XBOX Controller Mods: Analog WASD Gaming Keyboard

That's mostly copycats of Ben Heck approach from 2012 - some technical improvements, but like without understanding, further thinking about function - or imagination why someone needed it first, then what would be next. So all seems stuck for me, and not much than a bit a closer since then to what (and in which way) I want, starting from smoothly increasing the repeat rate with pressure for cursor keys or scrolling - not having to macro simulate it with few levels only. ( XBOX Controller Mods: Analog WASD Gaming Keyboard ▶ this video 2012)

There are diodeless (no matrix) split keyboards ( link ) like Cantor: link . They use chips similar to that one: XIAO ESP32S3 nRF52840 Sense Plus - wireless, energy efficient, with 20 pins GPIO or more - one pin for one key - link (there was an option of 16 pins extra using expander link - which is not made anymore, but you can use same chip MCP23017 to get that effect link link , up to 128 I/O pins : link - in that case - 36 simultaneous inputs by hand) - and with Hall sensor keys or similar we are soon talking about _easy_ having ~40+ .. simultaneus muiltiple ANALOG inputs in "keyboards" - like in Mitt link - or XBOX Controller Mods: Analog WASD Gaming Keyboard ▶ this video .

I wouldn’t worry about those ones at least. I read through the claims of the US patents, and they’re essentially describing “turn the arrow keys into a joystick”. US8717202B1 explicitly limits the mechanism to a light-and-mirror sort of arrangement (thus, optical switches). US8922399B2 is a broadening of the former patent, removing that limitation (which weakens it a lot because it’s not describing a concrete implementation but an abstract idea), and thus I think it would be claiming other forms of analogue switches (e.g. magnetic) too. Either way, there are a number of products on the market that, if would be infringing these patents (unless their manufacturers licensed the patents). Besides all this, I don’t believe individuals need to worry about patents if they’re doing things for themselves only. But beyond that, I would be quite happy to ignore the Aimpad patents because the concept was not novel, and prior art exists. ▶ this video was in 2012 and I haven’t gone searching any further. Taking the broader ’399: the project in that video is, I believe (I haven’t watched much of it, more just read a few comments about it and skimmed it), prior art for claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and maybe others. For the rest, claim 2 is a supremely obvious extension of claim 1. Claim 4 is obvious and shouldn’t be patentable anyway. Claim 7 is… “what? how else could you possibly do it?”, viz. obvious. Claim 8 is obvious (as in, if such noise is a problem, of course you’re going to do this, it