DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The Amendment filed 7/30/26 has been entered. Claim(s) 24-27, 31-38, and 44-51 are pending in the application and under examination.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the previously applied prior art is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, which is necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)) – NEW MATTER
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 26, 34, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26 recite(s) the limitation "wherein said at least two different types of tasks exclude ones that are performed to address health or medical issues of the individual". The written description as originally filed does not provide sufficient disclosure to support this limitation, and thus does not meet the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 34 recite(s) the limitation "instructing the individual to perform at least two different tasks which when performed are designed to specifically instill at least two separate and distinct desirable character traits in the individual". The written description as originally filed does not provide sufficient disclosure to support this limitation, and thus does not meet the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 38 recite(s) the limitation "wherein said at least two different types of tasks are not associated with treatment or maintenance of an existing medical condition of the individual". The written description as originally filed does not provide sufficient disclosure to support this limitation, and thus does not meet the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 48 does not further limit the scope of the invention of claim 47. For example, claim 48 requires “wherein: said at least one perceptible representation comprises at least one action-based accessory receivable to said interactive apparatus” which is equivalent in scope to the limitation of “the at least one task to be attached to an interactive apparatus for viewing by the individual, said at least one perceptible representation comprising at least one action-based accessory receivable to said interactive apparatus” required by claim 47. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 34, 35, 38, 44, 45, and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5,577,915 to FELDMAN.
Regarding claim 34, FELDMAN teaches A method of instilling desirable character traits in an individual (Abstract: motivational task tracking; col. 1, lines 10-34: children should have chores to teach them life skills, time management, habit of doing chores), comprising:
instructing the individual to perform at least two different tasks which when performed are designed to specifically instill at least two separate and distinct desirable character traits in the individual (col. 5, lines 3-17: at the beginning of each week or other time period, the parent or caregiver should talk about the activities to be done by the child and discuss how they should be done…Whatever the rules, they should be clearly communicated to the child at the start of the time period); fastening at least two action based accessories (col. 2, lines 65-67: plurality of activity or thing cards 12; col. 4, lines 1-2: large number of different cards 12…may be sold with device 10, extra ones which may be stored) to an interactive apparatus only upon completion of said at least two different types of tasks over a predetermined time period to validate performance thereof so as to allow the individual to proactively develop said at least two separate and distinct desirable character traits (col. 2, lines 65-67: sheet 14 to which they (the plurality of activity or thing cards 12) are attached in an organized manner; col. 3, lines 11-15 and 50-67: chore chart includes attachment means for attaching cards 12, e.g., hook and pile fasteners; col. 3, lines 33-34: one file 32 is provided for each unit of time in a period; col. 4, lines 26-33: activity on first card can be done on Monday only and so forth through the week; col. 4, lines 44-50: the child can…place it (the card) on the appropriate rank 30 as he completes each task. This immediate reward may give the child a better sense of forward progress and accomplishment, which may be needed especially with very young children who may have difficulty understanding deferred rewards).
Regarding claim 35, FELDMAN teaches adhering at least two discrete connectors to the interactive apparatus at spaced apart locations thereon; and providing each of the at least one action based accessory with a cooperative connector fastenably engageable with said at least two discrete connectors (col. 3, lines 50-67: chore chart and each card includes corresponding fasteners for attaching cards to chart, e.g., hook and pile fasteners).
Regarding claim 38, FELDMAN teaches wherein said at least two different types of tasks are not associated with treatment or maintenance of an existing medical condition (FIG. 3, 4, and 5, ref, 12, displaying example cards, such as “Get Dressed” and “Do My Homework” which are interpreted as different types of tasks not associated with treatment or maintenance of an existing medical condition).
Regarding claim 44, FELDMAN teaches applying indicia to said at least two action based accessories identifying the nature of each as different from one another thereby visually distinguishing one from the other (col. 4, lines 1-17: Included among cards 12 may be several blank ones upon which other activities…may be illustrated…).
Regarding claim 45, FELDMAN teaches wherein said applying includes writing by hand the indicia on said at least two action based accessories (col. 4, lines 1-17: Included among cards 12 may be several blank ones upon which other activities, defined by the user, may be illustrated by the user).
Regarding claim 47, FELDMAN teaches A method of instilling a desired character trait in an individual, comprising: instructing the individual to perform at least one task, a primary purpose of the at least one task being to instill at least one desired character trait associated therewith (col. 1, lines 10-34: children should have chores to teach them life skills, time management, habit of doing chores; col. 5, lines 3-17: at the beginning of each week or other time period, the parent or caregiver should talk about the activities to be done by the child and discuss how they should be done…Whatever the rules, they should be clearly communicated to the child at the start of the time period); and validating completion of the at least one task by permitting at least one perceptible representation of the at least one task to be attached to an interactive apparatus for viewing by the individual (col. 2, lines 65-67: sheet 14 to which they (the plurality of activity or thing cards 12) are attached in an organized manner; col. 3, lines 11-15 and 50-67: chore chart includes attachment means for attaching cards 12, e.g., hook and pile fasteners; col. 3, lines 33-34: one file 32 is provided for each unit of time in a period; col. 4, lines 26-33: activity on first card can be done on Monday only and so forth through the week; col. 4, lines 44-50: the child can…place it (the card) on the appropriate rank 30 as he completes each task. This immediate reward may give the child a better sense of forward progress and accomplishment, which may be needed especially with very young children who may have difficulty understanding deferred rewards), said at least one perceptible representation comprising at least one action- based accessory receivable to said interactive apparatus (col. 2, lines 65-67: plurality of activity or thing cards 12; col. 4, lines 1-2: large number of different cards 12…may be sold with device 10, extra ones which may be stored).
Regarding claim 48, FELDMAN teaches wherein: said at least one perceptible representation comprises at least one action-based accessory receivable to said interactive apparatus (col. 2, lines 65-67: plurality of activity or thing cards 12; col. 4, lines 1-2: large number of different cards 12…may be sold with device 10, extra ones which may be stored).
Regarding claim 49, FELDMAN teaches applying indicia to said at least one action based accessory identifying a nature of the at least one task on the at least one action based accessory (col. 4, lines 1-17: Included among cards 12 may be several blank ones upon which other activities…may be illustrated…).
Regarding claim 50, FELDMAN teaches wherein said applying includes writing by hand the indicia on said at least one action based accessory (col. 4, lines 1-17: Included among cards 12 may be several blank ones upon which other activities, defined by the user, may be illustrated by the user).
Regarding claim 51, FELDMAN teaches wherein said at least one task does not include a maintenance or treatment procedure associated with an existing health or medical issue of the individual (FIG. 3, 4, and 5, ref, 12, displaying example cards, such as “Get Dressed” and “Do My Homework” which are interpreted as tasks un-related to maintenance or treatment procedure associated with an existing health or medical issue of the individual).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
Claims 36, 37, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FELDMAN.
Regarding claim 36, FELDMAN teaches the elements above, but does not disclose forming said interactive apparatus in a general shape of a non-human organism.
Regarding claim 37, FELDMAN teaches the elements above, but does not disclose wherein: said at least one action based accessory includes a plurality of leaves; and said organism is a tree having branches which serve to increase available sites for attachment of said plurality of leaves.
Regarding claim 46, FELDMAN teaches forming said interactive apparatus in a general shape of a portion of an organism to elicit a recognizable response from the individual.
Regarding the limitations of claims 36, 37, and 46, subject matter directed solely to matters relating to ornamentation which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). In this case, claims 36, 37, and 46 merely further define the aesthetic design of the interactive apparatus (i.e., a general shape of a non-human organism including a tree having branches which serve to increase available sites for attachment of said plurality of leaves; and a general shape of a portion of an organism to elicit a recognizable response from the individual) and action based accessory (i.e., a plurality of leaves) with no apparent mechanical function or significance, and thus does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As provided with respect to the independent claims from which claims 36, 37, and 46 depend, FELDMAN teaches the claimed structural functionality, including an interactive apparatus and a plurality of action based accessories attachable to the interactive apparatus. FELDMAN also serves to increase available sites for attachment of said cards by providing a plurality of locations for attachment (e.g., FIG. 1, ref. 46a). The limitations of claims 36, 37, and 46 do not further define the structure or functionality already required by the independent claims, but instead only describe the aesthetic design of these existing features, e.g., shape. Thus, claim 36, 37, and 46 do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over FELDMAN. Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card and sheet of FELDMAN to have other shapes, including the tree with branches and leaves shape recited in claims 36, 37, and 46, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over FELDMAN, and the device of FELDMAN could still be used in the same manner by providing a device to track completed tasks by attaching objects representing completed tasks to a tracking device. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claims 24-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FELDMAN in view of US 2015/0064673 A1 to BASSETT.
Regarding claim 24, FELDMAN teaches A user interactive training system (Abstract: motivational task tracking device; col. 2, lines 63-65: educational device), comprising: …instructions for carrying out at least two different types of tasks effective to instill at least two separate and distinct associated desirable character traits in the individual (col. 5, lines 3-17: at the beginning of each week or other time period, the parent or caregiver should talk about the activities to be done by the child and discuss how they should be done…Whatever the rules, they should be clearly communicated to the child at the start of the time period); at least two action based accessories carrying thereon different indicia respectively identifying the at least two different types of tasks of the instructions so as to correlate the at least two action based accessories with the instructions such that a one of said at least two action accessories is distinguishable from another of said at least two action accessories based upon a nature of the at least two different types of tasks, thereby insuring that correct ones of the at least two different types of tasks is matched to those in the instructions (col. 2, lines 65-67: plurality of activity or thing cards 12; col. 4, lines 1-2: large number of different cards 12…may be sold with device 10, extra ones which may be stored); an interactive apparatus to which said at least two action based accessories are removably fastenable only upon completion of each said particular task associated with each of said at least two action based accessories, respectively, within a predetermined time interval (col. 2, lines 65-67: sheet 14 to which they (the plurality of activity or thing cards 12) are attached in an organized manner; col. 3, lines 11-15 and 50-67: chore chart includes attachment means for attaching cards 12, e.g., hook and pile fasteners; col. 3, lines 33-34: one file 32 is provided for each unit of time in a period; col. 4, lines 26-33: activity on first card can be done on Monday only and so forth through the week; col. 4, lines 44-50: the child can…place it (the card) on the appropriate rank 30 as he completes each task. This immediate reward may give the child a better sense of forward progress and accomplishment, which may be needed especially with very young children who may have difficulty understanding deferred rewards); and discrete connectors being carried on said interactive apparatus, and each of said at least two action based accessories including a cooperative connector for fastenable engagement with any one of said discrete connectors, said each of said at least two action based accessories being configured to permit the fastenable engagement irrespective of a position of said any one of said discrete connectors (col. 3, lines 50-67: chore chart and each card includes corresponding fasteners for attaching cards to chart, e.g., hook and pile fasteners). To the extent FELDMAN does not expressly disclose a tangible medium which includes said instructions, BASSETT also teaches a motivational system for family organization and methods of using the system, including a system to track completion of tasks and progress towards goals (Abstract). BASSETT teaches the system, which comprises a status board that records a user’s completion of tasks, is provided as a kit with printed instructions (par. 0040). Printed instructions as disclosed by BASSETT are interpreted as a tangible medium. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate instructions in the form of printed instructions as taught by BASSETT, into the system of FELDMAN, in order to apply a known technique for conveying instructions in a similar device, thereby achieving a predictable result.
Regarding claim 25, FELDMAN teaches wherein: said discrete connectors carried on said interactive apparatus are disposed at spaced apart locations on said interactive apparatus (FIG. 1, ref. 46a; col. 3, lines 53-56: a row of hook or pile patches 46a are provided at spaced intervals along each rank 30 for mated engagement with patches 46b of opposite gender (see FIG. 3) on the backside of cards 12); and said at least two action based accessories include a plurality of action based accessories which are all a similar shape and size (FIG. 2-6, ref. 12).
Regarding claim 26, FELDMAN teaches wherein said at least two different types of tasks exclude ones that are performed to address health or medical issues (FIG. 3, 4, and 5, ref, 12, displaying example cards, such as “Get Dressed” and “Do My Homework” which are interpreted as different types of tasks that exclude ones that are performed to address health or medical issues).
Regarding claim 27, FELDMAN teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein: said at least two action based accessories include a plurality of leaves; and said interactive apparatus is formed in a general shape of a tree having branches which serve to increase available sites for attachment of said plurality of leaves. In this case, claim 27 merely further define the aesthetic design of the interactive apparatus (i.e., a general shape of a tree having branches which serve to increase available sites for attachment of said plurality of leaves) and action based accessory (i.e., a plurality of leaves) with no apparent mechanical function or significance, and thus does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As provided with respect to the independent claim from which claim 27 depends, FELDMAN teaches the claimed structural functionality, including an interactive apparatus and a plurality of action based accessories attachable to the interactive apparatus. The sheet of FELDMAN also serves to increase available sites for attachment of said cards by providing a plurality of locations for attachment (e.g., FIG. 1, ref. 46a). The limitations of claim 27 do not further define the structure or functionality already required by the independent claims, but instead only describe the aesthetic design of these existing features, e.g., shape. Thus, claim 27 does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over FELDMAN. Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the card and sheet of FELDMAN to have other shapes, including the tree with branches and leaves shape recited in claim 27, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over FELDMAN, and the device of FELDMAN could still be used in the same manner by providing a device to track completed tasks by attaching objects representing completed tasks to a tracking device. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 31, FELDMAN teaches wherein said discrete connectors and said cooperative connector include hook and loop fasteners (col. 3, lines 11-15 and 50-67: chore chart includes attachment means for attaching cards 12, e.g., hook and pile fasteners, also known as VELCRO).
Regarding claim 32, FELDMAN teaches wherein said discrete connectors carried on said interactive apparatus are adhered to an exterior surface of the interactive apparatus in a predetermined arrangement (FIG. 1, ref. 46a; col. 3, lines 53-56: a row of hook or pile patches 46a are provided at spaced intervals along each rank 30 for mated engagement with patches 46b of opposite gender (see FIG. 3) on the backside of cards 12).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FELDMAN in view of BASSETT, as applied to claim 24, in further view of 10,147,332 B1 to BARBER.
Regarding claim 33, FELDMAN teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein said discrete connectors are one of sewn or glued to a exterior of said interactive apparatus. However, BARBER teaches a related chart for instructional purposes (col. 1, lines 14-15 and 25-27). BARBER discloses the use of hook-and-loop fasteners that are sewn to the underlying support (col. 7, lines 37-39). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hook and loop or pile connectors as disclosed by FELDMAN to be sewn on, in order to use a known technique of fastening hook and loop to an underlying material, thereby achieving a predictable result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
