DETAILED ACTION
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The Amendments and Applicant Arguments submitted on 08/06/2026 have been received and its contents have been carefully considered.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14 and 16-23 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3, 11-12, 14 and 16-19, as currently amended, are presented for examination. Claims 4-10 and 20, as previously submitted, are now presented again for examination. Claims 2, 13 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Datta et al. (US Patent 12,287,680).
In re Claim 1, Datta discloses a mobile device protector comprising: an edge wall portion (Figure 1A-1B; col. 11, ll. 38-45) including at least one region 104 covering a mobile device capacitive actuator button 108 on a mobile device 106, wherein the mobile device capacitive actuator button is adjacent to the at least one region (Figure 1A); the at least one region being an at least partially electrically conductive region with a conductivity sufficient to transmit a change in capacitance due to a user’s digit or stylus approaching the mobile device capacitive actuator button on the mobile device for actuating the mobile device capacitive actuator button as a result of a change in capacitance (col. 11 ll. 14-52).
Datta further disclose wherein the at least one region 104 includes a mobile device protector button 104 (or the button body 207).
Regarding physical separation by an air gap before actuation, Datta discloses capacitive coupling through a preload that reduces or entirely eliminates the gap. Datta, col. 14 ll. 11-24. By “reducing” it implies there is an air gap under that alternative while providing capacitive coupling in the resting condition. Therefore, Datta discloses “wherein the mobile device protector button 104 is positioned to be at least partially physically separated from the mobile device capacitive actuator button 108 by an air gap before actuation.” Furthermore, Datta expressly discloses seal 216 counteracting biasing structures 208 and separating buttons 104 and 108 when the seal is overly rigid. Datta, col. 15 ll. 29-39.
In re Claim 3, Datta discloses wherein the mobile device protector button includes at least one electrically conducting region (316 for example as shown in Figure 3C) and at least one electrically non-conducting region (318 for example as shown in Figure 3C).
In re Claim 4, Datta discloses wherein the at least one electrically conducting region comprises a conductive polymer (col. 11, ll. 46-52).
In re Claim 5, Datta discloses wherein the conductive polymer is in the form of conductive particle, wire, or rod. Datta, col. 19 ll. 41-61.
In re Claim 6, Datta discloses wherein the conductive particle, wire, or rod (col. 19, ll. 41-61) is embedded in a polymer matrix (Figures 3C-3I).
In re Claim 7, Datta discloses wherein the conductive particle, wire, or rod 316 at least partially includes carbon, graphite, carbon nanotubes, graphene, silver, copper, aluminum, nickel, conductive ceramics, or mixtures thereof. Datta, col. 19 ll. 57-61.
In re Claims 8-10, Datta discloses wherein the polymer matrix includes an elastomer, a thermoplastic resin, a thermoset resin, or mixtures thereof (302, Figures 3C-3I). Datta, col. 16 ll. 38-57; col. 28 ll. 36-54.
In re Claim 11, Datta discloses wherein the mobile device protector button 104 includes vertical or horizontal layers of conducting and nonconducting regions (Figures 3C-3I).
In re Claim 12, Datta discloses wherein the mobile device protector button 104 includes apertures or voids 332, 334 therewithin (Figures 3C-3I).
In re Claim 14, Datta discloses wherein upon actuation of the mobile device protector button 104, 207, the mobile device protector button is configured to displace the air gap and press against the mobile device capacitive actuator button 108 on the mobile device. See Datta, col. 14 ll. 11-24; col. 15 ll. 29-39; Figures 1A, 1B and 4.
In re Claim 17, Datta discloses wherein the mobile device protector button 104 includes a protective layer 322 positioned between the mobile device protector button and the mobile device capacitive actuator button.
In re Claim 19, Datta discloses a back panel 112, wherein the edge wall portion 114, 116 at least partially extending from the back panel.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US Patent 12,287,680) in view of Ostdiek et al. (US Patent 11,024,135).
In re Claim 18, Datta discloses the limitations as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the button further comprises haptic feedback. However, providing such was very common in the art of portable electronics before applicant’s effective filing date. For example, Ostdiek discloses a haptic feedback button assembly 110 including an input member 112, input surface 113, input sensor 116 and haptic engine 114. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s effective filing date to have provided haptic feedback, as disclosed in Ostdiek, with the button assembly as otherwise disclosed in Datta. The addition of haptic feedback improves the ergonomics of the apparatus. Furthermore, Datta suggests that the case button should preserve the user expected feel/haptic response through the case button from the device button. Datta, col. 14, ll. 18-42.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 08/06/2026 have been considered and in regard to currently amended Claim 1 are not persuasive. The rejection relies on the textual disclosures as identified in the Rejection to Claim 1 above, rather than just what is shown in Figures 4 and 9 alone. A preference for eliminating the gap does not negate the disclosed alternative of having a “reduced” gap. See Datta, col. 14 ll. 11-24. Teaching away does not defeat an anticipation rejection where the reference otherwise discloses the claimed limitations. See MPEP §2131.05.
Applicant’s arguments in regard to Claim 16 are persuasive as to the prior art of record and the rejection of Claim 16 is withdrawn.
Additional Prior Art
Lynch et al. (US Publication 2010/0079403) discloses a button arrangement over a mobile device capacitive touch area, with an air gap maintained before actuation. The button can comprise a conductive element that moves across the gap and contacts the underlying touch surface when pressed. The spacing reduces accidental activation. Lynch, Figures 2B-2C and 4A-4B and associated description.
Giancarlo et al. (US Publication 2010/0302168) discloses an overlay keyboard that can be integrated with a mobile device cover or protector. Conductive actuator buttons provide capacitive interaction with corresponding keys. The keyboard is mounted with separation from the touchscreen before depression followed by contact upon being pressed. Giancarlo, Figures 5 and 7-9 and associated description.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 20-23 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The specific limitations of “wherein the embedded sliding element is in the form of a rotatable conductive rod, conductive spheres or conductive bead” in Claim 16 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
For example, Datta et al. (US Patent 12,287,680) discloses a mobile device protector comprising: an edge wall portion (Figure 1A-1B; col. 11, ll. 38-45) including at least one region 104 covering a mobile device capacitive actuator button 108 on a mobile device 106, wherein the mobile device capacitive actuator button is adjacent to the at least one region (Figure 1A); the at least one region being an at least partially electrically conductive region with a conductivity sufficient to transmit a change in capacitance due to a user’s digit or stylus approaching the mobile device capacitive actuator button on the mobile device for actuating the mobile device capacitive actuator button as a result of a change in capacitance (col. 11 ll. 14-52). Datta also discloses wherein the mobile device protector button includes embedded sliding element (Figure 11A and associated description) and the mobile device protector button is positioned within a groove of the mobile device protector (Figure 1B). Datta further discloses wherein the embedded sliding element is in the form of a conductive rod. Datta, col. 19 ll. 41-61.
However, as noted in applicant’s arguments submitted on 08/06/2026, pp. 9-10, Datta does not disclose wherein the embedded sliding element is in the form of a rotatable conductive rod, conductive spheres or conductive bead.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights