stem 400 and the housing 402 during rotation... of the crown 408.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include: the features taught by Moussette, such that Su as modified teaches: wherein the soft connection structure comprises silicone (soft connection structure of Su as modified combined with the soft connection structure and silicone of Moussette), to provide a soft connection structure.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 K. Kiyabu whose telephone number is (571) 270-7836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/K. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 6/8/26
Prosecution Insights