DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 19/105,861 originally filed 05/15/2026. The Request for Continued Examination and Amendment presented on 04/20/2026 which provides amendments to claims 16 and 26, claims 1-15 and 25 are cancelled and claims36-38 are added is hereby acknowledged.
Currently claims 16-24 and 26-38 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In summary, Applicant has amended the independent claim to incorporate limitations from now cancelled claim 25 and asserts these are not taught by the prior arts of either Kent, Wang, or Nien. The Office respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the prior arts fail to recognize, for example, that the “unit structures” in Nien do not expressly suggest that they provide an “increase in stiffness” as suggested in the, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As the prior art provides for a similar type of structure (see comparison of Fig. 3 of Nien and Figure 4 of the instant application), including variations on the “unit structures” throughout the reference, The Office finds in, neither the art nor the remarks, why Nien’s structures would not inherently possess such an “increase in stiffness” thereby increasing the structural integrity. Nien suggests these can be placed substantially at regular intervals. These “ridges” do provide for a touch-feel enhancing mechanism and “grip enhancement” as would be similar to Applicants and would naturally possess and or create structural rigidity of the sleeve. The are disclosed as being similarly disposed in the same manner and fashion as that of the instant application and therefore The Office finds no convincing rationale as to why the prior art would function similarly.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Therefore, after review, Applicants arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection will be currently maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-24, 26-27, 29-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0167008 A1 hereinafter Wang in view of Kent et al. United States Patent No. 5,706,026 hereinafter Kent in view of Nien et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0162070 A1 hereinafter Nien.
Consider Claim 16:
Wang discloses a pointing device, comprising: (Wang, See Abstract.)
a slider bar including a non-circular support member elongated along an axis A1 and comprising a flat or convex user interface support surface; (Wang, [0036], [0045] In certain examples, the sleeve 110 may also include indicia printed on an outside surface thereof, and may be replaceable with a second sleeve by the user. As illustrated, in various embodiments, the sleeve 110 is supported on the elongate base member 108 by one or more bushings 202a, 202b that allow fluid rotation and sliding about the base member 108. Although the base member 108 and sleeve 110 are shown as including a generally tubular shape, in various additional embodiments, the base member 108 and sleeve 110 could include shapes having a generally non-circular cross-section, a cross-section having at least one flat surface and at least one curved surface, or a cross section having at least three rounded corners. The base member 108 may be composed of any durable material, such as aluminum. In various embodiments, the base member 108 is chosen to have a low coefficient of static friction between the base member 108 and sleeve 110 to provide fluid movement of the sleeve 110 about the base member 108.”)
a flexible sleeve disposed around the support member, the flexible sleeve being rotatable about the support member and slidable along the support member along axis A1, a portion of the flexible sleeve being supported by the user interface support surface during normal use, the portion comprising a user interface surface; and (Wang, [0044], “FIG. 2 illustrates one example of the elongate base member 108 and the sleeve 110 shown in FIG. 1. For the purpose of illustration, arrow indicator A represents the first direction about which the sleeve 110 is configured to rotate, and arrow indicator B represents the second direction about which the sleeve 110 is configured to slide. As discussed herein, in certain examples the elongate base member is a hollow tube. In various embodiments, the sleeve 110 can include a tactile material disposed on an outside surface of the sleeve 110, such as a grip 204. The sleeve 110 may also be flexible and composed of one of plastic, cloth, paper, rubber, or other material. In certain embodiments, the sleeve 110 may be composed of a rigid material, and in particular, may take the shape of the elongate base member 108 (e.g., shown as a substantially cylindrical shape). However, in certain other examples the sleeve 110 may have a shape that is substantially different from a shape of the elongate base member 108.”)
a sensor configured to detect rotational and axial movement of the flexible sleeve relative to the elongate support member. (Wang, [0049], “In certain examples, the first zone 0 corresponds to a work area of the pointing device system 100. During detection of the first zone 0 of the pattern 402 on the sleeve, by the sensor, the sensor communicates with the processor (e.g., the processor of a computer) to effect motion of the pointer in the visual display based on the detected motion of the sleeve 110. For instance, rotational movement and axial movement of the sleeve 110 may correspond to vertical and horizontal movements, respectively, of the pointer within the display. While the work area is illustrated as separate from the second zone 1, the third zone 2, the fourth zone 3, and the fifth zone 4, for the purpose of illustration, it is appreciated that the sensor may also detect sleeve movement in each of the other zones 1, 2, 3, 4. That is, during detection of each of the second zone 1, the third zone 2, the fourth zone 3, and the fifth zone 4 of the pattern 402 on the sleeve, the sensor may communicate with the processor to effect the motion of the pointer in the visual display based on the detected motion of the sleeve 110.”)
Wang however does not specify a friction-reducing layer adhered to the support member, the friction- reducing layer being configured to make physical contact with an inner surface of the flexible sleeve and reduce friction between the support member and the flexible sleeve.
Kent however teaches that it as known technique to those having ordinary skill in the art before the to provide low friction coating and therefore teaches a friction-reducing layer adhered to the support member, the friction- reducing layer being configured to make physical contact with an inner surface of the flexible sleeve and reduce friction between the support member and the flexible sleeve.
(Kent, Column 9, (19) “As shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, the sensing rollers 80 are mounted on a support 106 operable to bear against the intermediate roller ball 82, the support 106 being urged toward the intermediate roller ball 82 and toward the contact roller 34 by at least one spring 104, bearing between the housing 58 and the support 106, which in this case is a plate having a central opening 112 fitting partway over the intermediate roller ball 82. The support plate 106 can have a low friction coating such as Teflon, at least in the area of the inward facing edges defining the opening 112. Alternatively, by employing friction enhancing surface configurations on the contact roller 34 and the sensing rollers 80, the intermediate roller ball 82 can be a smooth bearing, e.g., of polished stainless steel, that turns readily in opening 112.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a low friction coating to reduce friction as this was a known technique in view of Kent and would be used for the purpose of by employing friction enhancing surface configurations on the contact roller so it can act as a smooth bearing. (Kent, Column 9)
Wang in view of Kent however do not appear to provide wherein the flexible sleeve comprises a plurality of elongated structures disposed on the outer surface of the flexible sleeve and along a length of the flexible sleeve, and wherein the elongated structures are configured to increase the stiffness of the flexible sleeve along the axis A1.
Nien however teaches that it was a known technique in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wherein the flexible sleeve comprises a plurality of elongated structures disposed on the outer surface of the flexible sleeve and along a length of the flexible sleeve, and wherein the elongated structures are configured to increase the stiffness of the flexible sleeve along the axis A1. (Nien, [0018], [0069], “The sleeve 320 may be made of a suitable material in order to provide desired elasticity and flexibility. For example, the sleeve 320 is made of mesh fabric, nonwoven fabric, plastic material, rubber or leather. Moreover, several friction structures 322 are formed on the outer surface of the sleeve 320 for providing a friction force for facilitating the user to rotate or move the sleeve 320. For example, the friction structures 322 are a plurality of convex structures having a coefficient of friction higher than the sleeve 320 and disposed on the outer surface of the sleeve 320 along the longitudinal axis of the sleeve 320 (or slightly tilted relative to the longitudinal axis of the sleeve 320). In some embodiments, the friction structures on the sleeve are non-linear. For example, the friction structures are saw-toothed stripes composed of a plurality of straight line segments or arc segments, or the friction structures are spiral line segments. Alternatively, the angle between any two adjacent straight line segments of the plurality of straight line segments is not always 180 degrees. Optionally, in addition to the linear friction structures, the friction structures may have other regular shapes (for example a plurality of circular, elliptic, square, regular polygonal friction structures are arranged in a strip) or irregular shapes (for example a plurality of polygonal friction structures are arranged in a strip). Moreover, these linear friction structures are substantially evenly distributed on the outer surface of the sleeve. For example, these linear friction structures are evenly distributed on the outer surface of the sleeve, or the density of distributing the linear friction structures on the outer surface of the sleeve is nearly identical.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide as disclosed in Nien and used for the purpose of the touch-feel enhancing mechanism may comprise a friction enhancing structure with a friction coefficient identical to the reinforcing layer in order to strengthen the frequently touched touch-feel enhancing mechanism. (Nien, [0060])
Consider Claim 17:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, wherein the support member comprises a first aperture, and wherein the sensor is an optical sensor accommodated within the support member and configured to detect rotational and axial movement of the flexible sleeve relative to the elongate support member via the first aperture. (Wang, [0052], “In certain examples of the pointing device system 100, the elongate base member 108 may include a sensor disposed on a surface of the elongate base member or within the elongate base member 108 (i.e., an inner-sensor). The inner-sensor may be positioned to detect the rotational movement and/or axial movement of the sleeve 110 through an aperture in the elongate base member 108. In further examples, the inner-sensor may further detect proximity of the sleeve 110 to one or more ends of the elongate base member 108. Accordingly, in certain examples the pointing device system 100 may include a single sensor which detects all movements of the sleeve 110 (e.g., rotational, axial, and end detection). Such an example offers the benefits of improved power consumption, improved efficiency, and reduced size and complexity when compared to other pointing devices.”)
Consider Claim 18:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 17, wherein the friction-reducing layer comprises a second aperture aligned with the first aperture, and wherein the optical sensor is further configured to detect rotational and axial movement of the flexible sleeve relative to the support member via the second aperture. (Wang, [0052], “In certain examples of the pointing device system 100, the elongate base member 108 may include a sensor disposed on a surface of the elongate base member or within the elongate base member 108 (i.e., an inner-sensor). The inner-sensor may be positioned to detect the rotational movement and/or axial movement of the sleeve 110 through an aperture in the elongate base member 108. In further examples, the inner-sensor may further detect proximity of the sleeve 110 to one or more ends of the elongate base member 108. Accordingly, in certain examples the pointing device system 100 may include a single sensor which detects all movements of the sleeve 110 (e.g., rotational, axial, and end detection). Such an example offers the benefits of improved power consumption, improved efficiency, and reduced size and complexity when compared to other pointing devices.”)
Consider Claim 19:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, wherein the friction-reducing layer is a cloth. (Kent, Column 9, (19) “As shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, the sensing rollers 80 are mounted on a support 106 operable to bear against the intermediate roller ball 82, the support 106 being urged toward the intermediate roller ball 82 and toward the contact roller 34 by at least one spring 104, bearing between the housing 58 and the support 106, which in this case is a plate having a central opening 112 fitting partway over the intermediate roller ball 82. The support plate 106 can have a low friction coating such as Teflon, at least in the area of the inward facing edges defining the opening 112. Alternatively, by employing friction enhancing surface configurations on the contact roller 34 and the sensing rollers 80, the intermediate roller ball 82 can be a smooth bearing, e.g., of polished stainless steel, that turns readily in opening 112.”)
Consider Claim 20:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, wherein the friction-reducing layer comprises PTFE. (Kent, Column 9, (19) “As shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, the sensing rollers 80 are mounted on a support 106 operable to bear against the intermediate roller ball 82, the support 106 being urged toward the intermediate roller ball 82 and toward the contact roller 34 by at least one spring 104, bearing between the housing 58 and the support 106, which in this case is a plate having a central opening 112 fitting partway over the intermediate roller ball 82. The support plate 106 can have a low friction coating such as Teflon, at least in the area of the inward facing edges defining the opening 112. Alternatively, by employing friction enhancing surface configurations on the contact roller 34 and the sensing rollers 80, the intermediate roller ball 82 can be a smooth bearing, e.g., of polished stainless steel, that turns readily in opening 112.”)
Consider Claim 21:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the cross-section of the flexible sleeve substantially perpendicularly to the axis Al while disposed on the support member has a maximum width W2 and a maximum height H2 defined by mutually perpendicular axes A2 and A3, respectively, and wherein axes A2 and A3 are both perpendicular to axis A1, and wherein axis A2 is parallel to at least one point on the user interface support surface of the support member, and wherein the maximum width W2 is greater than the maximum height H2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 22:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 21, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the maximum width W2 of the cross-section of the flexible sleeve is between 20 mm and 42 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 23:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 22, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the maximum height H2 of the cross-section of the flexible sleeve is between 18 mm and 22 mm, and wherein the maximum width W2 of the cross-section of the flexible sleeve is 28 mm and 34 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 24:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 21, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the maximum height H2 of the cross-section of the flexible sleeve is between 13 mm and 27 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 26:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, wherein the plurality of elongated structures comprises carbon. (Nien, [0018], [0069], “The sleeve 320 may be made of a suitable material in order to provide desired elasticity and flexibility. For example, the sleeve 320 is made of mesh fabric, nonwoven fabric, plastic material, rubber or leather. Moreover, several friction structures 322 are formed on the outer surface of the sleeve 320 for providing a friction force for facilitating the user to rotate or move the sleeve 320. For example, the friction structures 322 are a plurality of convex structures having a coefficient of friction higher than the sleeve 320 and disposed on the outer surface of the sleeve 320 along the longitudinal axis of the sleeve 320 (or slightly tilted relative to the longitudinal axis of the sleeve 320). In some embodiments, the friction structures on the sleeve are non-linear. For example, the friction structures are saw-toothed stripes composed of a plurality of straight line segments or arc segments, or the friction structures are spiral line segments. Alternatively, the angle between any two adjacent straight line segments of the plurality of straight line segments is not always 180 degrees. Optionally, in addition to the linear friction structures, the friction structures may have other regular shapes (for example a plurality of circular, elliptic, square, regular polygonal friction structures are arranged in a strip) or irregular shapes (for example a plurality of polygonal friction structures are arranged in a strip). Moreover, these linear friction structures are substantially evenly distributed on the outer surface of the sleeve. For example, these linear friction structures are evenly distributed on the outer surface of the sleeve, or the density of distributing the linear friction structures on the outer surface of the sleeve is nearly identical.”)
Consider Claim 27:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, wherein the flexible sleeve comprises silicone. (Wang, [0044], “FIG. 2 illustrates one example of the elongate base member 108 and the sleeve 110 shown in FIG. 1. For the purpose of illustration, arrow indicator A represents the first direction about which the sleeve 110 is configured to rotate, and arrow indicator B represents the second direction about which the sleeve 110 is configured to slide. As discussed herein, in certain examples the elongate base member is a hollow tube. In various embodiments, the sleeve 110 can include a tactile material disposed on an outside surface of the sleeve 110, such as a grip 204. The sleeve 110 may also be flexible and composed of one of plastic, cloth, paper, rubber, or other material. In certain embodiments, the sleeve 110 may be composed of a rigid material, and in particular, may take the shape of the elongate base member 108 (e.g., shown as a substantially cylindrical shape). However, in certain other examples the sleeve 110 may have a shape that is substantially different from a shape of the elongate base member 108.”)
Consider Claim 29:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 28, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the thickness of the flexible sleeve is between 0.20 mm and 0.28 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 30:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the thickness of the flexible sleeve is between 0.10 mm and 0.40 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 31:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the maximum length of the support member is between 200 mm and 420 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 32:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 31, wherein the maximum length of the support member is between 280 mm and 340 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 33:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 31, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the maximum length of the flexible sleeve is between 170 mm and 330 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 34:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the user interface surface has a length (L5) of between 100 mm and 250 mm, and wherein the user interface surface has a width (W3) of between 23 mm and 35 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 35:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 34, and teach each and every element however do not specify sizing wherein the user interface surface has a length (L5) of between 150 mm and 190 mm, and wherein the user interface surface has a width (W3) of 27 mm and 31 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 36:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, wherein the support member includes aluminium. (Nien, [0071], “Moreover, in the first embodiment, the second surface 112 of the holder 1 is bent as the sidewall and the inner surface of the holder 1. The second surface 112 faces the accommodation space 113. The holder 1 may have a flat, arc-shaped, circular or elliptical cross section. Alternatively, the holder 1 may have any shape for facilitating the rotating action and the moving action of the sleeve 3. In other words, the first surface is a flat surface or an arc-shaped surface. Furthermore, the holder 1 is made of polyoxymetylene (POM), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, also referred as Teflon), ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or any suitable self-lubricating material. Optionally, the holder 1 may be made of any other suitable material such as a steel material or a plastic material with few parting lines or no parting lines as long as the sleeve 3 can be rotated or moved on the holder 1.”)
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07.
Consider Claim 37:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 26, wherein the plurality of elongated structures includes carbon fibre rods extending between two ends of the flexible sleeve. (Nien, [0071], “Moreover, in the first embodiment, the second surface 112 of the holder 1 is bent as the sidewall and the inner surface of the holder 1. The second surface 112 faces the accommodation space 113. The holder 1 may have a flat, arc-shaped, circular or elliptical cross section. Alternatively, the holder 1 may have any shape for facilitating the rotating action and the moving action of the sleeve 3. In other words, the first surface is a flat surface or an arc-shaped surface. Furthermore, the holder 1 is made of polyoxymetylene (POM), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, also referred as Teflon), ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or any suitable self-lubricating material. Optionally, the holder 1 may be made of any other suitable material such as a steel material or a plastic material with few parting lines or no parting lines as long as the sleeve 3 can be rotated or moved on the holder 1.”)
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07.
Consider Claim 38:
Wang in view of Kent in view of Nien disclose the pointing device according to claim 27, wherein the flexible sleeve includes a single uniform silicone tube having a maximum thickness of less than 0.25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the elements as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0167008 A1 in view of Kent et al. United States Patent No. 5,706,026 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tokisue et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0018094 A1 hereinafter Tokisue.
Consider Claim 28:
Wang in view of Kent disclose the pointing device according to claim 16, wherein an inner surface of the flexible sleeve has been treated with UV light so as to lower the friction of the inner surface of the flexible sleeve.
Tokisue however teaches (Tokisue, [0100], “Still another method of the surface treatment of a magnetic head slider is explained below. This slider 23 was composed of a slider body of alumina titanium carbide and a carbon thin layer formed thereon in a thickness of 8 nm by sputtering under the conditions that nitrogen was mixed. This slider was immersed in a fluorosilane solution and the latter was attached to the former by dipping. Subsequently, it was irradiated with an ultraviolet light using a low pressure mercury vapor lamp in an ozone atmosphere. The ultraviolet light irradiation was conducted at an intensity of 50 mW/cm.sup.2 for 10 minutes. Thereafter, using temperature as a parameter, baking treatment was conducted at a temperature between 30.degree. C. and 250.degree. C. for about 20 minutes. As to the stiction resistance performance of the slider subjected to this treatment, the results obtained by measuring friction force at the time of the starting are shown in FIG. 16. The friction force of the non-treated slider was as high as 8 gf, while the slider subjected to the ultraviolet light treatment was generally low in friction force, and it was found to have a dependency on the subsequent baking temperature. At 30.degree. C., the friction force was 6 gf and hence its reduction effect was small, while at 50.degree. C., it was lowered to 4 gf or less and the said tendency was not so varied though when the baking temperature was elevated some elevation of the friction force was seen. However, when it exceeded 200.degree. C., the lowering of the friction force was inversely seen. The reason therefor was not clear, but it is considered to result from the change of the molecular structure or the deterioration of the strength of the undercoat. According to the experiment of the present inventors, it is desirable to adjust the baking temperature in the range of 50 to 150.degree. C.”)
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations as in Tokisue for reducing friction of a carbon-based element by introducing a UV light treatment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. "It's enough … to show that there was a known problem … in the art, that [another reference] … helped address that issue, and that combining the teachings of [the two references] wasn't beyond the skill of an ordinary artisan. Nothing more is required to show a motivation to combine under KSR." See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380-81, 2023 USPQ2d 297 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (finding that both prior art references "address the same problem and that [the secondary reference’s] cache was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there's a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.").
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited in a current or previous PTO-892. The prior art cited in a current or previous PTO-892 reads upon the applicants claims in part, in whole and/or gives a general reference to the knowledge and skill of persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Applicant, when responding to this Office action, should consider not only the cited references applied in the rejection but also any additional references made of record.
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests support be shown for any new or amended claims. More precisely, indicate support for any newly added language or amendments by specifying page, line numbers, and/or figure(s). This will assist The Office in compact prosecution of this application. The Office has cited particular columns, paragraphs, and/or line numbers in the applied rejection of the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within each claim, however other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider the cited reference(s) in its entirety and not only the cited portions as other sections of the reference may expand on the teachings of the cited portion(s).
Applicant Representatives are reminded of CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii) which states “A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1) ), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.” When an unsigned or improperly signed amendment is received the amendment will be listed in the contents of the application file, but not entered. The examiner will notify applicant of the status of the application, advising him or her to furnish a duplicate amendment properly signed or to ratify the amendment already filed. In an application not under final rejection, applicant should be given a two month time period in which to ratify the previously filed amendment (37 CFR 1.135(c) ).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J JANSEN II whose telephone number is (571)272-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Normally Available Monday-Friday 9am-4pm EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. 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 J Jansen II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights