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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is requested to amend the first paragraph of the specification to indicate that parent application 16/196,021 is now U.S. Patent No. 11,464,350.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 1: “the three channels” should apparently read --the at least three channels--.
In claim 5, line 1: “span” should apparently read –spans--.
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.
Claims 4-6, 10, and 14-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “oriented generally parallel each other” in lines 1-2. The term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not readily determinable how parallel the channels must be oriented relative to each other to meet the claim language (e.g., is a five degree difference acceptable? Only a one degree difference?).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “span substantially an entire width of the base” in lines 1-2. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not readily determinable how much of the entire width of the base the channels must span to meet the claim language (e.g., is 90% acceptable? Or 95%?).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “spans substantially an entire width of the base” in lines 1-2. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not readily determinable how much of the entire width of the base the channels must span to meet the claim language (e.g., is 90% acceptable? Or 95%?).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first hand pocket" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For sake of compact prosecution, claim 10 will be taken herein to depend upon claim 8 (which does recite a first hand pocket).
Claim 14 recites the limitations “a top portion” in line 3, “a user” in line 4, and “a hand” in line 4. It is not clear if these are intended to refer to the same top portion, user, and hand recited in line 2 of the claim, or to a separate portion/user/hand.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an electronic device” in line 1. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the electronic activity device in claim 1 or to be a separate component.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electronic device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; claim 1 recites an electronic activity device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0000171 A1; hereinafter known as “Pacheco”), in view of Ponski (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0231277 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pacheco discloses a device (Abstract; Figs. 17-23), comprising: a base 250 having a body-conforming configuration and at least three separate channels 256/258 having weight material 204/266 enclosed within each of the channels, each channel being vertically elongated ([0060]-[0061]). Pacheco fails to disclose a first transparent window positioned at a surface of the base and in part defining a first activity device pocket where the first activity device pocket is configured to receive an electronic activity device viewable through the window. Ponski discloses a similar device (Abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising a base ([0034]; [0059]; e.g., a blanket, as in Pacheco) and a first transparent window positioned at a surface of the base and in part defining a first activity device pocket where the first activity device pocket is configured to receive an electronic activity device viewable through the window in order to allow access to the device’s functionality while it is still securely stored ([0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0029]). 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 invention of Pacheco with such a transparent window/pocket, as taught by Ponski, in order to allow access to the functionality of an electronic activity device while the electronic activity device is still securely stored.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Ponski further discloses that a touch-screen enabled activity device inserted into the first activity device pocket may be controlled by touching the first transparent window ([0007]; [0020]; [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Ponski further discloses that the first activity device pocket is configured to receive an activity device having a touch screen display and where the first transparent window is configured such that touching the window allows touch screen control of the activity device having the touch screen display ([0007]; [0020]; [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Pacheco further discloses that the at least three channels are oriented generally parallel each other, at least two of the channels being adjacent and configured to fold over each other (Figs. 17-21; [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Pacheco further discloses that each of the three channels span substantially an entire width of the base (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to expressly disclose at least a second transparent window at a top surface of the base and in part defining a second activity device pocket. However, 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 combination of Pacheco and Ponski with such a second transparent window/pocket in order to allow access to the functionality of an additional electronic activity device while the additional electronic activity device is still securely stored. Many people have multiple phones (e.g., personal phone and work phone) or multiple devices (e.g., phone and e-reader or pad).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Ponski further discloses that the first transparent window is configured to receive dry-erase markings such that dry-erase markings may be applied and readily removed from the first transparent window ([0020]; as evidenced by U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0306188, which teaches in paragraph 0019 that a PVC window allows dry-erase markings to be applied and removed).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Pacheco further discloses that the weight material is permanently enclosed and sealed within respective channels ([0060]-[0061]; e.g., end piece 262 encloses and seals the channels).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Ponski further discloses an electronic device having a display, the electronic device positioned within the first activity device pocket, the display being touch screen activated by a touch of the transparent window ([0007]; [0020]; [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Pacheco discloses a device (Abstract; Figs. 17-23), comprising: a body-conforming base 250 having weight material 204/266 enclosed within a plurality of channels 256/258, at least two of the channels being foldable over each other ([0060]-[0061]). Pacheco fails to disclose a first transparent window positioned at the base and at least in part defining a first activity device pocket separated from the weight material where the first activity device pocket is configured to receive an electronic activity device viewable through the window. Ponski discloses a similar device (Abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising a base ([0034]; [0059]; e.g., a blanket, as in Pacheco) and a first transparent window positioned at the base and in part defining a first activity device pocket where the first activity device pocket is configured to receive an electronic activity device viewable through the window in order to allow access to the device’s functionality while it is still securely stored ([0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0029]). 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 invention of Pacheco with such a transparent window/pocket, as taught by Ponski, in order to allow access to the functionality of an electronic activity device while the electronic activity device is still securely stored.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Ponski further discloses at least five channels (Fig. 19), each of the five channels enclosing flowable weight material ([0058]; e.g., polymer pellets).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that at least two adjacent channels fold along a vertical seam (Pacheco: Figs. 17-21) and that the first device pocket has an opening (Ponski: [0027]-[0028], [0057]). The combination of Pacheco and Ponski fails to expressly disclose that the opening is oriented perpendicular the seam. However, this would have been an obvious matter of design choice. The orientation of the pocket and its opening would be arbitrary when applied to a blanket; as can be seen in Ponski, the pocket and its opening are generally positioned parallel to one edge of the blanket and perpendicular to another edge of the blanket. Thus, arriving at the recited orientation of the opening being perpendicular the vertical seam (and thus parallel to the bottom edge) would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Pacheco further discloses that at least three of the plurality of channels fold over each other ([0060]-[0061]; e.g., each channel has seams between them; the device is a cloth/fabric blanket, so the channels would be foldable at the seams).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tastard (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0149698 A1), in view of Ponski.
Regarding claim 1, Tastard discloses a device (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2), comprising: a base having a body-conforming configuration and at least three separate channels A6 having weight material enclosed within each of the channels, each channel being vertically elongated (Fig. 1; [0020]). Tastard fails to disclose a first transparent window positioned at a surface of the base and in part defining a first activity device pocket where the first activity device pocket is configured to receive an electronic activity device viewable through the window; though Tastard does teach pockets and sensory tools ([0021]). Ponski discloses a similar device (Abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising a base ([0034]; [0059]; [0130]) and a first transparent window positioned at a surface of the base and in part defining a first activity device pocket where the first activity device pocket is configured to receive an electronic activity device viewable through the window in order to allow access to the device’s functionality while it is still securely stored ([0006]-[0007]; [0020]; [0023]; [0027]; [0029]). 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 invention of Tastard with such a transparent window/pocket, as taught by Ponski, in order to allow access to the functionality of an electronic activity device while the electronic activity device is still securely stored.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tastard and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the first transparent window spans substantially an entire width of the base (Tastard: [0020]; Ponski: [0020]; e.g., the width of the base may be between 5 and 12 inches, while the window may be in the range of 3.5” x 5.5” to 7” x 9”; accordingly, the window can span substantially the entire width of the base).
Claims 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco and Ponski as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Judd (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0100568 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Ponski further discloses that the first activity device pocket has a top opening ([0027]-[0028], [0057]). The combination of Pacheco and Ponski fails to disclose at least a first hand pocket positioned at a top portion of the base and having a bottom opening. Judd discloses a similar device (Abstract) that includes at least a first hand pocket positioned at a top portion of the base and having a bottom opening in order to insert and remove a sensory device ([0057]). 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 combination of Pacheco and Ponski with such a hand pocket, as taught by Judd, in order to insert and remove a sensory device.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Pacheco further discloses that the weight material is flowable ([0058]; e.g., polymer pellets). The combination of Pacheco and Ponski fails to expressly disclose that the weight material has a cumulative weight of between 2 and 15 pounds. Judd discloses a similar device (Abstract) wherein the weight material may have a cumulative weight of between 2 and 15 pounds in order to apply a desired amount of pressure ([0033]; claim 10). 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 combination of Pacheco and Ponski with a cumulative weight of between 2 and 15 pounds, as taught by Judd, in order to apply a desired amount of pressure.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pacheco and Ponski discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose a first hand pocket positioned at a top portion of the base and configured to allow a user to insert a hand into the first hand pocket, and a second hand pocket positioned at a top portion of the base and configured to allow a user to insert a hand into the second hand pocket. Judd discloses a similar device (Abstract) that includes first and second hand pocket positioned at a top portion of the base and configured to allow a user to insert a hand therein in order to insert and remove sensory devices ([0057]; pocket for insertion/removal of a sensory device is taken to be able to insert a hand; especially pockets for holding hot water bottles). 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 combination of Pacheco and Ponski with such hand pockets, as taught by Judd, in order to insert and remove sensory devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claims 10 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 9, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests a fidget detachably connected to a sleeve that is detachably connected to an inside of the first hand pocket, in combination with the other recited components. Regarding claim 10, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests a second transparent window that is positioned atop the first hand pocket, the second transparent window defining in part a second pocket, in combination with the other recited components. Regarding claim 16, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests a sensory mechanism that is positioned on or within the base and responsive to operation of the electronic device, in combination with the other recited components.
A note regarding possible double patenting: while the issued patent (U.S. No. 11,464,350) of the parent application of present application recites similar subject matter, it does not recite, in the same claim, at least three separate channels that are each vertically elongated; nor does it recite at least two of the channels being foldable over each other. Accordingly, no double patenting rejections are made herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791