Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-03-06)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement, Double Patenting

CLAIMS:
CLAIMS What is claimed is:
1\. A computing device, comprising: a housing; a keyboard positioned in the housing and including an adjustable key mechanism having a keycap and a haptic actuator; a sensor positioned in the housing; a processor configured to access a memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: detect, via a signal from the sensor, an input characteristic of a user providing input to the adjustable key mechanism; and control the haptic actuator of the adjustable key mechanism to provide feedback corresponding to the input characteristic.
2\. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the input characteristic includes a rate of the input provided to the adjustable key mechanism at the keycap.
3\. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the keycap is a first keycap, and wherein detecting the input characteristic includes: detecting, via the signal from the sensor, a first finger of the user at the first keycap, detecting, via a second signal from a second sensor, a second finger of the user at a second keycap, and determining the input characteristic based on positions of the first finger at the first keycap and the second finger at the second keycap.
4\. The computing device of claim 1, wherein controlling the haptic actuator includes adjusting an amount of a force required to actuate the keycap.
5\. A method of adjusting an keyboard of a computing device, the method comprising: determining, via a sensor of a computing device, an input characteristic of a user at a keyboard of the computing device; determining, via a processor of the computing device, an input device configuration based on the input characteristic of the user; altering a property of a key of the keyboard based on the input device configuration.
6\. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining, via the sensor, a rate of input provided by the user to the keyboard based on input signals produced in response to actuation of the keyboard.
7\. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining, via the sensor, a force applied to a keycap of the keyboard.
8\. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining a size of at least a portion of a hand of the user.
9\. The method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a light sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the light sensor, a change in sensed light as the user moves at least the portion of the hand over the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in sensed light.
10\. The method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first finger of the hand of the user and a second finger of the hand of the user; and determining, via the processor, a relative size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first finger and the second finger.
11\. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining a position of at least a portion of the hand of a user relative to the keyboard.
12\. The method of claim 11, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the position comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first key of the keyboard and a second key of the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the position of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first key and the second key.
13\. The method of claim 5, wherein altering the property of the key includes providing a haptic output sensation to the user at the key via a magnetic component.
14\. The method of claim 5, wherein altering the property of the key includes altering a resistance between magnetic components of the key of the keyboard.
15\. The method of claim 14, wherein the magnetic components include at least one coil, and wherein altering the resistance between magnetic components includes adjusting current provided to the at least one coil.
16\. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the input device configuration includes tracking the input characteristic over a period of time, and wherein altering the property of the key occurs after the period of time.
17\. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the input device configuration includes configuring the keyboard to alter the property of the key in substantially real-time.
18\. A keyboard, comprising: a housing; a set of keys positioned in the housing; a set of touch sensors associated with the set of keys; and a set of haptic actuators associated with the set of keys; wherein, in response to detection of a first user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys.
19\. The keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors and the set of haptic actuators are connected to an electronic device including a processor and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to detect the first user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the first haptic feedback; and detect the second user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the second haptic feedback.
20\. The keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors include a set of capacitive sensors to measure a change in capacitance between fingers of a user having the first user input characteristic or the second user input characteristic.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 § 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.
Claim 17 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is not definite and examiner suggest applicant to remove it from the claim.
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 1-3 and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11394385. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the same inventive entity or name at least one joint inventor in common. The instant application 17806936 is rejected with the Non-Statutory Double Patenting with above US Patent No. 11394385 because the above US Patent is mainly claiming a key input for the input device is adjustable with the magnetic force and the instant application is also claiming the similar concept therefore it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize above US patent to reject the instant application. Please see the non-statutory double patenting table below.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Table:
Instant application 17806936
US Patent No. 11394385
1. A computing device, comprising: a housing; a keyboard positioned in the housing and including an adjustable key mechanism having a keycap and a haptic actuator; a sensor positioned in the housing; a processor configured to access a memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: detect, via a signal from the sensor, an input characteristic of a user providing input to the adjustable key mechanism; and control the haptic actuator of the adjustable key mechanism to provide feedback corresponding to the input characteristic.
2. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the input characteristic includes a rate of the input provided to the adjustable key mechanism at the keycap.
1. A key mechanism, comprising: an input mechanism operative to move from a first position to a second position in response to a received input, the input mechanism including a sensor or switch, the sensor or switch being configured to initiate an input signal in response to movement of the input mechanism to the second position, the input mechanism comprising a keycap; a first magnetic component coupled to the keycap; a second magnetic component spaced apart from the first magnetic component and spaced apart from the keycap, wherein a magnetic force between the first and second magnetic components is adjustable; a third magnetic component coupled to the keycap; a fourth magnetic component spaced apart from the third magnetic component and spaced apart from the keycap, wherein a magnetic force between the third and fourth magnetic components is adjustable; and a drive circuit operable to dynamically alter a magnetic property of at least one of the first and second magnetic components and at least one of the third and fourth magnetic components; wherein in a first condition of the keycap mechanism, the drive circuit is configured to alter the magnetic property of the at least one of the first and second magnetic components, wherein the second magnetic component interacts with the first magnetic component to produce a first haptic output in response to the received input, the first haptic output comprising a movement of the input mechanism perpendicular to the received input in a first direction; and wherein in a second condition of the input device, the drive circuit is configured to alter the magnetic property of the at least one of the third and fourth magnetic components, wherein the fourth magnetic component interacts with the third magnetic component to produce a second haptic output in response to the received input, the second haptic output comprising a movement of the input mechanism perpendicular to the received input in a second direction, the first direction being different from the second direction.
3. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the keycap is a first keycap, and wherein detecting the input characteristic includes: detecting, via the signal from the sensor, a first finger of the user at the first keycap, detecting, via a second signal from a second sensor, a second finger of the user at a second keycap, and determining the input characteristic based on positions of the first finger at the first keycap and the second finger at the second keycap.
5. The keycap mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a second sensor operative to detect an input characteristic associated with the received input, wherein the input characteristic includes at least one of: a magnitude of force applied to the input mechanism, a hand size of a user, a finger size of a user, a hand placement on the input device, a finger placement on the input device, and a speed of input applied to the input mechanism.
18. A keyboard, comprising: a housing; a set of keys positioned in the housing; a set of touch sensors associated with the set of keys; and a set of haptic actuators associated with the set of keys; wherein, in response to detection of a first user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys.
19. The keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors and the set of haptic actuators are connected to an electronic device including a processor and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to detect the first user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the first haptic feedback; and detect the second user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the second haptic feedback.
8. A key mechanism, comprising: a keycap; an enclosure defining an aperture in which the keycap is positioned; a first magnetic component positioned on the keycap; a second magnetic component coupled to the enclosure, wherein at least one of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component comprises a first electromagnet configured to move the keycap in a first lateral direction within the aperture to provide a first haptic output; a third magnetic component positioned on the keycap; a fourth magnetic component coupled to the enclosure, wherein at least one of the third magnetic component and the fourth magnetic component comprises a second electromagnet configured to move the keycap in a second lateral direction within the aperture to provide a second haptic output, the second lateral direction being non-parallel to the first lateral direction; and a drive circuit operable to dynamically alter a magnetic property of the first electromagnet to provide the first haptic output and operable to dynamically alter a magnetic property of the second electromagnet to provide the second haptic output.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263 in view of Soh et al. US 20060132446.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson et al. teach A computing device, comprising: a housing; a keyboard positioned in the housing (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; figures 1-25; FIGS. 6-8 offer three different views of an example haptic keyboard 600 that is configured to implement the techniques described herein to provide a satisfying tactile user experience. FIG. 6 is an isometric view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 7 is top pan view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 8 is a side elevation view of the example haptic keyboard 600. As depicted, the example haptic keyboard 600 has a housing 602, an array of keys 604, and a touchpad 606 (par. 44).) and a haptic actuator; a sensor positioned in the housing; a processor configured to access a memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: detect, via a signal from the sensor, an input characteristic of a user providing input to the adjustable key mechanism; and control the haptic actuator of the adjustable key mechanism to provide feedback corresponding to the input characteristic (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). Sensor 1014 is positioned directly under keycap 1002 and corresponds to that keycap. Similarly, sensor 1016 is positioned directly under keycap 1004 and corresponds to that keycap. Each sensor sends force-sensing signals to the sensor logic in response to the force applied by its corresponding keycap when pressed by a user (par. 52). The active-feedback actuation module 2230 includes an actuation mechanism 2232 and the actuation drive logic 2234. The actuation drive mechanism 2232 corresponds, in this example, to the actuation mechanism 1020 depicted in FIGS. 10-20. In response to the appropriate signals from the sensor logic 2224, the actuation drive logic 2234 fires the actuation mechanism 2234 with the appropriate timing and characteristics. The actuation drive logic 2234 is designed to drive the actuation planes, which have conductive properties, with an electrical signal to cause the permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes effective to provide tactile feedback to the user (par. 121).).
However, Peterson et al. do teach a keycap, but Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach and including an adjustable key mechanism having a keycap.
Soh et al. teach and including an adjustable key mechanism having a keycap (Soh et al. US 20060132446 abstract; paragraphs [0011]-[0013]; ]0015]-[0024]; [0059]-[0065]; figures 1-14; The present invention provides a key input apparatus using a magnetic force to adjust the height of each key (par. 11).).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Peterson et al. and Soh et al. by comprising the teaching of Soh et al. into the system of Peterson et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a magnetic force to adjust the height of each key from Soh et al. reference into Peterson et al. reference so the system can apply a suitable height for user so user can produce more efficiently with correct keyboard.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the input characteristic includes a rate of the input provided to the adjustable key mechanism at the keycap (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129).).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein controlling the haptic actuator includes adjusting an amount of a force required to actuate the keycap (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the amount of force can be adjust according to the various of force amount applied above.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263 in view of Soh et al. US 20060132446 and further in view of Kamata et al. US 20170364259.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 1.
The combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. do not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the keycap is a first keycap, and wherein detecting the input characteristic includes: detecting, via the signal from the sensor, a first finger of the user at the first keycap, detecting, via a second signal from a second sensor, a second finger of the user at a second keycap, and determining the input characteristic based on positions of the first finger at the first keycap and the second finger at the second keycap.
Kamata et al. teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the keycap is a first keycap, and wherein detecting the input characteristic includes: detecting, via the signal from the sensor, a first finger of the user at the first keycap, detecting, via a second signal from a second sensor, a second finger of the user at a second keycap, and determining the input characteristic based on positions of the first finger at the first keycap and the second finger at the second keycap (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). It is desirable that the two keys as a target of determination of the average value of the differences of the change amounts be a specific key pair typed with different fingers in a case of performing the touch typing. For example, keys such as “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” are subjected to the keying operation with a left forefinger, and keys such as “A”, “Z”, and “Q” are subjected to the keying operation with a left little finger of in many cases. Therefore, all of one-to-one combinations of “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” with“A”, “Z”, and “Q” are determined as specific key pairs as targets of determination of the differences of the change amounts (par. 134). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above and forefinger have a higher force than the little finger. Examiner interpreted “F, G, V and B” as the first group of key that have a different amount of force comparing to the second group of key like “A, Z and Q” as mention in par. 134 above.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Peterson et al. and Soh et al. with Kamata et al. by comprising the teaching of Kamata et al.. into the system of Peterson et al. and Soh et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a capacitance device for each key from Kamata et al. reference into Peterson et al. and Soh et al. reference so the system determined different force for each of the different fingers.
Claims 5-8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg US 20150302966 in view of Peterson et al. US 20120092263.
Regarding claim 5, Soelberg teach A method of adjusting an keyboard of a computing device, the method comprising: determining, via a sensor of a computing device, an input characteristic of a user at a keyboard of the computing device (Soelberg US 20150302966 abstract; paragraphs [0029]-[0043]; figures 1-10; In one or more embodiments, the keyboard 312 and/or the computing device 310 can detect the pressing of the variable actuation force device 350 and, responsive to detecting the pressing, can adjust the pressing force of the variable actuation force device 350 by altering the magnitude and/or direction of the current that is energizing the variable force magnet 356. By changing the pressing force in response to detecting the pressing, the keyboard 312 and/or the computing device 310 can provide a keypad or button with a first pressing force in the key UP position and a second rebounding force in the key DOWN position. This technique can, for example, allow the user of the keyboard 312 to experience a combination of soft or light pressing force coupled with hard or heavy rebounding force. Alternatively, a hard or heavy pressing force can be combined with a soft or light rebounding force (par. 41). In one or more embodiments, a variable actuation force device 350 can use a magnet proximity sensor rather a traditional switch like a rubber membrane with conductive material or a mechanical switch that makes or breaks contact. Instead, the variable actuation force device 350 can be constructed with a magnet proximity sensor 302, such as a Hall Effect sensor. The Hall Effect sensor can measure a strength of a magnetic field generated by a magnet 306 in proximity to the magnetic proximity sensor 302. The magnetic proximity sensor 302 outputs a voltage level that corresponds to the strength of the magnetic field it senses from the magnet 306 as a spring-loaded button 304 holding the magnet 306 is depressed (par. 42).).
Soelberg does not explicitly teach determining, via a processor of the computing device, an input device configuration based on the input characteristic of the user; altering a property of a key of the keyboard based on the input device configuration.
Peterson et al. teach determining, via a processor of the computing device, an input device configuration based on the input characteristic of the user; altering a property of a key of the keyboard based on the input device configuration (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the amount of force can be adjusted base on the characteristic of input force from the user as show in the figures 5 and 12-20.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Soelberg and Peterson et al. by comprising the teaching of Peterson et al. into the system of Soelberg. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide force travel diagram from Peterson et al. reference into Soelberg reference so the user can easily determine different force at each different key.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining, via the sensor, a rate of input provided by the user to the keyboard based on input signals produced in response to actuation of the keyboard (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). Next, at operation 2304, the keyboard monitors receive input from the key sensors (such as sensors 1014, 1016 of the example haptic keyboard 600). The input is the keypress force at which the user presses the key. The sensor logic sends the sensor signals to both the haptic logic and the keyboard logic. The ranges of keypress force (applied by the user's finger) is typically between 10-150 grams of force (par. 130). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the rate of force input by the user to the keyboard can be determined by the amount of force that tracked by the keyboard monitors receive input from key sensors as mention in par. 130 above.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining, via the sensor, a force applied to a keycap of the keyboard (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). Next, at operation 2304, the keyboard monitors receive input from the key sensors (such as sensors 1014, 1016 of the example haptic keyboard 600). The input is the keypress force at which the user presses the key. The sensor logic sends the sensor signals to both the haptic logic and the keyboard logic. The ranges of keypress force (applied by the user's finger) is typically between 10-150 grams of force (par. 130). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132).).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining a size of at least a portion of a hand of the user (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0069]-[0074]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; FIG. 12 shows the example assembly 900 during an initial state of the user pressing the key of the example haptic keyboard. The force of the finger 1040 pressing the keycap 1004 is represented by a finger vector 1200. The arrow of the finger vector 1200 indicates the direction the finger is moving and the relative size of the finger vector 1200 indicates the relative amount of force that the finger is applying to the keycap (par. 69). FIG. 13 shows the example assembly 900 in the next stage of the keypress of the example haptic keyboard. As compared to the initial stage of FIG. 12, the keycap 1004 is lower. As indicated by the relatively larger size of the finger vector 1200 in this figure in comparison to the previous figure, the user is pressing the key a bit harder. Similarly, the stretching sections 1210, 1212 of the sealing platform 1012 show that the sealing platform is stretched a bit farther than it was stretched in the previous figure. The snapshot star 1100 of FIG. 13 is positioned just before point B (i.e., the breakover point of the snap-over) of the down-keypress curve 510 of the conventional-key force-travel diagram 500 (par. 72). According to the cites passages and figures, examiner interpreted the system using the comparison of forces corresponding to the characteristic associated with the diagram 500 for determine the size of the finger vector.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein altering the property of the key includes providing a haptic output sensation to the user at the key via a magnetic component (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0162]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Sensor 1014 is positioned directly under keycap 1002 and corresponds to that keycap. Similarly, sensor 1016 is positioned directly under keycap 1004 and corresponds to that keycap. Each sensor sends force-sensing signals to the sensor logic in response to the force applied by its corresponding keycap when pressed by a user (par. 52). The active-feedback actuation module 2230 includes an actuation mechanism 2232 and the actuation drive logic 2234. The actuation drive mechanism 2232 corresponds, in this example, to the actuation mechanism 1020 depicted in FIGS. 10-20. In response to the appropriate signals from the sensor logic 2224, the actuation drive logic 2234 fires the actuation mechanism 2234 with the appropriate timing and characteristics. The actuation drive logic 2234 is designed to drive the actuation planes, which have conductive properties, with an electrical signal to cause the permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes effective to provide tactile feedback to the user (par. 121). It is to be appreciated and understood that other types of return mechanisms can be utilized without departing from the spirit and scope of claimed subject matter. For example, alternative return mechanisms might return the upper plane of the actuation mechanism back to its original position without biasing or spring forces. This return action may be accomplished via repulsion, attraction, or other magnetic or electromagnetic forces. Also, other mechanical actions may restore the gap between the substrates (par. 162).).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein altering the property of the key includes altering a resistance between magnetic components of the key of the keyboard (Soelberg US 20150302966 abstract; paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; [0029]-[0043]; figures 1-10; One embodiment of the subject disclosure includes a method for communicating, by a system comprising a processor, a signal to a variable force magnet at a first portion of a button to initiate a magnetic field. The magnetic field can interact with a ferromagnetic material at a second portion of the button to create a magnetic resistance to pressing of the button. The method also includes detecting, by the system, a change in electrical communication between the first portion of the button and the second portion of the button indicating a button press in counteraction of the magnetic resistance and, in turn, asserting, by the system, a first actuation state responsive to the detecting of the change in electrical communication (par. 20). FIG. 3A depicts an illustrative embodiment of a system 300 for utilizing a variable actuation force device in a keyboard communicatively coupled to a computing device. A computing device 310 can be coupled to a keyboard 312 with all or some of its buttons 316 configured with variable pressing force. Configuration signals can be generated at and/or conveyed by the keyboard to the buttons 316 for configuring and/or adjusting the pressing resistance of the buttons 316. Keystroke signals from the buttons 316 can be processed by circuitry (e.g., analog to digital converter, etc.) of the keyboard 312 to convey to the computing device 310 which buttons have been depressed. The information transmitted to the computing device 310 can be analog or digital signals representing whether buttons 316 are pressed or not pressed (par. 29).).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the magnetic components include at least one coil, and wherein altering the resistance between magnetic components includes adjusting current provided to the at least one coil (Soelberg US 20150302966 abstract; paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; [0029]-[0043]; figures 1-10; For example, the variable magnetic field 384 and the fixed magnetic field can be of net opposite polarity such that a resulting, variable actuation force is generated that resists the pressing of the upper section 352 to the lower section 362. This variable actuation force can be controlled using only the interaction of the magnetic elements 354 and 356, and, in particular, the magnitude and direction of the electric current 382. In another example, the variable magnetic field 384 and the fixed magnetic field can be of net same polarity such that a resulting, variable actuation force of attraction is generated that causes the upper section 352 to be pulled toward the lower section 362. In this case, a spring 368 can be added to provide a force that resists pressing. In this case, a net resistive (to pushing) force can be created by including a spring 368 that provides a fixed repulsion force that is greater than the variable attraction force that is created by the interaction of the response block 354 and the variable force magnet 356. In another embodiment, the spring 368, the variable force magnet 356, and the response block 354 can be placed in a different configuration, whereby the spring 368 provides a force to pull the upper section 352 toward the lower section 362, while the interaction of the variable force magnet 356 and the magnetized response block 354 provide a variable force to push the upper section 352 and the lower section 362 apart (par. 39). As show in the figures 3D, examiner construe wrapping a conductor 360 as a coil, variable force magnet 356 and current 382; ).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input device configuration includes tracking the input characteristic over a period of time, and wherein altering the property of the key occurs after the period of time (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the characteristic of input force from the user as show in the figures 5 and 12-20 can be tracking over period of time corresponding to the diagram 500.).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input device configuration includes configuring the keyboard to alter the property of the key in substantially real-time (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg US 20150302966 in view of Peterson et al. US 20120092263 and further in view of Han et al. US 20120182215.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 8.
The combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a light sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the light sensor, a change in sensed light as the user moves at least the portion of the hand over the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in sensed light.
Han et al. teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a light sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the light sensor, a change in sensed light as the user moves at least the portion of the hand over the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in sensed light (Han et al. US 20120182215 abstract; paragraphs [0009]; [0022]-[0024]; [0034]- [0036]; [0040]-[0049]; [0063]-[0077]; [0086]-[0097]; figures 1-16; For example, the light sensor 320 may collect, from information on the sensed reflected light, information regarding a position of the hand, a size of the hand, a rotation of the hand, a hovering movement of the hand, a movement speed of the hand, and the like (par. 36).).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Soelberg and Peterson et al. with Han et al. by comprising the teaching of Han et al. into the system of Soelberg and Peterson et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a light sensor from Han et al. reference into Soelberg and Peterson et al. reference so the system can detect the position of hand and a size of the hand relative to the keyboard.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg US 20150302966 in view of Peterson et al. US 20120092263 and further in view of Kamata et al. US 20170364259.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 8.
The combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first finger of the hand of the user and a second finger of the hand of the user; and determining, via the processor, a relative size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first finger and the second finger.
Kamata et al. teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first finger of the hand of the user and a second finger of the hand of the user; and determining, via the processor, a relative size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first finger and the second finger (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). Examples of a method of detecting whether the user touches the palm rest 110 or not include a method of disposing a sensor device (not shown) capable of detecting a pressure in an area 120 in the palm rest 110 with which the wrists G of both arms of the user is in contact, such as a capacitive sensor and a resistive touch sensor (par. 144). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Soelberg and Peterson et al. with Kamata et al. by comprising the teaching of Kamata et al.. into the system of Soelberg and Peterson et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a capacitance device for each key from Kamata et al. reference into Soelberg and Peterson et al. reference so the system determined different force for each of the different fingers.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Soelberg, Peterson et al. and Kamata et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining a position of at least a portion of the hand of a user relative to the keyboard (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). Examples of a method of detecting whether the user touches the palm rest 110 or not include a method of disposing a sensor device (not shown) capable of detecting a pressure in an area 120 in the palm rest 110 with which the wrists G of both arms of the user is in contact, such as a capacitive sensor and a resistive touch sensor (par. 144). For a certain period immediately after the input apparatus 1 is booted, the control circuit 340 of the controller 300 obtains an output value of the sensor device provided on the area 120 in the palm rest 110 of the keyboard module 100, and calculates one of a maximum value and an average value within the certain period as an evaluation value for determining whether the palm rest is touched (Step S801) (par. 46). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the sensor device provide on the area 120 in the figure 17 can determine the position of the user hand relative to the keyboard.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Soelberg, Peterson et al. and Kamata et al. disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the position comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first key of the keyboard and a second key of the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the position of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first key and the second key (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). It is desirable that the two keys as a target of determination of the average value of the differences of the change amounts be a specific key pair typed with different fingers in a case of performing the touch typing. For example, keys such as “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” are subjected to the keying operation with a left forefinger, and keys such as “A”, “Z”, and “Q” are subjected to the keying operation with a left little finger of in many cases. Therefore, all of one-to-one combinations of “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” with“A”, “Z”, and “Q” are determined as specific key pairs as targets of determination of the differences of the change amounts (par. 134). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above and forefinger have a higher force than the little finger. Examiner interpreted “F, G, V and B” as the first group of key that have a different amount of force comparing to the second group of key like “A, Z and Q” as mention in par. 134 above.), at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key as mention in par. 61 above. Since the keyboard provide the feedback at each time when the user pressed down the key, therefore, it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple user like first, second, third and so on. The keyboard is still provided feedback at any time user applied the force to the key.).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263.
Regarding claim 18, Peterson et al. teach A keyboard, comprising: a housing; a set of keys positioned in the housing; a set of touch sensors associated with the set of keys; and a set of haptic actuators associated with the set of keys; wherein, in response to detection of a first user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; FIGS. 6-8 offer three different views of an example haptic keyboard 600 that is configured to implement the techniques described herein to provide a satisfying tactile user experience. FIG. 6 is an isometric view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 7 is top pan view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 8 is a side elevation view of the example haptic keyboard 600. As depicted, the example haptic keyboard 600 has a housing 602, an array of keys 604, and a touchpad 606 (par. 44). Sensor 1014 is positioned directly under keycap 1002 and corresponds to that keycap. Similarly, sensor 1016 is positioned directly under keycap 1004 and corresponds to that keycap. Each sensor sends force-sensing signals to the sensor logic in response to the force applied by its corresponding keycap when pressed by a user (par. 52). The actuation mechanism 1020 is designed to permit at least one of the actuation planes to move relative to the other. This movement is effective to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses one of the plurality of keycaps via that keycap (par. 59). In addition, each of the FIGS. 11-20 includes the force-travel diagram 500 of FIG. 5 of a conventional key. This diagram is not representative of the force-travel characteristics of the keys of the example haptic keyboard 600. Rather, the force-travel diagram 500 in each of these figures is representative of the force-travel characteristics of the keypress of a key of a conventional keyboard, like those shown in FIGS. 1-4 and described in the background (par. 65).), at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key as mention in par. 61 above. Since the keyboard provide the feedback at each time when the user pressed down the key, therefore, it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple user like first, second, third and so on. The keyboard is still provided feedback at any time user applied the force to the key.).
However, Peterson et al. do teach a haptic key board and provide feedback to the user when the user press a key but Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys. It’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have feedback for different users like first, second, third and so on to press the key on the key board and the keyboard still provide a feedback because there is the actuation device include in the keyboard.
Regarding claim 19, Peterson et al. disclose the keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors and the set of haptic actuators are connected to an electronic device including a processor and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to detect the first user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the first haptic feedback; and detect the second user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the second haptic feedback (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key as mention in par. 61 above. Since the keyboard provide the feedback at each time when the user pressed down the key, therefore, it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple user like first, second, third and so on. The keyboard is still provided feedback at any time user applied the force to the key.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263 in view of Kamata et al. US 20170364259.
Regarding claim 20, Peterson et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 18.
Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach the keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors include a set of capacitive sensors to measure a change in capacitance between fingers of a user having the first user input characteristic or the second user input characteristic.
Kamata et al. teach the keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors include a set of capacitive sensors to measure a change in capacitance between fingers of a user having the first user input characteristic or the second user input characteristic (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). It is desirable that the two keys as a target of determination of the average value of the differences of the change amounts be a specific key pair typed with different fingers in a case of performing the touch typing. For example, keys such as “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” are subjected to the keying operation with a left forefinger, and keys such as “A”, “Z”, and “Q” are subjected to the keying operation with a left little finger of in many cases. Therefore, all of one-to-one combinations of “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” with“A”, “Z”, and “Q” are determined as specific key pairs as targets of determination of the differences of the change amounts (par. 134). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above and forefinger have a higher force than the little finger. Examiner interpreted “F, G, V and B” as the first group of key that have a different amount of force comparing to the second group of key like “A, Z and Q” as mention in par. 134 above.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Peterson et al. and Kamata et al. by comprising the teaching of Kamata et al.. into the system of Peterson et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a capacitance device for each key from Kamata et al. reference into Peterson et al. reference so the system determined different force for each of the different fingers.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
This responds to the Office Action dated 6 March 2024. Claims 1, 5, 11, 17, and 18 are currently amended. The amendments are supported throughout the specification, drawings and original claims of the application, such as, for example, paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0063], [0070], [0098], and [0171] of the specification and figures 2A-2B, 7A- 7C, 18, and their related descriptions in the specification. No new matter has been added. Claim 16 is withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-15 and 17-20 are currently pending. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the application in view of the foregoing amendments and following remarks.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3 and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 8 U.S. Patent No. 11394385. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the double patenting rejection of claims 1-3 and 18 in view of the foregoing amendments and following remarks.
Claim Re
j
ections - 35 U.S.C.
§
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 USC 112 2 (pre-AIA) as allegedly being indefinite. Applicant has amended claim 17 to remove the term "substantially." No new matter has been added. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the rejection under section 112.
Claim Re
j
ections - 35 U.S.C.
§
Claims 1-2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Peterson (U.S. Pat. App. Publication No. 2012/0092263) in view of Soh et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Publication No. 2006/0132446). Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 allegedly being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Soh and further in view of Kamata (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0364259).
An obviousness rejection is proper only where the claimed subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. 35 U.S.C. § 103. "The examiner bears the initial burden of
supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness." MPEP § 2142. In particular, the Examiner must consider "[a]ll words in a claim . . . in judging the patentability of the claim against the prior art" and provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.03 (citing In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970)). "If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious." MPEP § 2143.03 (citing In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Independent claim 1
Claim 1, as amended, recites, inter alia, " a processor configured to access a memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: . . . control the haptic actuator of the adjustable key mechanism to provide feedback corresponding to the input characteristic; wherein the feedback comprises a vibration via the keycap."
The above noted features of claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by the Peterson and Soh references. Peterson teaches force modulation to mimic the snap-over effect of conventional keys, but does not teach haptic feedback produced by the keyboard in the form of a vibration of the keycap. Instead, the feedback in Peterson comprises only a single pulse (as shown in the force profile diagram 500 of Peterson at FIG. 5). A single pulse or bump cannot reasonably be referred to as "vibration" of a keycap.
Soh likewise lacks disclosure of feedback comprising a vibration. Instead, Soh teaches adjusting the height of the keys using a magnetic force. Merely adjusting the height of keys is not reasonably equivalent to feedback comprising a vibration.
The Kamata reference does not overcome the deficiencies of Peterson and Soh. As a result, the art of record does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the Section 103 rejection of claim
1 and any claims dependent upon it.
Claims 5-8 and 13-7 stand rejected under Section 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Soelberg (U.S. Publication No. 20150302966) in view of Peterson. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg in view of
Peterson and in further view of Han et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Publication No. 2012/0182215). Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg in view of Peterson and further in view of Kamata. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Independent claim 5
Claim  5, as amended, recites, inter alia, "determining the input device configuration includes tracking the input characteristic over a period of time, and wherein altering the property of the key occurs after the period of time."
The Soelberg and Peterson references do not teach or suggest the above-indicated features of claim 5. Soelberg and Peterson teach adjustable haptic profiles and key settings, but their profiles and settings are not altered in response to tracking an input characteristic over a period of time. For example, the force-travel diagram 500 shown in Peterson illustrates the force profile or change in force profile during a keypress as sensed by the sensors 1014, 1016, but it does not represent tracking of the input force over time by a haptic keyboard. In other words, Peterson reacts to input, but it does not react to input provided over a period of time and particularly after the period of time in the manner recited in claim 5. Thus, the change in haptic profile taught in Peterson is not dependent on tracking an input characteristic over time, but is instead dependent on a force or position threshold. See paragraph [0133] of Peterson.
The remaining cited references fail to remedy the deficiencies of Soelberg and Peterson. Accordingly, the cited art does not disclose or suggest all of the features of amended independent claim 5. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal the rejection of claim 5 under section 103 and the rejections of any claims dependent upon it.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Peterson. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Kamata.
Independent claim 18
Claim 18, as amended, recites, inter alia, "a set of keys positioned in the housing; a set of touch sensors associated with the set of keys; and a set of haptic actuators
associated with the set of keys; wherein, in response to detection of a first user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys; wherein the first user input characteristic is different from the second user input characteristic, and wherein the first haptic feedback is different from the second haptic feedback."
The above-indicated features are not disclosed or suggested by Peterson and/or Kamata. The Examiner argues that Peterson discloses the limitations of current claim 18 because different users can interact with a keyboard. However, different users with a Peterson keyboard would not receive different haptic feedback in response to different user input characteristics being detected. Instead, there would be one output/feedback setting, and different users, no matter how they interact with the keys, would receive the same output/feedback. For example, step 2302 in FIG. 23 of Peterson comes before, and not in a cycle with, the following steps. See Peterson at FIG. 23. This means the haptic profile (pre-set in step 2302) would not be affected by input from the sensors (e.g., at step 2304). Id.
The remaining cited references fail to remedy the deficiencies of Peterson. Accordingly, the art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 18. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal the Section 103 rejection of independent claim 18 and any claims dependent upon it.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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
The amendment filed on 06/06/2024 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-3 and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11394385. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the same inventive entity or name at least one joint inventor in common. The instant application 17806936 is rejected with the Non-Statutory Double Patenting with above US Patent No. 11394385 because the above US Patent is mainly claiming a key input for the input device is adjustable with the magnetic force and the instant application is also claiming the similar concept therefore it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize above US patent to reject the instant application. Please see the non-statutory double patenting table below.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Table:
Instant application 17806936
US Patent No. 11394385
1. A computing device, comprising: a housing; a keyboard positioned in the housing and including an adjustable key mechanism having a keycap and a haptic actuator; a sensor positioned in the housing; a processor configured to access a memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: detect, via a signal from the sensor, an input characteristic of a user providing input to the adjustable key mechanism; and control the haptic actuator of the adjustable key mechanism to provide feedback corresponding to the input characteristic; wherein the feedback comprise a vibration via keycap.
2. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the input characteristic includes a rate of the input provided to the adjustable key mechanism at the keycap.
1. A key mechanism, comprising: an input mechanism operative to move from a first position to a second position in response to a received input, the input mechanism including a sensor or switch, the sensor or switch being configured to initiate an input signal in response to movement of the input mechanism to the second position, the input mechanism comprising a keycap; a first magnetic component coupled to the keycap; a second magnetic component spaced apart from the first magnetic component and spaced apart from the keycap, wherein a magnetic force between the first and second magnetic components is adjustable; a third magnetic component coupled to the keycap; a fourth magnetic component spaced apart from the third magnetic component and spaced apart from the keycap, wherein a magnetic force between the third and fourth magnetic components is adjustable; and a drive circuit operable to dynamically alter a magnetic property of at least one of the first and second magnetic components and at least one of the third and fourth magnetic components; wherein in a first condition of the keycap mechanism, the drive circuit is configured to alter the magnetic property of the at least one of the first and second magnetic components, wherein the second magnetic component interacts with the first magnetic component to produce a first haptic output in response to the received input, the first haptic output comprising a movement of the input mechanism perpendicular to the received input in a first direction; and wherein in a second condition of the input device, the drive circuit is configured to alter the magnetic property of the at least one of the third and fourth magnetic components, wherein the fourth magnetic component interacts with the third magnetic component to produce a second haptic output in response to the received input, the second haptic output comprising a movement of the input mechanism perpendicular to the received input in a second direction, the first direction being different from the second direction.
3. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the keycap is a first keycap, and wherein detecting the input characteristic includes: detecting, via the signal from the sensor, a first finger of the user at the first keycap, detecting, via a second signal from a second sensor, a second finger of the user at a second keycap, and determining the input characteristic based on positions of the first finger at the first keycap and the second finger at the second keycap.
5. The keycap mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a second sensor operative to detect an input characteristic associated with the received input, wherein the input characteristic includes at least one of: a magnitude of force applied to the input mechanism, a hand size of a user, a finger size of a user, a hand placement on the input device, a finger placement on the input device, and a speed of input applied to the input mechanism.
18. A keyboard, comprising: a housing; a set of keys positioned in the housing; a set of touch sensors associated with the set of keys; and a set of haptic actuators associated with the set of keys; wherein, in response to detection of a first user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys, wherein the first user input characteristic is different from the second user input characteristic, and wherein the first haptic feedback is different from the second haptic feedback.
19. The keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors and the set of haptic actuators are connected to an electronic device including a processor and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to detect the first user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the first haptic feedback; and detect the second user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the second haptic feedback.
8. A key mechanism, comprising: a keycap; an enclosure defining an aperture in which the keycap is positioned; a first magnetic component positioned on the keycap; a second magnetic component coupled to the enclosure, wherein at least one of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component comprises a first electromagnet configured to move the keycap in a first lateral direction within the aperture to provide a first haptic output; a third magnetic component positioned on the keycap; a fourth magnetic component coupled to the enclosure, wherein at least one of the third magnetic component and the fourth magnetic component comprises a second electromagnet configured to move the keycap in a second lateral direction within the aperture to provide a second haptic output, the second lateral direction being non-parallel to the first lateral direction; and a drive circuit operable to dynamically alter a magnetic property of the first electromagnet to provide the first haptic output and operable to dynamically alter a magnetic property of the second electromagnet to provide the second haptic output.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263 in view of Soh et al. US 20060132446.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson et al. teach A computing device, comprising: a housing; a keyboard positioned in the housing (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; figures 1-25; FIGS. 6-8 offer three different views of an example haptic keyboard 600 that is configured to implement the techniques described herein to provide a satisfying tactile user experience. FIG. 6 is an isometric view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 7 is top pan view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 8 is a side elevation view of the example haptic keyboard 600. As depicted, the example haptic keyboard 600 has a housing 602, an array of keys 604, and a touchpad 606 (par. 44).) and a haptic actuator; a sensor positioned in the housing; a processor configured to access a memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: detect, via a signal from the sensor, an input characteristic of a user providing input to the adjustable key mechanism; and control the haptic actuator of the adjustable key mechanism to provide feedback corresponding to the input characteristic (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). Sensor 1014 is positioned directly under keycap 1002 and corresponds to that keycap. Similarly, sensor 1016 is positioned directly under keycap 1004 and corresponds to that keycap. Each sensor sends force-sensing signals to the sensor logic in response to the force applied by its corresponding keycap when pressed by a user (par. 52). The active-feedback actuation module 2230 includes an actuation mechanism 2232 and the actuation drive logic 2234. The actuation drive mechanism 2232 corresponds, in this example, to the actuation mechanism 1020 depicted in FIGS. 10-20. In response to the appropriate signals from the sensor logic 2224, the actuation drive logic 2234 fires the actuation mechanism 2234 with the appropriate timing and characteristics. The actuation drive logic 2234 is designed to drive the actuation planes, which have conductive properties, with an electrical signal to cause the permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes effective to provide tactile feedback to the user (par. 121).); wherein the feedback comprises a vibration via the keycap (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The actuation mechanism 1020 is designed to permit at least one of the actuation planes to move relative to the other. This movement is effective to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses one of the plurality of keycaps via that keycap.(par. 59)).
However, Peterson et al. do teach a keycap, but Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach and including an adjustable key mechanism having a keycap.
Soh et al. teach and including an adjustable key mechanism having a keycap (Soh et al. US 20060132446 abstract; paragraphs [0011]-[0013]; ]0015]-[0024]; [0059]-[0065]; figures 1-14; The present invention provides a key input apparatus using a magnetic force to adjust the height of each key (par. 11).).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Peterson et al. and Soh et al. by comprising the teaching of Soh et al. into the system of Peterson et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a magnetic force to adjust the height of each key from Soh et al. reference into Peterson et al. reference so the system can apply a suitable height for user so user can produce more efficiently with correct keyboard.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein the input characteristic includes a rate of the input provided to the adjustable key mechanism at the keycap (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129).).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. disclose the computing device of claim 1, wherein controlling the haptic actuator includes adjusting an amount of a force required to actuate the keycap (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the amount of force can be adjust according to the various of force amount applied above.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263 in view of Soh et al. US 20060132446 and further in view of Kamata et al. US 20170364259.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 1.
The combination of Peterson et al. and Soh et al. do not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the keycap is a first keycap, and wherein detecting the input characteristic includes: detecting, via the signal from the sensor, a first finger of the user at the first keycap, detecting, via a second signal from a second sensor, a second finger of the user at a second keycap, and determining the input characteristic based on positions of the first finger at the first keycap and the second finger at the second keycap.
Kamata et al. teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the keycap is a first keycap, and wherein detecting the input characteristic includes: detecting, via the signal from the sensor, a first finger of the user at the first keycap, detecting, via a second signal from a second sensor, a second finger of the user at a second keycap, and determining the input characteristic based on positions of the first finger at the first keycap and the second finger at the second keycap (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). It is desirable that the two keys as a target of determination of the average value of the differences of the change amounts be a specific key pair typed with different fingers in a case of performing the touch typing. For example, keys such as “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” are subjected to the keying operation with a left forefinger, and keys such as “A”, “Z”, and “Q” are subjected to the keying operation with a left little finger of in many cases. Therefore, all of one-to-one combinations of “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” with“A”, “Z”, and “Q” are determined as specific key pairs as targets of determination of the differences of the change amounts (par. 134). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above and forefinger have a higher force than the little finger. Examiner interpreted “F, G, V and B” as the first group of key that have a different amount of force comparing to the second group of key like “A, Z and Q” as mention in par. 134 above.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Peterson et al. and Soh et al. with Kamata et al. by comprising the teaching of Kamata et al.. into the system of Peterson et al. and Soh et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a capacitance device for each key from Kamata et al. reference into Peterson et al. and Soh et al. reference so the system determined different force for each of the different fingers.
Claims 5-8, 13-15 and 117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg US 20150302966 in view of Peterson et al. US 20120092263.
Regarding claim 5, Soelberg teach A method of adjusting an keyboard of a computing device, the method comprising: determining, via a sensor of a computing device, an input characteristic of a user at a keyboard of the computing device (Soelberg US 20150302966 abstract; paragraphs [0029]-[0043]; figures 1-10; In one or more embodiments, the keyboard 312 and/or the computing device 310 can detect the pressing of the variable actuation force device 350 and, responsive to detecting the pressing, can adjust the pressing force of the variable actuation force device 350 by altering the magnitude and/or direction of the current that is energizing the variable force magnet 356. By changing the pressing force in response to detecting the pressing, the keyboard 312 and/or the computing device 310 can provide a keypad or button with a first pressing force in the key UP position and a second rebounding force in the key DOWN position. This technique can, for example, allow the user of the keyboard 312 to experience a combination of soft or light pressing force coupled with hard or heavy rebounding force. Alternatively, a hard or heavy pressing force can be combined with a soft or light rebounding force (par. 41). In one or more embodiments, a variable actuation force device 350 can use a magnet proximity sensor rather a traditional switch like a rubber membrane with conductive material or a mechanical switch that makes or breaks contact. Instead, the variable actuation force device 350 can be constructed with a magnet proximity sensor 302, such as a Hall Effect sensor. The Hall Effect sensor can measure a strength of a magnetic field generated by a magnet 306 in proximity to the magnetic proximity sensor 302. The magnetic proximity sensor 302 outputs a voltage level that corresponds to the strength of the magnetic field it senses from the magnet 306 as a spring-loaded button 304 holding the magnet 306 is depressed (par. 42).).
Soelberg does not explicitly teach determining, via a processor of the computing device, an input device configuration based on the input characteristic of the user; altering a property of a key of the keyboard based on the input device configuration; wherein determining the input device configuration includes tracking the input characteristic over a period of time, and wherein altering the property of the key occurs after the period of time.
Peterson et al. teach determining, via a processor of the computing device, an input device configuration based on the input characteristic of the user; altering a property of a key of the keyboard based on the input device configuration (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the amount of force can be adjusted base on the characteristic of input force from the user as show in the figures 5 and 12-20.); wherein determining the input device configuration includes tracking the input characteristic over a period of time, and wherein altering the property of the key occurs after the period of time (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0082] [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0134]- [0138]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0082] [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0134]- [0138]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132).The process 2300 continues as long as the keyboard is active and in use. The haptic profile may be set at anytime (at operation 2302) without halting process 2300. When reset or adjusted, the other operations of the process 2300 are affected by the new haptic profile (par. 138). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the characteristic of input force from the user as show in the figures 5 and 12-20 can be tracking over period of time corresponding to the diagram 500. Examiner interpreted the reset or adjusted the operations of the process 2300 as the altering the property of the key after the user actuated on the keycap.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Soelberg and Peterson et al. by comprising the teaching of Peterson et al. into the system of Soelberg. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide force travel diagram from Peterson et al. reference into Soelberg reference so the user can easily determine different force at each different key.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining, via the sensor, a rate of input provided by the user to the keyboard based on input signals produced in response to actuation of the keyboard (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). Next, at operation 2304, the keyboard monitors receive input from the key sensors (such as sensors 1014, 1016 of the example haptic keyboard 600). The input is the keypress force at which the user presses the key. The sensor logic sends the sensor signals to both the haptic logic and the keyboard logic. The ranges of keypress force (applied by the user's finger) is typically between 10-150 grams of force (par. 130). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the rate of force input by the user to the keyboard can be determined by the amount of force that tracked by the keyboard monitors receive input from key sensors as mention in par. 130 above.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining, via the sensor, a force applied to a keycap of the keyboard (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). Next, at operation 2304, the keyboard monitors receive input from the key sensors (such as sensors 1014, 1016 of the example haptic keyboard 600). The input is the keypress force at which the user presses the key. The sensor logic sends the sensor signals to both the haptic logic and the keyboard logic. The ranges of keypress force (applied by the user's finger) is typically between 10-150 grams of force (par. 130). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132).).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining a size of at least a portion of a hand of the user (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0069]-[0074]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; FIG. 12 shows the example assembly 900 during an initial state of the user pressing the key of the example haptic keyboard. The force of the finger 1040 pressing the keycap 1004 is represented by a finger vector 1200. The arrow of the finger vector 1200 indicates the direction the finger is moving and the relative size of the finger vector 1200 indicates the relative amount of force that the finger is applying to the keycap (par. 69). FIG. 13 shows the example assembly 900 in the next stage of the keypress of the example haptic keyboard. As compared to the initial stage of FIG. 12, the keycap 1004 is lower. As indicated by the relatively larger size of the finger vector 1200 in this figure in comparison to the previous figure, the user is pressing the key a bit harder. Similarly, the stretching sections 1210, 1212 of the sealing platform 1012 show that the sealing platform is stretched a bit farther than it was stretched in the previous figure. The snapshot star 1100 of FIG. 13 is positioned just before point B (i.e., the breakover point of the snap-over) of the down-keypress curve 510 of the conventional-key force-travel diagram 500 (par. 72). According to the cites passages and figures, examiner interpreted the system using the comparison of forces corresponding to the characteristic associated with the diagram 500 for determine the size of the finger vector.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein altering the property of the key includes providing a haptic output sensation to the user at the key via a magnetic component (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0162]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Sensor 1014 is positioned directly under keycap 1002 and corresponds to that keycap. Similarly, sensor 1016 is positioned directly under keycap 1004 and corresponds to that keycap. Each sensor sends force-sensing signals to the sensor logic in response to the force applied by its corresponding keycap when pressed by a user (par. 52). The active-feedback actuation module 2230 includes an actuation mechanism 2232 and the actuation drive logic 2234. The actuation drive mechanism 2232 corresponds, in this example, to the actuation mechanism 1020 depicted in FIGS. 10-20. In response to the appropriate signals from the sensor logic 2224, the actuation drive logic 2234 fires the actuation mechanism 2234 with the appropriate timing and characteristics. The actuation drive logic 2234 is designed to drive the actuation planes, which have conductive properties, with an electrical signal to cause the permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes effective to provide tactile feedback to the user (par. 121). It is to be appreciated and understood that other types of return mechanisms can be utilized without departing from the spirit and scope of claimed subject matter. For example, alternative return mechanisms might return the upper plane of the actuation mechanism back to its original position without biasing or spring forces. This return action may be accomplished via repulsion, attraction, or other magnetic or electromagnetic forces. Also, other mechanical actions may restore the gap between the substrates (par. 162).).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein altering the property of the key includes altering a resistance between magnetic components of the key of the keyboard (Soelberg US 20150302966 abstract; paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; [0029]-[0043]; figures 1-10; One embodiment of the subject disclosure includes a method for communicating, by a system comprising a processor, a signal to a variable force magnet at a first portion of a button to initiate a magnetic field. The magnetic field can interact with a ferromagnetic material at a second portion of the button to create a magnetic resistance to pressing of the button. The method also includes detecting, by the system, a change in electrical communication between the first portion of the button and the second portion of the button indicating a button press in counteraction of the magnetic resistance and, in turn, asserting, by the system, a first actuation state responsive to the detecting of the change in electrical communication (par. 20). FIG. 3A depicts an illustrative embodiment of a system 300 for utilizing a variable actuation force device in a keyboard communicatively coupled to a computing device. A computing device 310 can be coupled to a keyboard 312 with all or some of its buttons 316 configured with variable pressing force. Configuration signals can be generated at and/or conveyed by the keyboard to the buttons 316 for configuring and/or adjusting the pressing resistance of the buttons 316. Keystroke signals from the buttons 316 can be processed by circuitry (e.g., analog to digital converter, etc.) of the keyboard 312 to convey to the computing device 310 which buttons have been depressed. The information transmitted to the computing device 310 can be analog or digital signals representing whether buttons 316 are pressed or not pressed (par. 29).).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the magnetic components include at least one coil, and wherein altering the resistance between magnetic components includes adjusting current provided to the at least one coil (Soelberg US 20150302966 abstract; paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; [0029]-[0043]; figures 1-10; For example, the variable magnetic field 384 and the fixed magnetic field can be of net opposite polarity such that a resulting, variable actuation force is generated that resists the pressing of the upper section 352 to the lower section 362. This variable actuation force can be controlled using only the interaction of the magnetic elements 354 and 356, and, in particular, the magnitude and direction of the electric current 382. In another example, the variable magnetic field 384 and the fixed magnetic field can be of net same polarity such that a resulting, variable actuation force of attraction is generated that causes the upper section 352 to be pulled toward the lower section 362. In this case, a spring 368 can be added to provide a force that resists pressing. In this case, a net resistive (to pushing) force can be created by including a spring 368 that provides a fixed repulsion force that is greater than the variable attraction force that is created by the interaction of the response block 354 and the variable force magnet 356. In another embodiment, the spring 368, the variable force magnet 356, and the response block 354 can be placed in a different configuration, whereby the spring 368 provides a force to pull the upper section 352 toward the lower section 362, while the interaction of the variable force magnet 356 and the magnetized response block 354 provide a variable force to push the upper section 352 and the lower section 362 apart (par. 39). As show in the figures 3D, examiner construe wrapping a conductor 360 as a coil, variable force magnet 356 and current 382; ).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input device configuration includes configuring the keyboard to alter the property of the key in (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg US 20150302966 in view of Peterson et al. US 20120092263 and further in view of Han et al. US 20120182215.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 8.
The combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a light sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the light sensor, a change in sensed light as the user moves at least the portion of the hand over the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in sensed light.
Han et al. teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a light sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the light sensor, a change in sensed light as the user moves at least the portion of the hand over the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in sensed light (Han et al. US 20120182215 abstract; paragraphs [0009]; [0022]-[0024]; [0034]- [0036]; [0040]-[0049]; [0063]-[0077]; [0086]-[0097]; figures 1-16; For example, the light sensor 320 may collect, from information on the sensed reflected light, information regarding a position of the hand, a size of the hand, a rotation of the hand, a hovering movement of the hand, a movement speed of the hand, and the like (par. 36).).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Soelberg and Peterson et al. with Han et al. by comprising the teaching of Han et al. into the system of Soelberg and Peterson et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a light sensor from Han et al. reference into Soelberg and Peterson et al. reference so the system can detect the position of hand and a size of the hand relative to the keyboard.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soelberg US 20150302966 in view of Peterson et al. US 20120092263 and further in view of Kamata et al. US 20170364259.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 8.
The combination of Soelberg and Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first finger of the hand of the user and a second finger of the hand of the user; and determining, via the processor, a relative size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first finger and the second finger.
Kamata et al. teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the size comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first finger of the hand of the user and a second finger of the hand of the user; and determining, via the processor, a relative size of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first finger and the second finger (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). Examples of a method of detecting whether the user touches the palm rest 110 or not include a method of disposing a sensor device (not shown) capable of detecting a pressure in an area 120 in the palm rest 110 with which the wrists G of both arms of the user is in contact, such as a capacitive sensor and a resistive touch sensor (par. 144). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Soelberg and Peterson et al. with Kamata et al. by comprising the teaching of Kamata et al.. into the system of Soelberg and Peterson et al.. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a capacitance device for each key from Kamata et al. reference into Soelberg and Peterson et al. reference so the system determined different force for each of the different fingers.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Soelberg, Peterson et al. and Kamata et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein determining the input characteristic includes determining a position of at least a portion of a hand of a user relative to the keyboard (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). Examples of a method of detecting whether the user touches the palm rest 110 or not include a method of disposing a sensor device (not shown) capable of detecting a pressure in an area 120 in the palm rest 110 with which the wrists G of both arms of the user is in contact, such as a capacitive sensor and a resistive touch sensor (par. 144). For a certain period immediately after the input apparatus 1 is booted, the control circuit 340 of the controller 300 obtains an output value of the sensor device provided on the area 120 in the palm rest 110 of the keyboard module 100, and calculates one of a maximum value and an average value within the certain period as an evaluation value for determining whether the palm rest is touched (Step S801) (par. 46). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the sensor device provide on the area 120 in the figure 17 can determine the position of the user hand relative to the keyboard.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Soelberg, Peterson et al. and Kamata et al. disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the sensor includes a capacitive sensor and determining the position comprises: detecting, via the capacitive sensor, a change in capacitance between a first key of the keyboard and a second key of the keyboard; and determining, via the processor, the position of at least the portion of the hand based on the change in capacitance between the first key and the second key (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). It is desirable that the two keys as a target of determination of the average value of the differences of the change amounts be a specific key pair typed with different fingers in a case of performing the touch typing. For example, keys such as “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” are subjected to the keying operation with a left forefinger, and keys such as “A”, “Z”, and “Q” are subjected to the keying operation with a left little finger of in many cases. Therefore, all of one-to-one combinations of “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” with“A”, “Z”, and “Q” are determined as specific key pairs as targets of determination of the differences of the change amounts (par. 134). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above and forefinger have a higher force than the little finger. Examiner interpreted “F, G, V and B” as the first group of key that have a different amount of force comparing to the second group of key like “A, Z and Q” as mention in par. 134 above.), at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key as mention in par. 61 above. Since the keyboard provide the feedback at each time when the user pressed down the key, therefore, it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple user like first, second, third and so on. The keyboard is still provided feedback at any time user applied the force to the key.).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263 in view of Colley US 20130082824.
Regarding claim 18, Peterson et al. teach A keyboard, comprising: a housing; a set of keys positioned in the housing; a set of touch sensors associated with the set of keys; and a set of haptic actuators associated with the set of keys; wherein, in response to detection of a first user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; FIGS. 6-8 offer three different views of an example haptic keyboard 600 that is configured to implement the techniques described herein to provide a satisfying tactile user experience. FIG. 6 is an isometric view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 7 is top pan view of the example haptic keyboard 600. FIG. 8 is a side elevation view of the example haptic keyboard 600. As depicted, the example haptic keyboard 600 has a housing 602, an array of keys 604, and a touchpad 606 (par. 44). Sensor 1014 is positioned directly under keycap 1002 and corresponds to that keycap. Similarly, sensor 1016 is positioned directly under keycap 1004 and corresponds to that keycap. Each sensor sends force-sensing signals to the sensor logic in response to the force applied by its corresponding keycap when pressed by a user (par. 52). The actuation mechanism 1020 is designed to permit at least one of the actuation planes to move relative to the other. This movement is effective to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses one of the plurality of keycaps via that keycap (par. 59). In addition, each of the FIGS. 11-20 includes the force-travel diagram 500 of FIG. 5 of a conventional key. This diagram is not representative of the force-travel characteristics of the keys of the example haptic keyboard 600. Rather, the force-travel diagram 500 in each of these figures is representative of the force-travel characteristics of the keypress of a key of a conventional keyboard, like those shown in FIGS. 1-4 and described in the background (par. 65).), at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key as mention in par. 61 above. Since the keyboard provide the feedback at each time when the user pressed down the key, therefore, it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple user like first, second, third and so on. The keyboard is still provided feedback at any time user applied the force to the key.).
However, Peterson et al. do teach a haptic key board and provide feedback to the user when the user press a key but Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a first haptic feedback to at least one key of the set of keys; and wherein, in response to detection of a second user input characteristic via the set of touch sensors, the at least one haptic actuator of the set of haptic actuators is actuated to provide a second haptic feedback to the at least one key of the set of keys. It’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have feedback for different users like first, second, third and so on to press the key on the key board and the keyboard still provide a feedback because there is the actuation device include in the keyboard.
Peterson et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the first user input characteristic is different from the second user input characteristic, and wherein the first haptic feedback is different from the second haptic feedback.
Colley teaches wherein the first user input characteristic is different from the second user input characteristic, and wherein the first haptic feedback is different from the second haptic feedback (Colley US 20130082824 abstract; paragraphs [0020]; [0115]; [0140]; figures 1-9; Haptic feedback may be a vibration of a given strength, duration, or pattern of vibrations. For example, a first user input (tapping a key) may cause a first haptic feedback response of a vibration of 0.5 s duration, whereas a second user input of the same user interface element (tapping the same key again) may cause a second (different) haptic feedback response of a vibration of 1.0 s, or two vibrations each of 0.5 s, or a first vibration followed by a stronger second vibration, Other haptic feedback schemes are possible (par. 20).).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Peterson et al. and Colley by comprising the teaching of Colley into the system of Peterson et al..  The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a simple substitution of a two different input force from two different user from Colley reference into Peterson et al. reference for predictable result of two different vibration feedback.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Peterson et al. and Colley disclose the keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors and the set of haptic actuators are connected to an electronic device including a processor and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to detect the first user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the first haptic feedback; and detect the second user input characteristic and to actuate the at least one haptic actuator to provide the second haptic feedback (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). This arrangement works because the haptic actuation occurs much more quickly than even the fastest typist types. Under normal typing circumstances, the user only presses one key (e.g., the A key or the V key) at a time. The user feels the actuation only through the finger of the key that is pressed down and in physical contact with the actuation mechanism (par. 61). As shown here, the process 2300 begins with operation 2302, where a haptic profile is set for the haptic keyboard. This profile sets various parameters that define how and when the actuation mechanism is fired. The parameters in the haptic profiles can include (by way of example and not limitation): value of a single voltage pulse; a series of values of voltage pulses having various frequencies and amplitudes; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers a key selection; keypress force (and sequence) that triggers an actuation firing; rate of change of force, time key was pressed or not pressed, frequency of pressing and/or releasing and/or holding or not holding one or more keys (par. 129). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the user can feel the feedback at real time when the user pressed a key as mention in par. 61 above. Since the keyboard provide the feedback at each time when the user pressed down the key, therefore, it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple user like first, second, third and so on. The keyboard is still provided feedback at any time user applied the force to the key.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. US 20120092263 in view of Colley US 20130082824 and further in view of Kamata et al. US 20170364259.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of  Peterson et al. and Colley teach all the limitation in the claim 18.
The combination of  Peterson et al. and Colley do not explicitly teach the keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors include a set of capacitive sensors to measure a change in capacitance between fingers of a user having the first user input characteristic or the second user input characteristic.
Kamata et al. teach the keyboard of claim 18, wherein the set of touch sensors include a set of capacitive sensors to measure a change in capacitance between fingers of a user having the first user input characteristic or the second user input characteristic (Kamata et al. US 20170364259 abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0022]; [0043]-[0054]; [0060]-[0065]; [0082]-[0084]; [0089]-[0090]; [0133]-[0135]; [0143]-[0148]; [0166]; [0177]; [0190]-[0191]; figures 1-18; The sensor device may be a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance (par. 18). The keyboard module 100 has a plurality of key areas (symbol 10a in FIG. 3) as operation areas for respective keys. The keyboard module 100 includes a sensor device that detects, when a user performs the keying operation on an arbitrary key area 10a with a finger in the plurality of key areas 10a, a pressure applied to the key area by the user. In this embodiment, as the sensor device, used is a capacitance device for each key, a capacitance of which is continuously changed depending of a shift amount of the key area 10a in a Z-axis direction which is generated by a pressure applied to the key area by the user (par. 43). Differences between the typing methods as described above are generated in terms of a keying pressure for a key or a typing speed. For example, generally, the keying pressure for the key by the touch typing is lower than that by the one-finger typing. In terms of the typing speed, the touch typing is performed faster than the one-finger typing in most cases. Further, in the touch typing, all fingers are used, so a relatively large difference is caused in the keying pressure depending on keys. For example, the keying pressure with a forefinger is significantly higher than the keying pressure with a little finger. In contrast, in the one-finger typing, the typing is performed with one determined finger such as a forefinger at all times, so small differences in the keying pressure among the keys are generated (par. 90). It is desirable that the two keys as a target of determination of the average value of the differences of the change amounts be a specific key pair typed with different fingers in a case of performing the touch typing. For example, keys such as “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” are subjected to the keying operation with a left forefinger, and keys such as “A”, “Z”, and “Q” are subjected to the keying operation with a left little finger of in many cases. Therefore, all of one-to-one combinations of “F”, “G”, “V”, and “B” with“A”, “Z”, and “Q” are determined as specific key pairs as targets of determination of the differences of the change amounts (par. 134). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the different fingers are generated as difference force that cause the capacitance continuous changing as each time each finger applied the force to the keyboard. Obviously, examiner interpreted the forefinger as the first finger and little finger as the second finger as mention in par. 90 above and forefinger have a higher force than the little finger. Examiner interpreted “F, G, V and B” as the first group of key that have a different amount of force comparing to the second group of key like “A, Z and Q” as mention in par. 134 above.).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine Peterson et al. and Colley with Kamata et al. by comprising the teaching of Kamata et al.. into the system of Peterson et al. and Colley. The motivation to combine these arts is to provide a capacitance device for each key from Kamata et al. reference into Peterson et al. and Colley reference so the system determined different force for each of the different fingers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/06/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues in substance:
Applicant argument: First applicant argues that Peterson et al. and Soh et al. failed to teach “wherein the feedback comprises as a vibration via the keycap” as recited in the claim 1. Second applicant argues that Soelberg and Peterson et al. failed to teach or suggest “wherein determining the input device configure includes tracking the input characteristic over a period of time, and wherein altering the property of the key occurs after the period of time” as recited in the claim 5. Last applicant argues that Peterson et al. failed to teach or suggest “wherein the first user input characteristic is different from the second user input characteristic, and wherein the first haptic feedback is different from the second haptic feedback” as recited in the claim 18.
Examiner response: First, examiner respectfully submit that Peterson et al. and Soh et al. do teach “wherein the feedback comprises as a vibration via the keycap” as recited in the claim 1(Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0147]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The actuation mechanism 1020 is designed to permit at least one of the actuation planes to move relative to the other. This movement is effective to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses one of the plurality of keycaps via that keycap.(par. 59)). According to the cited passage, Peterson et al. reference clearly teach a tactile feedback via keycap and one of ordinary skill in the art is know feedback can be provide via tactile or vibration. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art can provide a simple substitution and the result of the simple substitution can be predictable. For example, paragraph 20 of Colley US 20130082824 reference teaches the haptic feedback may be a vibration. Second, examiner respectfully submit that Soelberg and Peterson et al. do teach or suggest “wherein determining the input device configure includes tracking the input characteristic over a period of time, and wherein altering the property of the key occurs after the period of time” as recited in the claim 5 (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0082] [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0134]- [0138]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; (Peterson et al. US 20120092263 abstract; paragraphs [0016]; [0020]-[0026] [0036]-[0038]; [0044]; [0048]-[0054]; [0057]-[0061]; [0065]-[0066]; [0082] [0119]-[0124]; [0128]-[0132]; [0134]- [0138]; [0147]; [0161]; [0167]; figures 1-25; Described herein are techniques related to a haptic keyboard that features a satisfying tactile keypress experience. Using active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) via its keys, one or more of the described example keyboards simulates the feel of a snap-over keypress of conventional keys, such as that of a rubber-dome keyboard. With its haptics, one or more of the described example keyboards feel like--through the user's fingers on keycaps--keys having the non-linear force/displacement characteristics of the snap-over of conventional keys. An example of such characteristics is charted by curves 510 and 520 of force-travel diagram 500 (par. 36). The example haptic keyboards described herein may be constructed exceptionally thin while providing the satisfying tactile keypress experience (i.e., snap-over simulation). In addition, the example haptic keyboard includes a common haptic actuator for multiple keys of the keyboard. In addition, unlike most keyboards, the keyboard mechanics and electronics of the example haptic keyboard is contained within a watertight seal (par. 38). In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 20 to 120 grams during the downward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 40 to 80 grams during the downward keypress. In some implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 5 to 50 grams during the upward keypress. In other implementations, the actuation mechanism may be fired at a force of 10 to 30 grams during the downward keypress (par. 132).The process 2300 continues as long as the keyboard is active and in use. The haptic profile may be set at anytime (at operation 2302) without halting process 2300. When reset or adjusted, the other operations of the process 2300 are affected by the new haptic profile (par. 138). According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpreted the characteristic of input force from the user as show in the figures 5 and 12-20 can be tracking over period of time corresponding to the diagram 500. Examiner interpreted the reset or adjusted the operations of the process 2300 as the altering the property of the key after the user actuated on the keycap.).  According to the cited passages and figures, Peterson et al. reference clearly teach the characteristic of user input force can be tracking according to the chart 500. The haptic profile can be reset or adjust. Since arts of the record still read on the amendment of the claims 1 and 5, therefore the rejection stand. Last, the amendment as recited in the claim 18 are moot in the new ground of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20120092263A1: Claims:
A haptic keyboard featuring a satisfying tactile keypress experience for a user, the keyboard comprising: a housing having at least one keyframe that defines an opening in a top of the housing, the keyframe opening being closed by at least one flexible platform; a plurality of keycaps, each keycap being positioned with the keyframe opening and over the at least one flexible platform; a plurality of key sensors, inside the housing, operably associated with the plurality of keycaps and each key sensor being positioned under a corresponding one of the plurality of keycaps; a common active-feedback actuation mechanism, inside the housing, operably associated with the plurality of keycaps and positioned under the plurality of keycaps, the actuation mechanism configured to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses one of the plurality of keycaps via that keycap.
a housing having at least one keyframe that defines an opening in a top of the housing, the keyframe opening being closed by at least one flexible platform;
a plurality of keycaps, each keycap being positioned with the keyframe opening and over the at least one flexible platform;
a plurality of key sensors, inside the housing, operably associated with the plurality of keycaps and each key sensor being positioned under a corresponding one of the plurality of keycaps;
a common active-feedback actuation mechanism, inside the housing, operably associated with the plurality of keycaps and positioned under the plurality of keycaps, the actuation mechanism configured to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses one of the plurality of keycaps via that keycap.
A haptic keyboard as recited in claim 1 , wherein the actuation mechanism includes a pair of actuation planes held in a spaced-apart position relative to each other and with a defined gap therebetween, the actuation mechanism being configured to permit at least one of the planes to move relative to the other effective to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses one of the plurality of keycaps via that keycap.
A haptic keyboard as recited in claim 2 , wherein the actuation mechanism includes a return mechanism that is operably associated with at least one of the pair of actuation planes, the return mechanism being configured to return the pair of planes, after a movement of the planes relative to each other, back to the spaced-apart position relative to each other and restore the defined gap therebetween.
A haptic keyboard as recited in claim 2 , further comprising an actuation drive logic that is operably connected to the actuation mechanism and configured to drive the actuation planes, which have conductive properties, with an electrical signal to cause a permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes effective to provide tactile feedback to the user.
A haptic keyboard system as recited in claim 2 , wherein the permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes simulates, at least in part, a feel of a snap-over keypress of a conventional key to a user pressing at least one of the plurality of keycaps.
A haptic keyboard system as recited in claim 2 , wherein the permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes simulates, at least in part, a feel of a keypress having non-linear force-travel characteristics to a user pressing at least one of the plurality of keycaps.
A haptic keyboard as recited in claim 1 , wherein each of the key sensors is configured to send signals in response to a user pressing a corresponding keycap of the plurality of keycaps.
A haptic keyboard system as recited in claim 1 , wherein each of the key sensors is configured to send signals in response to a user pressing a corresponding keycap of the plurality of keycaps, the haptic keyboard further comprising an actuation drive logic that is operably connected to the actuation mechanism, the actuation drive logic being configured to respond to force-sensing signals from one or more of the key sensors by driving the common active-feedback actuation mechanism.
A haptic keyboard as recited in claim 1 , wherein each of the key sensors is configured to send force-sensing signals in response to a force applied by the user pressing a corresponding keycap of the plurality of keycaps.
A haptic keyboard as recited in claim 1 , further comprising a common force-sensing sensor configured to sense a force applied to the common active-feedback actuation mechanism by any of the plurality of keycaps.
A haptic keyboard as recited in claim 1 , wherein the housing is sealed to protect the interior of the housing from ingress of contaminants.
An assembly comprising: a chassis having at least one keyframe, that keyframe defining an opening in a top of the chassis; a keycap that is positioned with the opening; a key sensor, inside the chassis, that corresponds to the keycap; an active-feedback actuation mechanism, inside the chassis, operably associated with the keycap, the actuation mechanism including a pair of actuation planes that have conductive properties and are held in a spaced-apart position relative to each other and with a defined gap therebetween, the actuation mechanism being configured to permit at least one of the planes to move relative to the other effective to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses the keycap.
a chassis having at least one keyframe, that keyframe defining an opening in a top of the chassis;
a keycap that is positioned with the opening;
a key sensor, inside the chassis, that corresponds to the keycap;
an active-feedback actuation mechanism, inside the chassis, operably associated with the keycap, the actuation mechanism including a pair of actuation planes that have conductive properties and are held in a spaced-apart position relative to each other and with a defined gap therebetween, the actuation mechanism being configured to permit at least one of the planes to move relative to the other effective to provide tactile feedback to the user when the user presses the keycap.
An assembly as recited in claim 12 , further comprising an actuation drive logic that is operably connected to the actuation mechanism and configured to drive the actuation planes with an electrical signal to cause a permitted movement of at least one of the planes relative to the other of the planes effective to provide tactile feedback to a user pressing the keycap.
An assembly as recited in claim 12 , wherein the keyframe opening is sealed by a flexible platform and both the key sensor and the active-feedback actuation mechanism are sealed within the chassis.
An assembly as recited in claim 12 , wherein: a plurality of keycaps which includes the keycap, wherein each keycap of the plurality is positioned with the opening; the active-feedback actuation mechanism is positioned under the plurality of keycaps.
a plurality of keycaps which includes the keycap, wherein each keycap of the plurality is positioned with the opening;
the active-feedback actuation mechanism is positioned under the plurality of keycaps.
An assembly as recited in claim 12 , further comprising one or more backlighting elements inside the chassis and positioned below the keycap, the keycap being transparent and/or translucent and the backlighting elements being configured to emit light through the keycap.
An assembly as recited in claim 12 , further comprising one or more backlighting elements inside the chassis and positioned below the active-feedback actuation mechanism, the keycap and the active-feedback actuation mechanism being transparent and/or translucent and the backlighting elements being configured to emit light through the keycap and the active-feedback actuation mechanism.
A computing device comprising a device housing that includes a haptic keyboard as recited in claim 12 .
A method of simulating a feel of a snap-over keypress to a user, the method comprising: monitoring input from one or more sensors, wherein at least one of the sensors includes a key sensor that is associated with a keycap of a haptic keyboard; in response to the input from one or more of sensors, determining whether to trigger an active-feedback actuation mechanism associated with the keycap; in response to the determining whether to trigger, firing the active-feedback actuation mechanism to provide tactile feedback to the user pressing the keycap, wherein the firing includes: sending an electrical signal to the active-feedback actuation mechanism to drive at least one of a pair of spaced-apart electrically conductive planes to be attracted to the other of the pair of planes via electrostatic forces therebetween; releasing the attracted pair of electrically conductive planes and allowing the planes to return to their original spaced-apart arrangement.
monitoring input from one or more sensors, wherein at least one of the sensors includes a key sensor that is associated with a keycap of a haptic keyboard;
in response to the input from one or more of sensors, determining whether to trigger an active-feedback actuation mechanism associated with the keycap;
in response to the determining whether to trigger, firing the active-feedback actuation mechanism to provide tactile feedback to the user pressing the keycap, wherein the firing includes: sending an electrical signal to the active-feedback actuation mechanism to drive at least one of a pair of spaced-apart electrically conductive planes to be attracted to the other of the pair of planes via electrostatic forces therebetween; releasing the attracted pair of electrically conductive planes and allowing the planes to return to their original spaced-apart arrangement.
sending an electrical signal to the active-feedback actuation mechanism to drive at least one of a pair of spaced-apart electrically conductive planes to be attracted to the other of the pair of planes via electrostatic forces therebetween;
releasing the attracted pair of electrically conductive planes and allowing the planes to return to their original spaced-apart arrangement.
A method as recited in claim 19 , wherein the firing of the active-feedback actuation mechanism includes holding the attracted planes together for a defined amount of time between the sending and releasing.
A method as recited in claim 19 , further comprising: in response to the input from the key sensor, determining whether a user intended to select the keycap; in response to the determining whether a user selected a key, communicating that selected key was selected by the user.
in response to the input from the key sensor, determining whether a user intended to select the keycap;
in response to the determining whether a user selected a key, communicating that selected key was selected by the user.
A method as recited in claim 19 , wherein the input of the monitoring includes an indication of a force with which a user is pressing the keycap.
A method as recited in claim 19 , further comprising repeating the firing of the active-feedback actuation mechanism associated with the keycap multiple times during a full keypress of the keycap to provide tactile feedback to the user pressing the keycap.
A method as recited in claim 19 , further comprising repeating the firing of the active-feedback actuation mechanism associated with the keycap multiple times in response to a determination that the user is holding the keycap down.
Ref US20060132446A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20170364259A1: Claims:
An input apparatus, comprising: a keyboard module having a plurality of key areas, and having a plurality of sensor devices capable of detecting a pressure of a keying operation for each of the key areas; and a control circuit that adjusts a parameter of a processing relating to the keying operation of the keyboard module on a basis of information relating to a pressure detected by the sensor device for each of the key areas.
a keyboard module having a plurality of key areas, and having a plurality of sensor devices capable of detecting a pressure of a keying operation for each of the key areas; and
a control circuit that adjusts a parameter of a processing relating to the keying operation of the keyboard module on a basis of information relating to a pressure detected by the sensor device for each of the key areas.
The input apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: a keying response device capable of giving a response of a sense of operation with respect to the keying operation for each of the key areas for the keyboard module as response information to a user, wherein the control circuit is configured to adjust an intensity of the response information of the keying response device as the parameter on a basis of information relating to the pressure.
a keying response device capable of giving a response of a sense of operation with respect to the keying operation for each of the key areas for the keyboard module as response information to a user, wherein
the control circuit is configured to adjust an intensity of the response information of the keying response device as the parameter on a basis of information relating to the pressure.
The input apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the control circuit is configured to adjust a sensitivity with respect to the keying operation for each of the key areas as the parameter on a basis of information relating to the detected pressure.
the control circuit is configured to adjust a sensitivity with respect to the keying operation for each of the key areas as the parameter on a basis of information relating to the detected pressure.
The input apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the control circuit is configured to perform a determination among a plurality of typing methods including at least touch typing and one-finger typing, and on a basis of a result of the determination, adjust a sensitivity with respect to the keying operation as the parameter.
the control circuit is configured to perform a determination among a plurality of typing methods including at least touch typing and one-finger typing, and on a basis of a result of the determination, adjust a sensitivity with respect to the keying operation as the parameter.
The input apparatus according to claim 4 , wherein the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of information relating to the pressure with respect to the keying operation for one or more specific key areas corresponding to a home position immediately after booting.
the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of information relating to the pressure with respect to the keying operation for one or more specific key areas corresponding to a home position immediately after booting.
The input apparatus according to claim 4 , wherein the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of a typing speed.
the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of a typing speed.
The input apparatus according to claim 4 , wherein the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of an average value of pieces of information relating to the pressure.
the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of an average value of pieces of information relating to the pressure.
The input apparatus according to claim 4 , wherein the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of a difference between two pieces of information relating to the pressure respectively detected with respect to the keying operations for two key areas.
the control circuit is configured to determine the typing method on a basis of a difference between two pieces of information relating to the pressure respectively detected with respect to the keying operations for two key areas.
The input apparatus according to claim 8 , wherein the two key areas are two key areas determined as a pair on the keyboard module in advance.
the two key areas are two key areas determined as a pair on the keyboard module in advance.
The input apparatus according to claim 8 , wherein the two key areas are two key areas stroked successively on the keyboard module.
the two key areas are two key areas stroked successively on the keyboard module.
The input apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the sensor device is a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance.
the sensor device is a mutual capacitance type capacitive sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in capacitance.
The input apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the sensor device is a resistive touch sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in resistance value.
the sensor device is a resistive touch sensor that detects the pressure of the keying operation for each of the key areas as a change in resistance value.
Ref US20120182215A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20150302966A1: Claims:
A method, comprising: communicating, by a system comprising a processor, a signal to a variable force magnet at a first portion of a button to initiate a magnetic field, the magnetic field interacting with a ferromagnetic material at a second portion of the button to create a magnetic resistance to pressing of the button; detecting, by the system, a change in electrical communication between the first portion of the button and the second portion of the button indicating a button press in counteraction of the magnetic resistance; and asserting, by the system, a first actuation state responsive to the detecting of the change in electrical communication.
communicating, by a system comprising a processor, a signal to a variable force magnet at a first portion of a button to initiate a magnetic field, the magnetic field interacting with a ferromagnetic material at a second portion of the button to create a magnetic resistance to pressing of the button;
detecting, by the system, a change in electrical communication between the first portion of the button and the second portion of the button indicating a button press in counteraction of the magnetic resistance; and
asserting, by the system, a first actuation state responsive to the detecting of the change in electrical communication.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the system comprises a computing device that receives a target magnitude of the magnetic field from an accessory, wherein the signal that is communicated to the variable force magnet initiates the magnetic field to the target magnitude.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the system comprises a computing device that receives a target polarization of the magnetic field from an accessory, wherein the signal that is communicated to the variable force magnet initiates the magnetic field to the target polarization.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the signal is a digital signal or an analog signal.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising transmitting to a software application first substitute stimuli responsive to the first actuation state.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the ferromagnetic material comprises a magnetized ferromagnetic material that initiates a second magnetic field, the second magnetic field altering the magnetic resistance to the pressing of the button.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the change in electrical communication comprises changing a state of a conductive coupling, a capacitive coupling, an inductive coupling, or any combination thereof.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising adjusting, by the system, the signal that is communicated to the variable force magnet to initiate an altered magnetic field of the variable force magnet, wherein the altered magnetic field creates a se
[Truncated to input limit]