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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20230012830) in the view of Frank (US 20110025606).
Regarding claim 1: Rosenberg teaches a method of operating a keyed device (Fig. 1 #100), the method comprising: measuring an initial analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) value for a magnetic field of a magnet coupled to a plunger of a keyswitch; measuring an end ADC value for the magnetic field of the magnet (Figs. 1-3, 9-10 and paragraph [0139-0144, 0156-0157, 0166-0170] teach measuring an analog-to-digital value for change in magnetic field of a magnet 150 coupled to plunger 140, measuring include measuring values initially at key depression and an end value at release of the key); measuring a delta of a swing direction of ADC values between the initial ADC value and the end ADC value, wherein the swing direction corresponds to whether the ADC values increase in a positive direction or decrease in a negative direction; and identifying a type of the keyswitch based on: the initial ADC value; the end ADC value; and the delta of the swing direction (Figs. 1-3, 9-10 and paragraph [0139-0144, 0156-0157, 0166-0170] teach measuring polarity of voltage based on key depression or key release including positive and negative voltages, resulting in measuring swing direction; and based on the above detected values of voltages or current at initial key depression, end key release, and swing direction determining the type of key pressed by the user).
Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose measuring a delta rate of change of the ADC values between the initial ADC value and the end ADC value.
However, Frank teaches measuring a delta rate of change of the ADC values between the initial ADC value and the end ADC value (Fig. 1, 7-9 and paragraph [0036-0043]). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rosenberg’s invention by including above teachings of Frank, because utilizing rate of change of key press allows the system to accurately detect the key presses, as taught by Frank. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 6: Combination of Rosenberg and Frank teach wherein the keyswitch is an analog keyswitch (Rosenberg in Figs. 1, 9-10 and paragraph [0167], and Frank in Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0031, 0042-0044]). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Rosenberg and Frank, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 7: Combination of Rosenberg and Frank teach wherein the keyed device is a keyboard (Rosenberg in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0016] keyboard 100 and Frank in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0035] keyboard 14). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Rosenberg and Frank, same rationale applies here.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20230012830), in the view of Frank (US 20110025606), and further in the view of Drezet (US 20220171470).
Regarding claim 2: Combination of Rosenberg and Frank teach wherein the measuring of the initial ADC value, the end ADC value, the delta of the swing direction, and the delta rate of change (see arguments made for claim 1 rejection, same rationale applies here).
Combination of Rosenberg and Frank do not explicitly disclose above measurements performed by a tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) sensor.
However, Drezet teaches an input device with a tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) sensor (paragraph [0169]). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date to modify combination of Rosenberg and Frank, by including above teachings of Drezet, because it is very well-known and widely used in the art to utilize TMR sensor to accurately detect the magnetic field, and same sensor can be applied to combination of Rosenberg and Frank. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claims 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20230012830), in the view of Frank (US 20110025606), and further in the view of Bruwer (US 20220407515).
Regarding claim 8: Rosenberg teaches an apparatus comprising: a substrate with a surface that defines an opening; a keyswitch mounted on the substrate; a plunger with a magnet configured thereon, the plunger operable to depressed over a range of motion (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0016-0022] teach a substrate 110 with a surface that defines an opening; a keyswitch mounted on the substrate; a plunger 140 with magnet 150 configured thereon, the plunger 140 operable to depressed over a range of motion); a magnetic field sensor operable to: measure an initial analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) value for a magnetic field of the magnet when the plunger is in a first position; measure an end ADC value for the magnetic field of the magnet when the plunger is in a second position (Figs. 1-3, 9-10 and paragraph [0139-0144, 0156-0157, 0166-0170] teach elements 150, 120 in combination act as a sensor for measuring an analog-to-digital value for change in magnetic field of a magnet 150 coupled to plunger 140, measuring include measuring values initially at key depression and an end value at release of the key); measure a delta of a swing direction of ADC values between the initial ADC value and the end ADC value, wherein the swing direction corresponds to whether the ADC values increase in a positive direction or decrease in a negative direction; and one or more processors configured to identify a type of the keyswitch based on: the initial ADC value; the end ADC value; the delta of the swing direction (Figs. 1-3, 9-10 and paragraph [0139-0144, 0156-0157, 0166-0170] teach measuring polarity of voltage based on key depression or key release including positive and negative voltages, resulting in measuring swing direction; and based on the above detected values of voltages or current at initial key depression, end key release, and swing direction determining the type of key pressed by the user by controller and/or processor 170).
Rosenberg does not explicitly disclose the plunger operable to depressed over a range of motion that passes through the opening of the substrate; measure a delta rate of change of the ADC values as the plunger moves between the first position and second position.
However, Frank teaches measuring a delta rate of change of the ADC values between the initial ADC value and the end ADC value (Fig. 1, 7-9 and paragraph [0036-0043]). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rosenberg’s invention by including above teachings of Frank, because utilizing rate of change of key press allows the system to accurately detect the key presses, as taught by Frank. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, Bruwer teaches a keypad device with the plunger operable to depressed over a range of motion that passes through the opening of the substrate; (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0070] teach a substrate 4.3 defining an opening 4.7, a keyswitch mounted on the substrate 4.3, a plunger 4.1+4.5 operable to be depressed and move between a first position and a second position; and a magnet 4.6 coupled to the plunger 4.5, when plunger is depressed the magnet 4.6 is operable to pass through the opening of the substrate 4.3). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rosenberg’s invention by including above teachings of Bruwer, because such structure is merely an alternate design to move a magnet from a first position to a second position to detect a key press, as taught by Bruwer. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 13: Combination of Rosenberg, Frank, and Bruwer teach wherein the keyswitch is an analog keyswitch (Rosenberg in Figs. 1, 9-10 and paragraph [0167], and Frank in Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0031, 0042-0044]). See claim 8 rejection for combination reasoning of Rosenberg and Frank, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 14: Combination of Rosenberg, Frank, and Bruwer teach wherein the apparatus is a keyboard (Rosenberg in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0016] keyboard 100 and Frank in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0035] keyboard 14). See claim 8 rejection for combination reasoning of Rosenberg and Frank, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 15: Rosenberg teaches wherein the substrate is a printed circuit board (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0035]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20230012830), in the view of Frank (US 20110025606), in the view of Bruwer (US 20220407515), and further in the view of Drezet (US 20220171470).
Regarding claim 9: Combination of Rosenberg, Frank, and Bruwer do not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic field sensor is a tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) sensor.
However, Drezet teaches an input device with a tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) sensor (paragraph [0169]). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date to modify combination of Rosenberg, Frank, and Bruwer, by including above teachings of Drezet, because it is very well-known and widely used in the art to utilize TMR sensor to accurately detect the magnetic field, and same sensor can be applied to combination of Rosenberg and Frank. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 10-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights