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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered. claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant contends that Nakamura does not disclose or suggest “a key arranged on an upper surface of a housing, used to input a letter or a number", and "a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing" examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated in fig. 1 and the corresponding paragraphs, Nakamura discloses that hard keys are arranged on tope surface of the housing. However, Nakamura fails to teach touchpads that are arranged on the side surface. A newly identified second reference by Li207 teaches this limitation. As illustrated in fig. 1, Li207 teaches hard keys 2 arranged on the top surface of the housing along with a plurality of touch pads 2-1 arranged on the side surface.
Applicant further argues that Li does not disclose or suggest "a key arranged on an upper surface of a housing, used to input a letter or a number", and "a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing", as recited in amended claim 1, or "a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of a housing", and "wherein a key used to input a letter or a number is arranged on an upper surface of the housing",
The above limitations are taught by Nakamura and Li207.
Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not disclose or suggest "a key arranged on an upper surface of a housing, used to input a letter or a number", and "a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing", as recited in amended claim 1, or "a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of a housing", and "wherein a key used to input a letter or a number is arranged on an upper surface of the housing",
The above limitations are taught by Nakamura and Li207. Yamamoto was cited to teach a different claim feature.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2010/0164886) in view of Li et al (US 2015/0109207).
As to claim 1, Nakamura teaches an input device, comprising:
a key arranged on an upper surface of a housing, used to input a letter or a number (a key board 13, fig. 1);
a communication interface to communicate with the information processing apparatus ([0041] the driver 113c determines whether a control process, which is determined in accordance with the combinational operation (i.e. a combination of simultaneously executed operations) between an operation on the touch pad 16a and an operation on the touch pad 16b, is preset in the touch pad control data 113d. If this control process is preset, the driver 113c outputs a corresponding control code. The CPU 111 executes the control process which corresponds to the control code that is output from the driver 113c);
a plurality of touchpads (16a and 16b, fig. 1); and
circuitry (the laptop in fig. 1 has different circuitries),
wherein, when a combination of operations on the plurality of touchpads is received, the circuitry identifies a code corresponding to the combination of the operations on the plurality of touchpads and outputs the identified code to an information processing apparatus via the communication interface ([0041], figs. 7-14).
Nakamura does not teach a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing.
however, Li teaches a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing ([0044] The side-keys can be either conventional physical hard keys, or touch-control soft keys, or even of a touch pad, fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakamura to teach, a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing, as suggested by Li. The motivation would have been in order to provide a benefit to the user such that “touch pad side-keys … need not be tagged and the user need not position his/her fingers accurately”
As to claim 2, Nakamura in view of Li teaches the input device, further comprising a housing (Nakamura: computer main body 11, fig. 1) provided with the plurality of touchpads (Nakamura: 16a and 16b, fig. 1), wherein the housing does not have a display (Nakamura: fig. 1 illustrates that computer main body 11 does not include a display).
As to claim 3, Nakamura in view of Li teaches the input device, wherein the circuitry is configured to: distinguish operations on the plurality of touchpads (Nakamura: touch pads 16a and 16b in figs. 7-14) based on at least one of operation direction, duration of contact, frequency of contact, area of contact, or a number of contact areas on the plurality of touchpads (Nakamura: touch pads 16a and 16b in figs. 7-14); and output a code corresponding to the distinguished operations on the plurality of touchpads to the information processing apparatus via the communication interface (Nakamura: [0052] in accordance with the control code from the driver 113c, the OS 113a executes control processes such as a scroll function control, an image enlargement/reduction function control, a sound volume/luminance function control and an audio playback function control, see figs. 7-14 and the corresponding paragraphs).
As to claim 6, Nakamura in view of Li teaches the input device, wherein each of the plurality of touchpads is arranged on at least one of a left side, a right side, a front side, and a back side of the input device (Nakamura: see pads 16a and 16b at the front side).
As to claim 7, Nakamura teaches a control method, comprising: when a combination of operations on a plurality of touchpads is received ([0041] the combinational operation (i.e. a combination of simultaneously executed operations) between an operation on the touch pad 16a and an operation on the touch pad 16b), identifying a code corresponding to the combination of the operations on the plurality of touchpads ([0041] the driver 113c determines whether a control process, which is determined in accordance with the combinational operation (i.e. a combination of simultaneously executed operations) between an operation on the touch pad 16a and an operation on the touch pad 16b, is preset in the touch pad control data 113d. If this control process is preset, the driver 113c outputs a corresponding control code. The CPU 111 executes the control process which corresponds to the control code that is output from the driver 113c) and outputting the identified code to an information processing apparatus via a communication interface ([0041], figs. 7-14),
wherein a key used to input a letter or a number is arranged on an upper surface of the housing (a key board 13, fig. 1).
Nakamura does not teach a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing.
however, Li teaches a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of a housing ([0044] The side-keys can be either conventional physical hard keys, or touch-control soft keys, or even of a touch pad, fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakamura to teach, a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of a housing, as suggested by Li. The motivation would have been in order to provide a benefit to the user such that “touch pad side-keys … need not be tagged and the user need not position his/her fingers accurately”
As to claim 8, Nakamura in view of Li teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to perform a method ([0097]), the method comprising :
when receiving a combination of operations on a plurality of touchpads ([0041] the combinational operation (i.e. a combination of simultaneously executed operations) between an operation on the touch pad 16a and an operation on the touch pad 16b), identifying a code corresponding the combination of the operations on the plurality of touchpads ([0041] the driver 113c determines whether a control process, which is determined in accordance with the combinational operation (i.e. a combination of simultaneously executed operations) between an operation on the touch pad 16a and an operation on the touch pad 16b, is preset in the touch pad control data 113d. If this control process is preset, the driver 113c outputs a corresponding control code. The CPU 111 executes the control process which corresponds to the control code that is output from the driver 113c) and outputting the identified code to an information processing apparatus via a communication interface ([0041], figs. 7-14), wherein a key used to input a letter or a number is arranged on an upper surface of the housing (a key board 13, fig. 1).
Nakamura does not teach a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of the housing.
however, Li teaches a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of a housing ([0044] The side-keys can be either conventional physical hard keys, or touch-control soft keys, or even of a touch pad, fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakamura to teach, a plurality of touchpads arranged on a side surface of a housing, as suggested by Li. The motivation would have been in order to provide a benefit to the user such that “touch pad side-keys … need not be tagged and the user need not position his/her fingers accurately”
4. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2010/0164886) in view of Li et al (US 2015/0109207) and further in view of Li (US 2017/0123516).
As to claim 4, Nakamura in view of Li207 do not teach receiving a combination of operations on the plurality of touchpads and an operation on the switch as claimed.
However, Li516 teaches the input device, wherein when receiving a combination of operations on the plurality of touchpads and an operation on the switch ([0130] the user may use the thumb 902 to press down on the thumb button 105, and meanwhile swipe both the index finger 903 and middle finger 904 upward or downward across the index touch pad and middle touch pad, so as to increase or decrease the 3-D view angle, [0143], [0307]), the circuitry identifies a code corresponding to the combination of the operations on the plurality of touchpads and the operation on the switch-and outputs the identified code to the information processing apparatus ([0102] finger operations on the two buttons/touch pads of controller 800 and on the three buttons/touch pads of controller 100 may generate control commands and instructions in similar manners) via the communication interface ([0136] the computing device 1604 may need a wireless communication module or hardware (e.g., a wireless dongle) for establishing wireless connections with the controller 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakamura in view of Li207 to teach, a combination of operations on the plurality of touchpads and an operation on the switch, as suggested by Li516. The motivation would have been in order to provide “integrated user interface for the user to interact with various computing devices, and thus enhances user experience” ([0056]).
5. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2010/0164886) in view of Li et al (US 2015/0109207) and further in view of Li (US 2017/0123516) and further in view of Yamamoto (US 2014/0152573).
As to claim 5, Nakamura in view of Li207 do not teach the input device as claimed.
However, Li516 teaches the input device further comprising a memory to store the code corresponding to combination of operations ([0211] processor system 2602 may implement machine instructions stored in a memory system, such as software for analyzing input information and accordingly controlling various peripherals. In at least one embodiment, processor system 2602 may collect and analyze input data from buttons, touch pads, motion sensors, and/or microphone of the controller 100, and translate the input data into control commands) on the plurality of touchpads as mapping information ([0130] the user may use the thumb 902 to press down on the thumb button 105, and meanwhile swipe both the index finger 903 and middle finger 904 upward or downward across the index touch pad and middle touch pad, so as to increase or decrease the 3-D view angle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakamura in view of Li207 to teach, a memory to store the code corresponding to combination of operations on the plurality of touchpads, as suggested by Li516. The motivation would have been in order to provide “integrated user interface for the user to interact with various computing devices, and thus enhances user experience” ([0056]).
Nakamura combined with Li207 and Li516 do not teach a plurality of mapping tables and changing the mapping table as claimed.
However, Yamamoto teaches wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
14
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the mapping information includes a plurality of mapping tables, and the circuitry is configured to change a mapping table currently used to one of other mapping tables in response to receiving a mapping table change request ([0028] The key input management module 33 has a touch key determination module 37 which determines the kind of the SW key 11 which is touched on the touch screen 10, and a mapping change module 38 which changes the HW key mapping tables 34a, 34b, . . . to be used, [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakamura combined with Li207 and Li516 to teach, a plurality of mapping tables and changing the mapping table, as suggested by Yamamoto. The motivation would have been in order to improve operability and user interaction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 AMEN W BOGALE whose telephone number is (571)270-1579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:AM-6:PM.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571)272-7677. 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.
/AMEN W BOGALE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/NITIN PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights