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 action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 12/23/2025. Claims 1, 4, 7-10, and 14 have been amended. Claims 14-17 were previously withdrawn. Claims 5, 16, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-19 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herman et al. (US Patent No. 5,364,272).
In Reference to Claim 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 18-19
Herman teaches (Claim 1) An educational toy set comprising: a. a shape (items 14, fig. 1) having at least one shape-identifier (items 50, fig. 2) corresponding to one or more shape feature(s) (column 4 lines 7-10 and 54-58); b. a shape-identification element having at least one reader (items 46, fig. 2) to detect and/or activate at least one shape-identifier inside an effective range of the at least one reader (column 4 lines 18-21 and 49-58); c. a processing unit, adapted at processing a detecting and/or activating of at least one shape-identifier by the reader (item 20, fig. 1, column 4 lines 49-58), and d. an output unit, adapted at giving an auditive output, reflective of the processing of said detecting and/or activating in conjunction with the one or more shape feature(s) (column 2 line 65 – column 3 line 7); and e. a memory unit configured to store a sequence of the detecting and/or activating of the at least one shape-identifier by one or more of the at least one reader (column 3 lines 20-24), and wherein each of the one or more shape feature(s) includes any one or a combination of: shape form value, number value, letter value, or picture value of the shape, and the processing comprises setting a shape feature value in context with a sequence of shape features, thereby generating a meaningful output which is reflective of the sequence of shape features (column 2 line 65 – column 3 line 5);
(Claim 2) comprising a plurality of shapes, each having at least one shape-identifier corresponding to one or more shape feature(s) (items 14a, 14b, 14c, etc., fig. 1; column 2 lines 44-52, column 2 lines 65-66);
(Claim 3) comprising a plurality of shape-identification elements each having at least one reader and each having an effective range of the at least one reader (items 46, fig. 7, column 4 lines 18-48);
(Claim 4) where the output is reflective of a feature of the one of the plurality of shape-identification elements that has performed the detecting and/or activating of at least one shape-identifier (column 2 line 65 – column 3 line 5);
(Claim 7) comprising a plurality of effective ranges, each of a particular reader, and the effective ranges are adjusted so that they do not overlap (column 4 lines 18-48, items 46 read items 50 in close contact only and do not read adjacent items 50);
(Claim 8) wherein the output in conjunction with the one or more shape feature(s) is reflective of a feature selected from the group consisting of: the shape form value, the number value, the letter value, or the picture value of the shape (column 2 line 65 – column 3 line 5);
(Claim 9) whereby shape-identification element comprises at least one shape receptacle adapted at receiving a shape to bring the shape into an effective range associated with said shape receptacle (items 12a-c, fig. 1, column 2 lines 43-52);
(Claim 11) whereby the processing unit is further adapted at prompting a user by means of auditive output by the output unit (column 3 lines 30-34, instructional information).
(Claim 12) whereby the shape-identification element(s), the processing unit and the output unit are part of a play tray and the shape(s) are separate and adapted to be brought into an effective range of at least one reader inside the play tray, in particular by fitting a shape into a shape receptacle (fig. 1, items 14, into items 12 of item 10, “base” includes processing unit, output unit, and shape identification elements);
(Claim 13) whereby at least two of a plurality of shapes are designed to be stackable (fig. 1, cubes are stackable, note this is merely an intended use).
(Claim 18) wherein the shape receptacle is part of the play tray (fig. 1, items 12 are part of item 10).
(Claim 19) wherein the processing unit is configured to process the at least one shape-identifier as a function of at least one parameter selected from: the one or more shape feature(s), a number of shape-identifier(s), a position of the reader, and a time of reading (column 2 line 65 – column 3 line 5).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Sabo et al. (US Patent No. 9,333,427).
In Reference to Claim 6
Herman teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Herman fails to teach the feature of claim 6.
Sabo teaches (Claim 6) comprising an interface for connecting the processing unit with at least one further information processing device (column 3 lines 10-12; column 7 lines 25-39, column 8 lines 42-49, USB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the block reading system device of Herman with the feature of a further information processing device as taught by the block reading system device of Sabo for the purpose of providing more processing power, more instructions, and a wider range of capabilities, making the device more comprehensive, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice where the operation of the device is not modified, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and that making components separate but connected vs. integral is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Since all of the components and functions claimed are taught in Herman, merely claiming a further connected information processing unit which would not perform any functions different from or additional to the claimed functions is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance. Simply adding additional processing devices external to the device is merely a matter of rearrangement of parts / separating integral parts, and is not a patentable distinction.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Creedican (US PGPub. No. 2017/0136380 A1).
In Reference to Claim 10
Herman teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Herman fails to teach the feature of claim 10.
Creedican teaches (Claim 10) whereby the shape has a shape surface made of wood (paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the electronic block system of Herman with the feature of making the blocks of wood as taught by the electronic block system of Creedican for the purpose of selecting a known and economical material, making the device inexpensive and easy to make, making the device more attractive to the manufacturers.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Making the shapes of wood, plastic, rubber, fiberglass, or any other suitable material is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue that there are some processor / memory related steps performed by the present invention that are not found in Herman. However, these steps are not found in the claims. Applicant argues that Herman does not teach “generating a meaningful output reflective of [a] sequence in the absence of the shapes that produced it.” This is not claimed. Applicant argues that Herman fails to teach “retaining a previously detected arrangement once the cubes are removed.” This is also not claimed. Applicant’s arguments are lacking in specificity regarding claim limitations that are not taught in Herman, but instead are directed to what appear to be intended uses of applicant’s device and / or processor memory related steps that are performed or intended to be performed by the present invention, which are not currently concretely claimed.
The examiner notes here that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
What is currently claimed is “a memory unit configured to store a sequence of the detecting and/or activating of the at least one shape-identifier by one or more of the at least one reader.” Herman teaches a memory unit, item 22, which stores sequences that correlate to detecting / activating sequences of the blocks (“sequences of alphabetic letters that form words, column 3 lines 20-24). The device then performs output actions such as sounds and graphical displays based on the memory of these stored sequences in response to the detecting / activating of that sequence (column 2 line 65 – column 3 line 7). This meets all of applicant’s current claim limitations. Again, applicant appears to be arguing a distinction of programming or processing steps that is not currently found in the claims. If there is a significant distinction here, it should be claimed with more specificity in order to overcome the current 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 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 JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711