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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6,8-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3,10-12,14-23 of U.S. Patent No 12,517,598. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims of the instant Application are a broader version of the claims of the patent and therefore, overlap in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAO (US 2011/0069008).
Regarding claim 1, KAO discloses an input device 10 (), comprising: a switch having 3012 an activation element 3014 (paragraph 32); a button 103 disposed in relative to the switch (paragraph 32); an obstruction member 302 movable to be positioned between the switch and the button to block the button from engaging the activation element of the switch (paragraph 36; The length and width of the recess 111 is larger than the length and width of the extending portion 304 but smaller than those of the base 305. Therefore, the adjustable mechanism 30 can move along with the recess 111 without shift).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses wherein the button is depressible from an undepressed position to a depressed position to engage the activation element of the switch when the obstruction member is in a first position, wherein the obstruction member is configured to move between the first position and a second position, wherein the button is blocked from being depressible to the depressed position when the obstruction member is in the second position (Figure 1, 2; paragraph 36,37; As described, recess can be any length and therefore, would allow direct positioning of contact portion 1031 over switch activation portion 3014 in a first position).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses wherein when the obstruction member is in the second position, the obstruction member is in between the switch and the button (Figure 1, 2; paragraph 36, 37).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses further comprising a selector 3031 operable to cause the obstruction member to be positioned between the switch and the button to block the button from engaging the activation element of the switch (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses further comprising a motion changing arrangement operatively arranged between the selector and the obstruction member to transform a motion of the selector into a motion of the obstruction member between the first position and the second position (paragraph 34-36).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses further comprising: a guiding member 304, configured to guide movement of the objection member along the movement axis between the first position and the second position (paragraph 34, 35).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses further comprising: a biasing member 111, configured to bias the obstruction member (paragraph 34-36).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses further comprising: a housing 11, 12, the housing comprising an aperture, wherein the selector is accessible through the aperture of the housing and operable by a user (Figure 1, 2).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses wherein the aperture is disposed on a bottom surface of the housing (Figure 1, 2; bottom is relative to a viewed orientation and can be interpreted as any portion of the housing)
Regarding claim 17, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses wherein the housing comprising a further aperture disposed on a side surface of the housing and wherein the button is accessible through the further aperture of the housing and operable by a user (Figure 1, 2; button portion connecting outer housing with inner cavity).
Regarding claim 20, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. KAO further discloses further comprising: a support component 301 disposed between the obstruction member and the selector, wherein the support component comprises a through-hole for receiving a lower portion of the obstruction member (Figure 1, 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAO (US 2011/0069008).
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, KAO does not expressly disclose wherein the switch comprises a mechanical-type switch capable of producing an audible click sound or providing a clicking tactile sensation or both upon being actuated. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a mechanical-type switch capable of producing an audible click sound or providing a clicking tactile sensation or both upon being actuated is well known and conventional in the art and has been known to provide a user feedback when operating an input device. Therefore, provisioning of a known components would be a design a choice requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAO (US 2011/0069008) and further in view of HSIUNG (US 2006/0109239).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, KAO does not expressly disclose further comprising: a processor configured to communicate an output signal to a computer based on activation of the switch when the obstruction member is in the first position. In a similar field of endeavor, HSIUNG discloses a processor 31 configured to communicate an output signal to a computer based on activation of a switch 151 when a member 16 is in the first position (paragraph 22, 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify KAO to include the teachings of HSIUNG, since HSIUNG states that such a modification would provide mode selection based on a external selection by a user. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional processing means based on those disclosed by HSIUNG.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior Art fails to disclose “wherein the motion changing arrangement comprises an engagement portion at the selector in engagement with a corresponding engagement portion at the obstruction member, wherein the engagement portion at the selector comprises an engagement surface inclined with respect to the sliding axis and the corresponding engagement portion at the obstruction member comprises an engagement tip, wherein the engagement tip of the corresponding engagement portion at the obstruction member is in abutment with the engagement surface of the engagement portion at the selector in a manner such that the engagement tip slides along the engagement surface to move the obstruction member along the movement axis when the selector slides along the sliding axis.” Although motion is transferred to the obstruction portion, Prior Art fails to disclose specific arrangement as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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 (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights