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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed June 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oh et al. (see below).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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. Applicant is 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent 7,088,343—hereinafter “Smith”) in view of Moon et al. (USPGPUB 2007/0018964—hereinafter “Moon”) and Oh et al. (U.S. Patent 6,266,050—hereinafter “Oh”).
As to Claim 1, Smith teaches a keyboard apparatus (See Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
an enclosure (Figs. 1 and 2 at 100) including a top face (Fig. 1 at 108), a bottom face (Fig. 1 at face opposite 108), a front face (Fig. 1 at 102; note long 116), a back face (Fig. 1 at 102; face opposite long 116) and two side faces (Fig. 1 at 102 on left and right sides of 108 and Col. 5, line 35—Col. 7, line 12).
a touch pad provided on at least one of the two side faces along a direction from a front face side to a back face side, to receive a swipe operation of a user (Figs. 1 and 2 at left and right side 102 and Col. 7, lines 38-63, Col. 8, lines 7-42 and Col. 9, lines 49-62).
Smith, however, fails to teach a first guide provided below the touch pad; a second guide provided at a right end portion or left end portion of the touch pad when the side face on which the touch pad is provided is viewed from a front of said side face; wherein the first guide and the second guide cause the user to recognize a position of a region of the swipe operation in the touch pad in a direction from the front face side to the back face side, by a difference in level formed by the first guide and the second guide. Examiner cites Moon to teach a portable device having a first guide provided below a touch pad (Fig. 2 at 208 below 206); a second guide provided at a right end portion or left end portion of the touch pad when the side face on which the touch pad is provided is viewed from a front of said side face (Fig. 2 at 208 at right/left of 206); wherein the first guide and the second guide cause a user to recognize a position of a region of a swipe operation in the touch pad in a direction from the front face side to the back face side, by a difference in level formed by the first guide and the second guide (Pg. 2, ¶’s 21, 23 and 26). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate guides as taught by Moon in the keyboard apparatus taught by Smith, in order to help assist the user in locating touch pad without having to view the touchpad. (Moon, Pg. 2, ¶ 23).
Smith, as modified by Moon, fails to teach a switching part to switch between validation and invalidation of an operation of the touch pad. Examiner cites Oh to teach a keyboard apparatus (Fig. 3 at 100) with a switching part (120c) to switch between validation and invalidation of an operation of the touch pad (Col. 6, lines 44-56). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a switching part that switches between validation and invalidation of an operation of the touch pad, as taught by Oh, in the keyboard apparatus taught by Smith, as modified by Moon, in order to help prevent inadvertent operation of the touchpad during keyboard input operation (Oh, Col. 1, lines 15-20).
As to Claim 2, Smith, as modified by Moon, teaches that the first guide is formed to protrude outward from the touch pad in a direction intersecting to the extending direction (Moon, See Fig. 2 at 208 and Pg. 2, ¶ 23).
As to Claim 3, Smith, as modified by Moon, teaches that the first guide includes a recessed part provided to face the touch pad (Moon, See Fig. 2 at 208 and Pg. 2, ¶ 23).
As to Claim 4, the combination of Smith and Moon, teaches that the first guide does not face the top face of the enclosure (Smith, See Figs. 1 and 2 with touch pads located at the sides of the enclosure and Moon, See Fig. 2 at 208 below 206).
As to Claim 5, Smith, as modified by Moon and Oh, fails to teach that the first guide and the second guide are connected to each other. The specification, however, shows no apparent benefits in having the guides connected to each other. Therefore, having the guides connected to each other is clearly a design choice based on the specific requirement of the claim. Furthermore, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any type of guides, including guides that connect with each other, in the keyboard apparatus taught by Smith, as modified by Moon and Oh, since any type of guides would perform equally well at guiding the user to the touch pad.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 9AM - 5PM 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights