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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed April 20, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Moon (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In lines 5-7, Claim 1 states: “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”. This implies that the touch pad is provided on either the right or left side face or on both the right and left side faces. The touch pad is not provided on the top face, bottom face, front face or back face. Lines 10-11 state that a second guide is provided on the front face side or the back face side on the touch pad. This limitation is unclear. It is established that the touch pad is on the side faces yet this limitation is stating that the second guide is provided on the front/back face on the touch pad. According to the claim there is no touch pad on the front/back face. Moreover, Figures 7B-7C of the pending application illustrate that the guides are provided on the same surface and make a “U” shape around the touch pad. Please clarify. In the rejection below the Office Action will interpret the limitation as the guides surrounding the touch pad.
Claims 2-4 depend upon claim 1 and thus are also rejected.
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) 1-4 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”).
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 on the front face side or the back face side on the touch pad; 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 on the front face side or the back face side on the touch pad (Fig. 2 at 208 above 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 and 23). 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).
As to Claim 2, Smith, as modified by Moon, teaches that the 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 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 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 left and right 208).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Papakipos et al. U.S. Patent 8,711,116 (Fig. 5A)
Duvvuru Kamakshi et al. U.S. Patent 12,086,299 (Figs. 3-4)
Rajbenbach et al. USPGPUB 2002/0106115 (Fig. 2)
Ferren et al. USPGPUB 2010/0315356 (Fig. 3)
Nakamura USPGPUB 2015/0355684 (Figs. 1-2)
Watanabe et al. USPGPUB 2017/0212615 (Figs. 9-16)
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.
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