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 .
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 1-4 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 1 recites the phrase "a braille part for displaying a dot corresponding to vertical and horizontal dots of a braille, in which the braille for guiding information related to the object protrudes." The limitation “which” is ambiguous, which renders the claim indefinite because the limitation grammatically refers to “a braille” but written description appears to support another interpretation that the limitation refers to “a braille part.” See FIG. 1, 2. For the reason, dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “information of the braille part” in line 12. It is ambiguous which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation refers to “information related to the object protrudes” in line 10 or another new information. For the reason, dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boston (U.S. Patent 4073070).
Regarding claim 1, Boston discloses a teaching tool enabling integrated perception education for visual and tactile sensations (Abstract), the teaching tool comprising:
a front sheet for allowing a contour of an object to be recognized through a tactile sensation (11 in FIG. 4A;), wherein the front sheet includes:
an information part in which a picture related to the object is shown, or a character string related to the object is written (FIG. 4A shows “HORSE” at the bottom);
a braille part for displaying a dot corresponding to vertical and horizontal dots of a braille, in which the braille for guiding information related to the object protrudes (FIG. 4A shows Braille characters next to “HORSE” at the bottom); and
a shape part in which the contour of the object corresponding to information of the braille part is expressed (the horse shape 10, 12, 14 in FIG. 4A), and the shape part includes a tactile stimulus contour obtained by allowing the contour of the object to protrude so as to be recognized through the tactile sensation (col. 4, ll. 33-35: “Surface 15 is shown to be rather flat, only having raised border lines 14 for the purpose of demarcating the various portions of the image 10.”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Boston in view of Shapiro (U.S. Patent 3541706).
Regarding claim 2, Boston further discloses a rear sheet attached to a rear surface of the front sheet (backing sheet 16 in FIG. 4B).
Boston does not explicitly disclose that the rear sheet includes a line guide groove formed to allow the contour of the object to be recognized through the tactile sensation and configured to guide the contour of the object.
Shapiro teaches writing and reading device for the blind and method of using the same (title) comprising forming “the groove on the rear side thus follows the same course [of the front side],” which in turn, when applied to the sheets in FIG. 4A of Boston, will result in a line guide groove formed to allow the contour of the object to be recognized through the tactile sensation and configured to guide the contour of the object (col. 2, ll. 30-33: “When the sheet is turned over, the groove on the rear side thus follows the same course without crossing the groove of the other side, which of course would stray a writer or reader.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in Boston by adding the writing and reading features as taught in Shapiro in order to “provide a device and method wherein both sides of a paper may be used to carry text for the blind, thus making the present system particularly adaptable for the more lengthy textbooks” (Shapiro, col. 1, ll. 41-44).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Boston and Shapiro further teaches that the line guide groove overlaps the tactile stimulus contour formed on the front sheet (Boston, col. 4, ll. 33-35: “Surface 15 is shown to be rather flat, only having raised border lines 14 for the purpose of demarcating the various portions of the image 10.”; Shapiro, col. 2, ll. 30-33: “When the sheet is turned over, the groove on the rear side thus follows the same course without crossing the groove of the other side, which of course would stray a writer or reader.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boston and Shapiro further teaches that the rear sheet further includes a braille guide groove formed in a region corresponding to the braille part of the front sheet (Boston, FIG. 4A shows Braille characters next to “HORSE” at the bottom; Shapiro, col. 2, ll. 30-33: “When the sheet is turned over, the groove on the rear side thus follows the same course without crossing the groove of the other side, which of course would stray a writer or reader.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/THOMAS J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715