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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on January 18, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for informalities. Fig. 4 includes reference character 402 which points to the entire system shown in the figure. However, the specification indicates 402 corresponds to the controller unit. In addition, Fig 4. Appears to show multiple housings 102B vs controller units. It also is unclear whether 402 is pointing at a housing unit or is supposed to indicate something else. Correction and/or clarification is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 § CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last paragraph of the Summary statea “In accordance with the second aspect, the tactile structure has a size arranged to fit with a palm of the langague learner and/or visually impaired person.” This should read --In accordance with the second aspect, the tactile structure has a size arranged to fit with a palm of the language learner and/or visually impaired person.-- Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes multiple paragraphs and references the figures (e.g., Fig. 1). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “electronic components arrange to detect.” This should read --electronic components arranged to detect--. Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, claims 1 and 11 recite “a plurality of character units each having a tactile structure of a language character, and electronic components arrange to detect another character unit positioned adjacent to or proximate to the character unit.” This language is ambiguous as it is unclear whether the character units include the electronic components or these components are separate entities. Based on the claim spacing, specification, and drawings, for purposes of examination the claims are interpreted as the electronic components being a part of each character unit.
Claims 3 and 13 recite “an alignment module arrange to detect.” This should read --an alignment module arranged to detect--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In this instance claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 19 recite a generic place holder “module” with recited functions such as process the combination of the plurality of character units being positioned with a predetermined arrangement thereby providing audible or tactile information to the user, detect and/or to facilitate alignment of two character units being positioned adjacent to or proximate to each other, process the combination of the plurality of character units being positioned with the predetermined arrangement upon detecting a new combination of the plurality of character units different from a previous combination of the plurality of character units, and provide the audible or tactile information to the user.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The processing module corresponds to structure of a computer having an appropriate user interface programmed to implement the functions. The alignment module corresponds to the structure of an infrared LED transmitter and receiver pair. The feedback module corresponds to structure of a speaker.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claims 1 and 11, the claims recite the limitations “the combination” at lines 6-7 and “the user” at line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In re claims 2 and 12, the claims recite the limitation “the language character” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claims 4 and 14, the claims recite the limitations “the signal” at line 5 and “the another character unit” at lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In addition, the terms “the infrared LED transmitter,” “the LED receiver,” and “the character unit” lack clear antecedent basis. For example, it is unclear which infrared LED transmitter is “the” infrared LED transmitter out of the multiple possible LED transmitters in the claim. It is also unclear which character unit is “the” character unit out of the multiple possible character units.
In re claims 6 and 16, the claims recite the limitation “a predetermined arrangement” at line 6. The language is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “a predetermined arrangement” recited at lines 6 is the same as or different than the previously recited “predetermined arrangement” in the claims.
In re claims 8 and 18, the claims recite “wirelessly transmitting the predetermined arrangement of the predetermined arrangement.” It is unclear what is meant by this language.
In re claims 10 and 20, the claims recite the limitation “the user” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method and a system. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “The invention relates to a system and a method for facilitating language learning for language learners.” (par. 1).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A tactile-based language learning system and method comprising:
- a plurality of character units each having a tactile structure of a language character, and electronic components arrange to detect another character unit positioned adjacent to or proximate to the character unit; and
- a language processing module arranged to process the combination of the plurality of character units being positioned with a predetermined arrangement thereby providing audible or tactile information to the user.
Independent claim 11 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method for facilitating language comprising the step of:
- providing a plurality of character units each having a tactile structure of a language character, and electronic components arrange to detect another character unit positioned adjacent to or proximate to the character unit;
- processing the combination of the plurality of character units being positioned with a predetermined arrangement; and
- providing audible or tactile information associated with the combination of the plurality of character units to the user.
The underlined portions of claim 1 and 11 generally encompass the abstract idea. Claims 2, 3, 5-10 and 12, 13, and 15-20 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the training material provided. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes. In addition, claims 11-20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as teaching language.
The use of physical learning aids, such as blocks and cards, as a means of teaching, training, and imparting knowledge is basic to the learning process. The methods in the instant application simply seeks to automate this well-known activity using generic computers recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes teaching, for example, teaching a student to spell, learn, or speak a language. For example, observing and determining the arrangement of letters by a student and then providing feedback, such as speaking out the word they form, if it’s correct, or if they’ve been placed in the correct order can be performed by a teacher, tutor, or instructor instructing the student using the character units to learn a language.
In addition, the claims also recite a mental process, such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). But for the recitation of the recitation of a computer or language processing module, nothing in the claimed method or system precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, observing and determining the arrangement of letters by a student and then speaking out the word they form or if they’ve been placed in the correct order can be performed or formulated in the mind a teacher, tutor, or instructor instructing a student using the character units to learn a language. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses computers to read and processes data to output a result to provide automation of a manual process. This does not improve the computer qua computer. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a system having a computer configured to perform the abstract idea.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. The use of computers to present learning material and evaluate responses represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry1 and/or constitutes extra-solution activity. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed features relating providing output or feedback represent extra-solution activities are not particular and are recited at a high level of generality.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are not patent eligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
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 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, 2, 10-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2004/0063078 by Marcus et al. (“Marcus”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus in view of US Publication No. 2013/0302763 by Edwards et al. (“Edwards”).
In re claims 1 and 11, Marcus discloses a tactile-based language learning system and method comprising: - a plurality of character units each having a tactile structure of a language character, and electronic components arrange to detect another character unit positioned adjacent to or proximate to the character unit [Figs. 1, 4, 5, #20 ¶¶11-14, 26, 27, 29, 34-43, 53, among others, describe blocks with tactile symbols, e.g., raised or lowered relative to the surface of block, including electronics that help determine the location/position of the blocks relative to other blocks, which may be arranged to communicate a meaning]; and - a language processing module arranged to process the combination of the plurality of character units being positioned with a predetermined arrangement thereby providing audible or tactile information to the user [Figs. 1, 3, #22, 30 ¶¶11-14,53,54, 56, among others, describe computer/processor 30 providing question to arrange blocks (e.g., to spell a word solve a math problem) then giving audible feedback such as whether the answer (arrangement of blocks) is correct].
Marcus discloses electronics within the blocks that are used to detect the position and arrangement of the blocks (including “other” blocks) which would read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed electronic components. However, to the extent that the unit’s electronics by themselves must be capable of detecting the proximity of another unit, Edwards teaches language learning blocks with internal electronics capable to detecting the position, proximity and arrangement of other blocks [Fig. 3, ##170, 178,179, 180, ¶¶19, 27, 28, 70, 80, 81, among others, describe internal electronics of blocks including proximity detection].
Marcus and Edwards are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of language learning blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Marcus and to include the electronics for proximity detection, as taught by Edwards, in order to improve user experience and enjoyment, for example, by increasing versatility of using the blocks anywhere without need of additional equipment, such as a platform 28, which constrains where and how the blocks may be used.
In re claims 2 and 12, Marcus discloses wherein the language character includes an ideographic description character or a portion of the ideographic description character [¶¶12,26, describe ideographic characters, such as symbols, numbers and punctation marks].
In re claims 10 and 20, Marcus discloses wherein the tactile structure has a size arranged to fit with a palm of the user [¶11 describe the blocks are handheld].
Claims 3, 5-9, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus in view of Edwards.
In re claims 3 and 13, Marcus discloses an alignment module; however, Marcus lacks, but Edwards teaches the plurality of character units includes an alignment module arrange to detect and/or to facilitate alignment of two character units being positioned adjacent to or proximate to each other [¶¶19, 22, 88, 89, among other describe, the blocks determining proximity including alignment or arrangement of blocks relative to each to, for example, for a word].
Marcus and Edwards are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of language learning blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Marcus and to include the electronics in the blocks to determine alignment, as taught by Edwards, in order to improve user experience and enjoyment, for example, by increasing versatility of using the blocks anywhere without need of additional equipment, such as a platform 28, which constrains where and how the blocks may be used.
In re claims 5 and 15, Marcus disclose, wherein the language processing module is arranged to process the combination of the plurality of character units being positioned with the predetermined arrangement upon detecting a new combination of the plurality of character units different from a previous combination of the plurality of character units [¶53, among others, describe the computer prompting a child to arrange the blocks and then determining if the arrangement is correct. Each prompt by the computer will trigger detecting of a new combination or predetermined arrangement].
In re claims 6 and 16, Marcus discloses a wireless communication module arranged to transmit the predetermined arrangement to the language processing module for processing of the combination of the plurality of character units being positioned with a predetermined arrangement [Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5¶¶36-43, 53 describe wireless communication to determine arrangement of the positioning of the blocks and that the computer prompting a child to arrange the blocks and then determining if the arrangement is correct (a predetermined arrangement)].
In re claims 7 and 17, Marcus and Edwards both teach wireless communications provided in one or more of the plurality of character units. Edwards in particular teaches industry standard wireless protocols, including Bluetooth, IrDA, IEEE 802.15.4 or other near field communication protocols may be used. While Marcus and Edwards do not specifically teach that the wireless communication is WiFi, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick another IEEE 802 communication protocol, such as 802.11 WiFi for any particular wireless communication implementation as the selection of any communication standard/protocol will depend on the specific implementation of the blocks, e.g., size, cost, interoperability, etc., and there is a limited range of possible wireless communication options for any particular application; therefore, the choice of any particular wireless communication standard/protocol is part of routine design; moreover, Applicant has not disclosed that the use of WiFi solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and provided the communication as one example of many.
In re claims 8 and 18, Marcus discloses each of the plurality of character units further comprising a rechargeable power source arranged to energize the electronic components in each of the character units to facilitate detection and/or wirelessly transmitting the predetermined arrangement of the predetermined arrangement [¶36]. In the alternative, Edwards teaches each block may include power source 162 [Fig. 3, ¶100].
Marcus and Edwards are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of language learning blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Marcus and to include a power source, as taught by Edwards, in order to improve user experience and enjoyment, for example, by increasing versatility of using the blocks anywhere without need of additional equipment, such as a platform 28, to supply power to the components of the block, which constrains where and how the blocks may be used.
In re claims 9 and 19, Marcus teaches a feedback system; however, lacks, but Edwards teaches the plurality of character units further comprises a feedback module arranged to provide the audible or tactile information to the user [¶98, among others, describes in the event that the processors 150 of individual but interacting blocks 112 determine that the arrangement/orientation produces a meaningful sound, word, phrase or image, a complementary sensory output can be generated, such as in the form of vibro-haptic feedback].
Marcus and Edwards are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of language learning blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Marcus and to include a feedback module arranged to provide the audible or tactile information to the user, as taught by Edwards, in order to improve user experience and enjoyment, for example, making the blocks interactive (e.g., vibrating) and thus more engaging or stimulating.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus in view of Edwards and further in view of US Publication No. 2016/0012752 by Maleska-Kubick et al. (“Maleska”) and US Publication No. 2016/0101370 by Madsen et al. (“Madsen”).
In re claims 4 and 14, Marcus teaches wireless communication, but not specifically Infrared LED. Edwards teaches use of infrared light transmitters and receivers. Although, Edwards doesn’t specifically teach IR LED, one skilled in the art would have knowledge of such transmitter receiver pairs, for example, as taught by Maleska [¶11 describes the transmitter is ideally an IR LED and/or the receiver also an IR LED. The use of radiative transmitters, in particular in the form of IR LEDs, enables the cost-effective integration of a distance sensor. This is essentially based upon the change in the optical path length of the IR radiation between the two IR LEDs, which in turn changes the measured intensity at the IR LED receiver, provided that the IR LED transmitter emits a constant radiation intensity.].
Because Marcus, Edwards, Maleska teach wireless communication systems including optical infrared, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one infrared communication method (e.g., IR LED) for the other (IR) to achieve the predictable result of exchange data in a cost-effective manner.
Marcus in view of Edwards and Maleska teaches alignment and proximity detection including in rows and columns including wireless communications wherein the signal generated a transmitter is detectable by the receiver of the another character unit positioned adjacent to or proximate to the character unit. However, Marcus in view of Edwards and Maleska does not explicitly disclose arrangement of transmitter and receiver pairs on four sides on each of the plurality of character units.
Madsen teaches tactile learning blocks including an arrangement of transmitter and receiver pairs on four sides on each of the plurality of character units, wherein the signal generated a transmitter is detectable by the receiver of the another character unit positioned adjacent to or proximate to the character unit [Figs. 1, 3, 6, ¶¶45-48, among others, describe communication interface 301 on each face of the cube along edge to communicate position and alignment with adjacent cubes].
Marcus, Edwards, and Madsen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tactile learning blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of Marcus in view of Edwards and to communication interfaces on at least four sides of blocks, as taught by Madsen, in order to improve user experience and enjoyment, for example, by providing a robust solution for collecting information about how tactile objects are interacted with, analyzing the interactivity, providing feedback to a user, and assessing manual ability and dexterousness, cognitive ability, memory and retention, providing challenges based on past performance making the blocks interactive (e.g., vibrating) and thus more engaging or stimulating, see, e.g., ¶4. In addition, it has been held the mere duplication of parts is an obvious modification In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, duplication the communications interface of Edwards would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 on (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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See, e.g., “A short history of educational technology” @ https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/section-8-1-a-short-history-of-educational-technology/ and “A Little History of e-Learning” @ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351400910_A_Little_History_of_e-Learning describing history and development computer based learning and e-learning with systems, such as “Plato” developed beginning in 1959 using computers to present learning material and evaluate responses in real time.