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 .
Amendment
The Amendment, filed 12/29/2025, has been received and made of record. In response to the most recent Office Action, dated 09/02/2025, claim 12 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections to claims 1-13, 15-18, and 22-24: Applicant submits, “Li does not expressly state that the case 89 is of a unibody single-piece construction ….. As demonstrated above, the Li reference does not teach or suggest the unibody single-piece construction feature of claim 1.” (Remarks. P. 5-7). Further, “However, nowhere in the cited paragraphs or Fig. 13 is any kind of cavity or recess described or depicted or suggested for the housing of the keyboard keys. It is therefore not reasonable to infer that this image teaches a cavity spaced apart from the open recess” (Remarks, p. 7-8). Furthermore, “ The examiner looks to Li and Rak to allegedly teach this feature. However, Li does not describe software controlled functionality ….. As demonstrated above, the asserted references do not teach or suggest each and every feature of claim 12” (Remarks, p. 8-10). However, the Examiner respectfully disagree.
As disclosed in the previous office action, Li Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082] states the outer shell #89 is a bar shaped outer shell with a single-piece construction without any sliding or rotating components as shown in other styles 82-87. The outer shell 89 looks identical to claimed drawings without both being a straight bar like construction without any seems, sliding or rotating components. It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a unibody single-piece construction because it eases the manufacturing process, while also providing a solid construction shell without any easily breakable components like rotating and sliding parts. Unibody case construction is nothing new in the art, cases and electronic device housing have been constructed via unibody construction for a long time. To support this argument, see reference (US 20180254791) in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0003] disclose a unibody phone case 10. Also, reference (US 20170172267) in paragraph [0013] clearly states unibody phone case, which was published in 2017.
Further, Lin Fig. 13 and paragraph [0040-00410082] teach the keyboard is a hard keyboard with physical keys and components for the keys are located within the outer shell, and there has to be some sort of cavity or open space to house the keyboard electronics in order for keys to work. And, the open recess for the phone is provided on top of the keyboard, meaning the keyboard cavity is spaced apart from the open recess without any overlap between the two.
Furthermore, combination of Li, Rak, and Kota in combination teach features of claim 11.
Li in paragraph [0028, 0066, 0082] clearly teach user can utilize physical keyboard in the case to enter inputs into the mobile device, and converting the keyboard input to a character entered on the phone screen requires a software control to read the digital signals, which is very well-known and understood in the art. Li’s reference was never relied upon to teach microprocessor, instead Kota in Figs. 1, 3 and paragraph [0036-0037] teach a digital microprocessor 104 configured to control functionality of keyboard case and an internal electronic circuit configured to receive electrical power from the mobile device via the USB electronic connector. Since, keyboard case already includes a processor 104 and memory 103 in electric communication with the processor it is inherent that it includes a circuit board or PCB. And as stated in claim 13 rejection, changing the number of keys in row is merely a matter of design choice, since such a configuration, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable configuration, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art. Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the configuration set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains his rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20150109207).
Regarding claim 1: Li teaches a device for adding a keyboard to a mobile device (Fig. 13 #89), comprising: an outer shell; an open recess provided in the outer shell for insertion of the mobile device; a keyboard attached to the outer shell (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082] teach an outer shell of case #89; an open recess provided for insertion of the mobile device and a keyboard is attached to the outer shell).
Li does not explicitly state wherein the outer shell is of a unibody single-piece construction.
However, Li in Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082] states the outer shell #89 is a bar shaped outer shell with a single-piece construction without any sliding or rotating components as shown in other styles 82-87. It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a unibody single-piece construction because it eases the manufacturing process, while also providing a solid construction shell without any easily breakable components like rotating and sliding parts. Also, utilizing unibody construction is very well known and widely used technique in mobile devices and cases. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 2: Li teaches wherein the open recess faces a user when the mobile device is inserted, such that the user can interact with a main touchscreen of the mobile device (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0044, 0067, 0082]).
Regarding claim 3: Li teaches wherein the open recess and the keyboard face in the same direction (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 4: Li teaches wherein the keyboard is mounted in a cavity provided in the outer shell (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0040-00410082] teach the keyboard is a hard keyboard with physical keys and components for the keys are located within the space/cavity of the outer shell).
Regarding claim 5: Li teaches wherein the cavity and the open recess are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082], see claim 4 rejection).
Claims 6-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20150109207) in the view of Rak (US 20080224899).
Regarding claims 6-7: Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the keyboard is operatively connected to a circuit board that is mounted in the cavity; and wherein the keyboard and the circuit board form a sub-assembly that is inserted into the cavity.
However, Rak teaches wherein the keyboard is operatively connected to a circuit board that is mounted in the cavity; and wherein the keyboard and the circuit board form a sub-assembly that is inserted into the cavity (Figs. 9-10 and paragraph [0025, 0057-0066] teach the keyboard is operatively connected to a PCB and both the keyboard and the PCB form a sub-assembly that is inserted into the space/cavity of the unibody casing). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li’s invention by including above teachings of Rak, because a keyboard construction with above components is very well-known and widely used in the art, in order for keyboard to work optimally. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 8: Combination of Li and Rak teaches wherein the sub-assembly is a stacked arrangement comprising: a light emitting diode mounted on and operatively connected to the circuit board; a translucent sheet of flexible material stacked on top of the circuit board, such that that the light emitting diode is situated between the circuit board and the translucent sheet of flexible material; an opaque sheet of flexible material stacked on top of the translucent sheet of flexible material, the opaque sheet of flexible material including light transmission areas that allow light transmission; and a plurality of keys mounted on the opaque sheet of flexible material and respectively superposed above the light transmission areas (Rak in Figs. 1, 10 and paragraph [0057-0066] teach LED light source mounted on the PCB, a sheet of flexible material 139 stacked on top of the PCB also allows light to pass through, an opaque sheet 332 of flexible material stacked on top with a plurality of keys on top with area where the key letters and numbers are located that allow light transmission). See claim 6 rejection for combination reasoning of Li and Rak, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claims 9 & 10: Li teaches further comprising a male electronic connector that extends from the circuit board and into the open recess of the outer shell; wherein the male electronic connector is configured to be inserted into a female electronic connector of the mobile device; and further comprising a female electronic connector that extends from the circuit board an opens to an exterior of the outer shell (Li in Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082] teach a male electronic connector 85 that extends and into the open recess of the outer shell and connects to into a female connector of the mobile device and a female electronic connector 86 opens to an exterior of the outer shell). Li does not explicitly disclose the male and the female connector extends from the circuit board. However, it is extremely obvious and well-known in the art to utilize some kind of circuit board to allow electrical connection between the USB port and another electronic device. Similarly, it would have been a matter of design choice to modify combination of Li and Rak, by extending the male and the female ports from the circuit board. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claims 12 & 13: Li teaches a device for adding a keyboard to a mobile device (Fig. 13 #89), comprising: an outer shell; an open recess provided in the outer shell for insertion of the mobile device; a keyboard attached to the outer shell (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082] teach an outer shell of case #89; an open recess provided for insertion of the mobile device and a keyboard is attached to the outer shell).
Li does not explicitly state wherein the outer shell is of a unibody single-piece construction.
However, Li in Fig. 13 and paragraph [0082] states the outer shell #89 is a bar shaped outer shell with a single-piece construction without any sliding or rotating components as shown in other styles 82-87. It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a unibody single-piece construction because it eases the manufacturing process, while also providing a solid construction shell without any easily breakable components like rotating and sliding parts. Also, utilizing unibody construction is very well known and widely used technique in mobile devices and cases. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Combination of Li and Rak teaches wherein the keyboard comprises: a plurality of keys in a layout with thirty six keys arranged in four horizontal rows, with a top three of the rows arranged in a grid pattern; wherein a central spacebar key is included in a bottom row of the layout; wherein the keys are circular or rounded keys having a convex upward facing surface; and wherein the keyboard comprises: a plurality of keys in a layout with a top three of the rows arranged in a grid pattern; wherein a central spacebar key is included in a bottom row of the layout; and wherein the keys are circular or rounded keys having a convex upward facing surface (Rak in Figs. 2-4, 10 and paragraph [0026-0037, 0057-0066]). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li’s invention by including above teachings of Rak, because a keyboard construction with above components is very well-known and widely used in the art, in order for keyboard to work optimally. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Combination of Li and Rak do not explicitly disclose each row containing ten, ten, nine, and seven keys respectively, and a plurality of keys in a layout with thirty seven keys arranged in four horizontal rows with each row containing ten, ten, ten, and seven keys respectively.
However, It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify combination of Li and Rak by having the number of keys and key arrangement in the manner as claimed. Further, since such a configuration, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable configuration, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art. Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the configuration set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20150109207), in the view of Rak (US 20080224899), and further in the view of Kota (US 20130203473).
Regarding claim 11: Combination of Li and Rak teaches interface with the mobile device via the male electronic connector, and be controlled by the software on the mobile device; transmit pass-through charging of the mobile device from a power supply connected to the female electronic connector, and simultaneously supply power directly to the mobile device via the male electronic connector, register keystrokes from the keyboard, and transmit data of registered keystrokes to the mobile device ; activate the light emitting diode to illuminate backs of the plurality of keys (Li in Fig. 13 and paragraph [0028, 0066, 0082] and Rak in Figs. 1, 10 and paragraph [0057-0066]). See claim 6 rejection for combination reasoning of Li and Rak, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Li and Rak do not explicitly disclose wherein the circuit board comprises: a digital microprocessor configured to control functionality of the circuit board; and an internal electronic circuit configured to receive electrical power from the mobile device via the male electronic connector.
However, Kota teaches a digital microprocessor configured to control functionality of the circuit board; and an internal electronic circuit configured to receive electrical power from the mobile device via the male electronic connector (Figs. 1, 3 and paragraph [0036-0037] teach a digital microprocessor 104 configured to control functionality of keyboard case and an internal electronic circuit configured to receive electrical power from the mobile device via the USB electronic connector. Since, keyboard case already includes a processor 104 and memory 103 in electric communication with the processor it is inherent that it includes a circuit board or PCB). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Li and Rak, by including above teachings of Kota, because a processor helps controls the functionality of the keyboard case and other components and receiving power via the mobile device eliminates need of an external battery in the case. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
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 AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624