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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 12/22/25. Claims 1, and 14 were amended, claims 3, 12, and duplicate claim 14 were canceled, claims 17-23 were newly added. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13, and 15-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,360,810 B1 to Horowitz et al. (hereinafter “Horowitz”) in view of US Publication No. 2009/0053971 A1 to Hui (hereinafter “Hui”).
Concerning claim 1, Horowitz discloses an interactive doll, comprising: a doll body, including a plurality of decorative elements on a surface of the doll body (column 6, lines 49-67 – plurality of decorative elements (e.g., patches) are on the surface of the doll body);
at least one output interface adapted to provide instructions and feedback to a user (column 6, lines 36-48);
a first sensor, adapted to identify at least one of motion of the doll, orientation of the doll, or acceleration of the doll (column 7, lines 10-49);
a second sensor, adapted to identify at least one characteristic on, or in the vicinity of, the surface of said doll body (column 7, lines 10-49);
at least one instruction repository storing a plurality of instructions, each instruction associated with at least one valid response for responding to said instruction (column 6, lines 36-48); and
a controller including: a processor functionally associated with said at least one output interface, said at least one sensor, and said at least one instruction repository; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software modules including instructions to be executed by said processor, said non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored: instructions to provide an instruction from said at least one instruction repository to the user via said at least one output interface (column 6, lines 36-48);
instructions to receive, from said at least one sensor, at least one transmission indicative of a response of said user to said instruction; instructions to identify, based on said at least one transmission, if said response of said user is one of said at least one valid response to said instruction; and instructions to provide feedback to the user, via said at least one output interface, said feedback corresponding to said response of said user (column 6, lines 10-48).
Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Hui discloses wherein the interactive doll is devoid of a mechanism for communicating with another device (paragraphs [0032]-[0034] – internal circuit does not communicate with another device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the internal circuitry which does not communicate with other devices as disclosed by Hui in the system of Horowitz in order to make the doll simpler, thereby reducing production costs.
Concerning claim 2, Horowitz discloses further comprising a plurality of illuminators disposed within said doll body, at least one of said plurality of illuminators being associated with, and adapted to illuminate, at least one of said plurality of decorative elements (column 6, lines 10-48).
Concerning claim 4, Horowitz discloses wherein said first sensor comprises a motion sensor, adapted to sense motion of said doll (column 7, lines 10-49).
Concerning claim 8, Horowitz discloses wherein said second sensor comprises a pressure sensor, adapted to sense whether pressure is applied to said doll or to one of said plurality of decorative elements (column 7, lines 10-49).
Concerning claim 10, Horowitz discloses wherein said second sensor comprises a light sensor, adapted to sense illumination in a vicinity of said doll or of one of said plurality of decorative elements (column 7, lines 10-49).
Concerning claim 11, Horowitz discloses wherein said second sensor comprises a color sensor, adapted to sense a color in a vicinity of said doll or of one of said plurality of decorative elements (column 7, lines 10-49).
Concerning claim 13, Horowitz discloses wherein said instructions to provide feedback include: instructions, to be executed responsive to said response being one of said at least one valid response, to provide reinforcing feedback to said user; and instructions, to be executed responsive to said response not being one of said at least one valid response, to provide corrective feedback to said user (column 6, lines 10-48).
Concerning claim 14, Horowitz discloses a method for interacting with a user using an interactive doll, the interactive doll including a doll body having a plurality of decorative elements on the surface of the doll body (column 6, lines 49-67 – plurality of decorative elements (e.g., patches) are on the surface of the doll body),
the method comprising: providing to the user an instruction from an instruction repository, via an output interface forming part of said interactive doll (column 6, lines 36-48);
receiving from at least one sensor forming part of said doll, at least one transmission indicative of a response of the user to said instruction (column 6, lines 36-48);
identifying, based on at least one transmission from at least one sensor forming part of said interactive doll, whether said response of the user to said instruction is a valid response to said instruction (column 7, lines 10-49); and
based on said identifying, providing feedback to the user, via said at least out output interface (column 6, lines 10-48).
Concerning claim 15, Horowitz discloses wherein said providing feedback comprises, in response to said identifying that said response of the user is not a valid response to said instruction, providing a corrective feedback to the user (column 6, lines 10-48).
Concerning claim 16, Horowitz discloses wherein said providing feedback comprises, in response to said identifying that said response of the user is a valid response to said instruction, providing a reinforcing feedback to the user (column 6, lines 10-48).
Concerning claim 17, Horowitz discloses wherein: the providing to the user the instruction from the instruction repository comprises providing to the user an instruction to identify and physically engage a color or a shape forming part of one of said plurality of decorative elements; and the identifying whether said response of the user to said instruction is a valid response to said instruction comprises identifying, based on the at least one transmission, whether the user physically engaged the color or shape specified in the instruction provided to the user (column 6, lines 49-67).
Concerning claim 20, Horowitz discloses wherein said instructions to provide said instruction to the user comprise instructions to instruct the user to identify and physically engage a color or a shape forming part of one of said plurality of decorative elements (column 6, lines 49-67).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz, Hui, and further in view of US Publication No. 2016/0059142 A1 to Krolweski et al. (hereinafter “Krolweski”).
Concerning claim 5, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Krolweski discloses wherein said first sensor comprises an orientation sensor adapted to sense a three dimensional orientation of said doll (paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors of Krolweski in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Concerning claim 6, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Krolweski discloses wherein said first sensor comprises an acceleration sensor adapted to sense acceleration of said doll (paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors of Krolweski in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Concerning claim 7, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Krolweski discloses wherein said first sensor comprises a location sensor adapted to sense a location of said doll (paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors of Krolweski in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Concerning claim 9, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Krolweski discloses wherein said second sensor comprises a temperature sensor, adapted to sense a temperature in a vicinity of said doll or of one of said plurality of decorative elements (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors of Krolweski in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz, Hui, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,514,117 B1 A1 to Hampton et al. (hereinafter “Hampton”).
Concerning claim 18, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Hampton discloses wherein: the providing to the user the instruction from the instruction repository comprises providing to the user an instruction to move the doll at a specific acceleration or in a specific direction; and the identifying whether said response of the user to said instruction is a valid response to said instruction comprises identifying, based on the at least one transmission, whether the user has moved the doll as instructed (column 27, line 1 – column 28, line 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motion instruction of Hampton in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Concerning claim 19, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Hampton discloses wherein: the providing to the user the instruction from the instruction repository comprises providing to the user an instruction to move the doll to a location that is relative to another object or relative to a current location of the doll; and the identifying whether said response of the user to said instruction is a valid response to said instruction comprises identifying, based on the at least one transmission, whether the user has moved the doll as instructed (column 27, line 1 – column 28, line 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motion instruction of Hampton in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Concerning claim 21, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Hampton discloses wherein said instructions to provide said instruction to the user comprise instructions to instruct the user to move the doll at a specific acceleration or in a specific direction (column 27, line 1 – column 28, line 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motion instruction of Hampton in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Concerning claim 22, Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Hampton discloses wherein said instructions to provide said instruction to the user comprise instructions to instruct the user to move the doll to a location that is relative to another object or relative to a current location of the doll (column 27, line 1 – column 28, line 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motion instruction of Hampton in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz, in view of Hampton.
Concerning claim 23, Horowitz discloses an interactive doll, comprising: a doll body, including a plurality of decorative elements on a surface of the doll body (column 6, lines 49-67);
at least one output interface adapted to provide instructions and feedback to a user (column 6, lines 36-48);
a first sensor, adapted to identify at least one of motion of the doll, orientation of the doll, or acceleration of the doll (column 7, lines 10-49);
a second sensor, adapted to identify at least one characteristic on, or in the vicinity of, the surface of said doll body (column 7, lines 10-49);
at least one instruction repository storing a plurality of instructions, each instruction associated with at least one valid response for responding to said instruction (column 6, lines 36-48);
and a controller including: a processor functionally associated with said at least one output interface, said at least one sensor, and said at least one instruction repository; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software modules including instructions to be executed by said processor, said non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored: instructions to provide an instruction from said at least one instruction repository to the user via said at least one output interface (column 6, lines 36-48);
instructions to receive, from said at least one sensor, at least one transmission indicative of a response of said user to said instruction; instructions to identify, based on said at least one transmission, if said response of said user is one of said at least one valid response to said instruction; and instructions to provide feedback to the user, via said at least one output interface, said feedback corresponding to said response of said user (column 6, lines 10-48),
wherein said instructions to provide said instruction to the user comprise instructions to instruct the user to carry out one or more of the following actions: identify and physically engage a color forming part of one of said plurality of decorative elements; identify and physically engage a shape forming part of one of said plurality of decorative elements (column 6, lines 49-67).
Horowitz lacks specifically disclosing, however, Hampton discloses move the doll at a specific acceleration; move the doll in a specific direction; and/or move the doll to a location that is relative to another object or relative to a current location of the doll (column 27, line 1 – column 28, line 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motion instruction of Hampton in the doll of Horowitz in order to provide a more interactive doll thereby increasing user interest in the toy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect the claims have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715