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 11/05/2025. Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, and 15-19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8, 10, and 12-14 are currently pending. Claim 20 is new (presented as claim 6 which was previously cancelled, see objections below).
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 6 been renumbered claim 20.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 line 3 recites “interface,” which appears it should be “interface.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 is 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.
This claim recites that the chip and / or reader are coupled to a vehicle or an offshore vessel. However, these claims depend from claim 1 which recited these items in combination with a board. Therefore, these claims appear to be contradictory. It is unclear if the chip and / or reader are intended to be coupled to a vehicle, offshore vessel, or product without the board as a separate use, or if the entire board with the chips is intended to be coupled to these items. Appropriate correction / clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle (US Patent No. 7,791,483 B2) in view of Unruh et al. (US Patent No. 11,045,738 B1).
In Reference to Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 13, and 20
Oberle teaches (Claim 1) A chip board system for one or more users, comprising: a board (item 102, fig’s 1 and 2); one or more chips situated on said board (items 204 / 206 / 208, fig. 2); one or more readers configured to communicate with said one or more chips (item 110 / 108, fig. 1), wherein at least one of said one or more chips and/or at least one of said one or more readers comprise or are coupled with one or more antennas (column 2 lines 9-13) [] and wherein said board is configured to be an aid and wherein said one or more users are defined as subjects of said aid (column 2 lines 1-8; aids in indicating illegal moves or providing other game information, this is extremely broad), wherein at least one said aid is selected from a group consisting of educational aids, instructional aids, informational aids, supervision aids, detection aids, rescue aids, or combinations thereof (e.g. teaching legal and illegal chess moves is instructional and educational, this is extremely broad);
(Claim 2) wherein at least one of said one or more chips is a memory chip (column 1 lines 44-53);
(Claim 3) wherein at least one of said one or more chips and/or at least one of said one or more readers comprise or are coupled with an interface, wherein at least one said inteface is selected from a group consisting of coils, capacitors, electromagnetic interfaces, antennas, light generators, sound generators, wired interfaces, communication interfaces, or combinations thereof (column 1 line 51 – column 2 line 8; at least a communication interface).
(Claim 4) wherein said board is provided with a layer (fig. 2, top or bottom layer);
(Claim 5) wherein said board is three dimensional (fig. 2, board has thickness and is therefore three dimensional);
(Claim 8) wherein at least one of said one or more chips and/or at least one of said one or more readers are configured to emite and/or to receive one or more electrical fields or one or more magnetic fields, or combinations (column 1 lines 35-53, RFID electrical fields).
(Claim 10) wherein at least one of said one or more chips is a radio frequency identification chip and at least one of said one or more readers is a radio frequency identification reader (column 1 lines 35-53);
(Claim 13) wherein said one or more chips and/or said one or more readers are disposed in one or more patterns (fig. 1);
(Claim 20) wherein said board is configured to be a game and wherein said one or more users are defined as players and wherein at least one of said one or more chips and/or at least one of said one or more readers are coupled with a holder which does not have one or more wheels to roll on (spaces 106 can be considered “holders,” note this is extremely broad, spaces hold chips 204 / 206 / 208).
Oberle fails to teach the antenna being rotatably mounted.
Unruh teaches a freely rotatably mounted antenna to allow at least one turn or to oscillate for use with RFID tags (column 6 lines 38-42, antenna swivels on a hinge, which inherently would allow some turning or oscillating).
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 RFID tag game system of Oberle with the feature of a rotatably mounted antenna as taught by the RFID tag game system of Unruh for the purpose of allowing a reader to be better oriented to more reliably read RFID tags as taught by Unruh (summary and column 6 lines 38-42), making the system more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle in view of Unruh.
In Reference to Claim 12
The modified device of Oberle teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Oberle further teaches a controller that performs processor steps and reads memory (column 1 lines 51 – column 2 line 8), therefore, the examiner believes that the elements of at least a processor and a memory are inherent to the device of Oberle, since it would not operate without these elements.
However, in the alternate view that since these elements are not explicitly taught Oberle does not require them, an alternate rejection is set forth below:
Unruh teaches (Claim 12) further comprising an electronic device including at least a processor and a memory (column 6 lines 1-20).
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 RFID tag system of Oberle with the feature of a processor and a memory as taught by the RFID tag system of Unruh for the purpose of allowing the system to produce a wider variety of information, responses, and programs in response to reading an RFID tag as taught by Unruh (column 6 lines 1-20), making the system more comprehensive, more versatile, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle in view of Unruh.
In Reference to Claim 14
The modified device of Oberle teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Oberle fails to teach the feature of claim 14.
Unruh teaches (Claim 14) wherein at least one of said one or more chips and/or at least one of said one or more readers are coupled with a vehicle or with an offshore vessel (column 3 lines 1-19, vehicle).
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 RFID tag system of Oberle with the feature of coupling chips to a vehicle as taught by the RFID tag system of Unruh for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive system with a wider variety of programmed responses for a wider range of play pieces, as taught by Unruh (column 8 lines 21-46), making the system more versatile, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 112 rejection of claim 14 is not persuasive. Since a “board” was recited in claim 1, claim 14 should clarify if the entire chip board system is attached to a vehicle or vessel, or if the “board further comprises” a vehicle or vessel. As written, claim 14 is currently indefinite.
Applicant’s argument that Oberle fails to teach a rotatable antenna is not persuasive. Oberle was not used for this feature. The secondary reference of Unruh was used to teach this feature, which is not addressed in the arguments. Simply pointing out what the primary reference does not teach, when a secondary reference was used for this feature will not obviate the rejection.
Applicant’s argument that Unruh fails to teach a rotatable antenna is not persuasive. The examiner notes that column 6 lines 38-42 specifically disclose that an antenna is attached inside a housing and can “swivel on a hinge,” which is rotatable motion. It is unclear what applicant is attempting to argue here. Whether the antenna swivels independently, or, swivels with the housing, the antenna is rotatable with respect to other portions of the device, meeting the claimed limitations. If some other specific type of mounting or rotation is intended here, it must be claimed with more specificity that provides some distinct structure not found in the references. As currently claimed, Unruh meets these limitations.
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