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 .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 17/994,315 filed on 11/26/2022.
3. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. IDS filed on 11/26/2022 is considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8, 10-12, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. Claim limitation “unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholders “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 9-15 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in a software that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification provides no descriptive definitions or details that separate the claimed “unit” described in the claim from functioning as a software.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding software, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
.
8. (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.
9. Claims 9-15 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For example, claim 9 comprises the language: “configured to”, which in itself is indefinite, because such phrase does not definitely and positively infer that such acts of the claims are actually being performed and only suggests that the limitations of the claims may possibly being performed. The claims therefore do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. Claims 1, 6, 9, 13, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitations of: “providing complex information including braille information and voice information”.
The limitation of providing complex information including braille information and voice information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a control unit to derive analysis data associated with a reading pattern of a user for braille information and outputting voice information corresponding to the braille information on the basis of the analysis data to perform both steps. The control unit in both steps recite at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a control unit to derive analysis data associated with a reading pattern of a user for braille information and outputting voice information corresponding to the braille information on the basis of the analysis data” to perform both deriving and outputting steps are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Park, Dong Hyun (US PG PUB 2018/0217667).
As per claim 1, Park discloses a wearable haptic pattern display device for blind person, comprising:
Providing complex information including braille (see., Park, paragraph 0098, method for providing electrical simulations based on braille system recognition) information and voice information (see., Park paragraphs 0007 and 0057); deriving analysis data associated with a reading pattern (see., Park 0043, control unit 150 and 0048) of a user for braille information; and outputting voice information (see., Park paragraphs 0007 and 0057) corresponding to the braille information on the basis of the analysis data (see., paragraphs 0069, 0072-0075).
As per claims 2, 5, Park discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim above wherein the analysis data comprises at least one of reading information or reading speed (see., paragraphs 0006 and 0007) information of the user for the braille information.
As per claims 6, 7, Park discloses a wearable haptic pattern display device for blind person, comprising:
Providing complex information including braille (see., Park, paragraph 0098, method for providing electrical simulations based on braille system recognition) information and voice information (see., Park paragraphs 0007 and 0057); obtaining braille information and voice information corresponding to target information and displaying the braille information; deriving analysis data associated with a reading pattern (see., Park 0043, control unit 150 and 0048) of a user for braille information; and outputting voice information (see., Park paragraphs 0007 and 0057) corresponding to the braille information on the basis of the analysis data (see., paragraphs 0069, 0072-0075).
As per claims 9 and 13-14, Park discloses a wearable haptic pattern display device for blind person, comprising:
Providing complex information including braille (see., Park, paragraph 0098, method for providing electrical simulations based on braille system recognition) information and voice information (see., Park paragraphs 0007 and 0057) a reading analysis unit configured to derive analysis data associated with a reading pattern (see., Park 0043, control unit 150 and 0048) of a user for braille information; and outputting voice information (see., Park paragraphs 0007 and 0057) corresponding to the braille information on the basis of the analysis data (see., paragraphs 0069, 0072-0075).
Conclusion
14.. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 5:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715