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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, 16, 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber and in view of UFLI Word Work Mat (as disclosed in applicant’s IDS)
Claim 1: The Webber reference provides a teaching of an apparatus for literacy development (see abstract), comprising:
a board which, taken as a whole (see abstract and FIG. 2 item 12, 16 and 20 showing different boards). The Webber reference ALSO provides a teaching of:
a plurality of phoneme manipulatives (see FIG. 6 paragraph 32a)
and a plurality of grapheme manipulatives wherein each one of the grapheme manipulative comprises a top surface having a grapheme displayed thereon (see FIG. 6 paragraph 32b),
The Webber is silent on the limitation of an orthographic mapping printed or imprinted on the board, wherein the orthographic mapping area comprises:
a phoneme building area comprising a plurality of phoneme word building place holders; and
a grapheme building area comprising a respective plurality of grapheme world building place holder, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholder is aligned with a respective one the phoneme word building place holder.
However, the UFLI reference provides a teaching of orthographic mapping printed or imprinted on the board, wherein the orthographic mapping area comprises:
a phoneme building area comprising a plurality of phoneme word building place holders; and
a grapheme building area comprising a respective plurality of grapheme world building place holder, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholder is aligned with a respective one the phoneme word building place holder (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Webber reference with the feature of orthographic mapping printed or imprinted on the board, wherein the orthographic mapping area comprises:a phoneme building area comprising a plurality of phoneme word building place holders; and a grapheme building area comprising a respective plurality of grapheme world building place holder, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholder is aligned with a respective one the phoneme word building place holder; as taught by the UFLI reference, in order to provide a convenient and intuitive way to perform word composition.
With respect to the difference between the exact content of the phoneme, grapheme/multi-letter grapheme; the examiner notes the difference between the Webber reference (FIG. 6 item 32a-32c) is on the content of the information contained on the different pieces. The examiner notes that the phoneme, grapheme manipulatives are directed to the information content of the piece (or commonly known as non-functional descriptive material). To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). In this case, the phoneme, grapheme/multi-letter grapheme do not have a functional relationship between the substrate (the board) and the descriptive material (the phoneme/grapheme manipulative), since the manipulative are relies on the meaning of that a user creates in their mind.
Claim 2: The Webber reference provides a teaching of an apparatus for literacy development (see abstract), comprising:
a. board (see FIG 1 item 12, 16 and 20 showing different boards) and a plurality of phoneme manipulatives (see FIG. 6 paragraph 32a),
c. and a plurality of grapheme manipulatives (see FIG. 6 paragraph 32b).
The Webber reference is silent on the teaching of phoneme building area fixed to the board, the phoneme building having a first linear arrangement comprising a plurality of phoneme word building placeholders, a grapheme building are fixed to the board, the grapheme building area having a second linear arrangement comprising a respective plurality of grapheme word placeholders, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholders is aligned with a respective one of the phoneme word building placeholders, and wherein the first linear arrangement is parallel to the second linear arrangement; and
wherein each one of the phoneme manipulative is dimensioned to occupy exactly one of the phoneme word building place holder; a plurality of grapheme manipulative comprising:
at least one single letter grapheme manipulative having a single letter displayed thereon; and at least multi-letter grapheme manipulative having two or more letters displayed thereon, wherein each one of the grapheme manipulative is dimensioned to occupy exactly one of the grapheme word building placeholders.
The UFLI reference provides a teaching of phoneme building area fixed to the board, the phoneme building having a first linear arrangement comprising a plurality of phoneme word building placeholders (please see the annotated figure above), a grapheme building are fixed to the board, the grapheme building area having a second linear arrangement comprising a respective plurality of grapheme word placeholders, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholders is aligned with a respective one of the phoneme word building placeholders, and wherein the first linear arrangement is parallel to the second linear arrangement (please see the annotated figure above); and
wherein each one of the phoneme manipulative is dimensioned to occupy exactly one of the phoneme word building place holder (see annontated figure above where each one manipulative is dimensioned for exactly one placeholder); a plurality of grapheme manipulative comprising:
at least one single letter grapheme manipulative having a single letter displayed thereon and at least multi-letter grapheme manipulative having two or more letters displayed thereon, wherein each one of the grapheme manipulative is dimensioned to occupy exactly one of the grapheme word building placeholders (see the annotated figured above the phoneme and the grapheme are dimensioned for exactly one unit).
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 Webber reference with the feature of phoneme building area fixed to the board, the phoneme building having a first linear arrangement comprising a plurality of phoneme word building placeholders, a grapheme building are fixed to the board, the grapheme building area having a second linear arrangement comprising a respective plurality of grapheme word placeholders, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholders is aligned with a respective one of the phoneme word building placeholders, and wherein the first linear arrangement is parallel to the second linear arrangement; and wherein each one of the phoneme manipulative is dimensioned to occupy exactly one of the phoneme word building place holder; a plurality of grapheme manipulative comprising: at least one single letter grapheme manipulative having a single letter displayed thereon; and at least multi-letter grapheme manipulative having two or more letters displayed thereon, wherein each one of the grapheme manipulative is dimensioned to occupy exactly one of the grapheme word building placeholders; as taught by the UFLI reference, in order to provide a convenient and intuitive way to perform word composition.
With respect to the difference between the exact content of the phoneme building area, grapheme building area, phoneme, grapheme/multi-letter grapheme manipulative; the examiner notes the difference between the Webber and UFLI combination is on the content of the information contained on the different pieces. The examiner notes that the phoneme, grapheme manipulatives are directed to the information content of the piece (or commonly known as non-functional descriptive material). To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). In this case, the phoneme, grapheme/multi-letter grapheme do not have a functional relationship between the substrate (the board) and the descriptive material (the phoneme/grapheme manipulative), since the manipulative are relying on the meaning of that a user creates in their mind.
Claim 3: The Webber reference provides a teaching of at least one board comprises a surface configured to be marked and erased (see col. 3:50-52 eraable whiteboard ).
Claims 9 and 10: The Webber reference provides a teaching of grapheme and phoneme presentation area. The examiner notes that the limitation of grapheme and phoneme area appears to be an intended use of the limitation
The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure, without being modified, is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the Webber reference without being modified can perform the function of having an arrangement or mechanism is provided to perceive a one-to-one mapping of each grapheme word building placeholder to an associated phoneme word building placeholder
Claim 11: The Webber reference provides a teaching wherein the grapheme manipulative is attachable to at least one board by magnetism (see col. 3:53-57 magnetic symbols).
Claim 12: The combination of Webber and ULFI reference provides a teaching of the interactive word building area further comprises a blending line fixed on the board,
With respect to the limitation “wherein the blending line is aligned with the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area and is parallelt to the first linear arrangement and the second linear arrangement. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). In this case, blending line do not have a functional relationship between the substrate (the board) and the descriptive material (the blending line), since the manipulative are relies on the meaning of that a user creates in their mind.
Claim 13: The combination of the Webber and the reference provides a teaching of wherein the interactive word building area further comprises of a writing line fixed on the board.
However, they are silent on the teaching of “wherein the writing line is adjacent to and parallel to the grapheme building area. In this particular case, the Webber reference, without being modified, can be written on should the user chooses to do so. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). In this case, positioning of the writing line with respect to the grapheme building relies on the meaning of that a user creates in their mind.
Claim 16: The Webber reference provide a teaching of apparatus comprises of a writing tool suitable for whiteboard (see FIG. 5 writing implement on the bottom of the board and col. 4:40-46).
Claim 21: The Webber reference provides a teaching of an apparatus for literacy development (see col, 4:43-46 teaching reading), comprising:
a board (see FIG. 2 item 12 board);
a plurality of manipulatives, wherein at least one of the manipulatives comprises a top surface (see FIG. 6 item 32a, 32b and 32c)
The Weber reference is silent on the teaching an interactive word building area perceptibly delineated on the board, wherein the interactive word building area comprises:
a phoneme building area comprising a plurality of phoneme word building placeholders;
a grapheme building area comprising a respective plurality of grapheme word building placeholders, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholders is aligned with a respective one of the phoneme word building placeholders; and
a writing line aligned with the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area.
However, the UFLI word Work mat provides a teaching of an interactive word building area perceptibly delineated on the board, wherein the interactive word building area comprises:
a phoneme building area comprising a plurality of phoneme word building placeholders; (see the UFLI annotated drawing below)
a grapheme building area comprising a respective plurality of grapheme word building placeholders, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholders is aligned with a respective one of the phoneme word building placeholders (see the UFLI annotated drawing below); and
a writing line aligned with the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area (see the UFLI annotated drawing below)
PNG
media_image1.png
388
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 with the feature of an interactive word building area perceptibly delineated on the board, wherein the interactive word building area comprises:
a phoneme building area comprising a plurality of phoneme word building placeholders;
a grapheme building area comprising a respective plurality of grapheme word building placeholders, wherein each one of the grapheme word building placeholders is aligned with a respective one of the phoneme word building placeholders; and
a writing line aligned with the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area; as taught by the UFLI reference in order to provide a convenient and intuitive way to perform word composition.
With respect to the limitation of “having a grapheme displayed thereon”. The examiner takes the position that this particular limitation is directed to a non-functional printed matter that do not result in a new and nonobvious relationship between the substrate (the manipulative) and the printed matter (the grapheme). In this particular case, the manipulative serves only as serve as support and display for the printed matter. The manipulative/grapheme can also be interested as a mean to convey message or meaning to a human reader that is independent of the supporting product. As such cannot no patentable weight can be given to the this particular limitation. “[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight.” Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268. [see MPEP 2111.05].
Claim 22: The Webber reference provides a teaching of wherein the board is made of a ferromagnetic material, and wherein the plurality of manipulatives are configured for being magnetically attached to the board (see col. 3:50-55 magnetic symbols and shape 32a-32c).
Claim 23: The Weber reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the interactive word building area is printed or imprinted on the board.
However, the UFLI reference provides a teaching of wherein the interactive word building area is printed or imprinted on the board (see UFLI annotated drawing above.
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 Weber reference with the feature of wherein the interactive word building area is printed or imprinted on the board, provide a convenient and intuitive way to perform word composition.
Claim 24: The Weber reference provides a teaching wherein the board comprises a surface configured to be marked and erased (see col. 3:49-52 wipe on and wipe off white board).
Claim 25: The combination of the Weber and the UFLI reference provides a teaching of wherein the interactive word building area further comprises a blending line that is aligned with the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area, and wherein the blending line, the phoneme building area, the grapheme building area, and the writing line are all parallel to each other. The examiner takes the position that this particular limitation is directed to a non-functional printed matter that do not result in a new and nonobvious relationship between the substrate (the manipulative) and the printed matter (the grapheme). In this particular case, the manipulative serves only as serve as support and display for the printed matter. The manipulative/grapheme can also be interested as a mean to convey message or meaning to a human reader that is independent of the supporting product. As such cannot no patentable weight can be given to the this particular limitation. “[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight.” Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268. [see MPEP 2111.05].
Claim 26: The Weber reference provides a teaching wherein the board comprises a surface configured for being marked and erased (see col. 3:49-52 wipe on and wipe off white board).
Claim 27: The combination of the Weber and UFLI reference provides a teaching of wherein the orthographic mapping area further comprises: a writing line aligned with the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area; and a blending line that is aligned with the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area, wherein the blending line, the phoneme building area, the grapheme building area, and the writing line are all parallel to each other. The examiner takes the position that this particular limitation is directed to a non-functional printed matter that do not result in a new and nonobvious relationship between the substrate (the manipulative) and the printed matter (the grapheme). In this particular case, the manipulative serves only as serve as support and display for the printed matter. The manipulative/grapheme can also be interested as a mean to convey message or meaning to a human reader that is independent of the supporting product. As such cannot no patentable weight can be given to the this particular limitation. “[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight.” Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268. [see MPEP 2111.05].
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber US 6,626,675 in view of UFLI Word Work Mat and further in view of Bragin US 4,832,605
Claim 4: The Webber reference is silent on teaching of the apparatus further comprises a dedicated storage that is sized and shaped for holding the plurality of phoneme manipulative and the plurality of grapheme manipulative, wherein the storage compartment is configured such that any items stored therein are visually concealed from the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area.
However, the Bragin reference provide a teaching of apparatus further comprises dedicated storage that is sized and shaped for holding the plurality of phoneme manipulative and the plurality of grapheme manipulative (see col. 4:40-50 zipped bag storing magnetic member).
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 Webber reference with the feature of apparatus further comprises a dedicated storage compartment used to store manipulatives, as taught by the Bragin reference, in order to safely store pieces (see paragraph 4:50-55).
With respect to the limitation of “… wherein the storage compartment is configured such that any items stored therein are visually concealed from the phoneme building area and the grapheme building area”, the examiner notes this particular limitation is directed to the intended use of the structure. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure, without being modified, is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber US 6,626,675 in view of UFLI Word Work Mat and in view of Sanchez WO 2004/080258
Claims 14: The Webber reference is silent on teaching of a closable enclosure suitable to contain the least one board, the plurality of phoneme manipulatives and the plurality of grapheme manipulatives.
However, the Sanchez reference provides a teaching of a closable enclosure suitable to contain at least one board, the phoneme manipulatives and the grapheme manipulatives (see FIG. 1 an zippable enclosure). With respect to the exact usage of the cloasable enclosure. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure, without being modified, is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 Webber reference with the feature of a closable enclosure suitable to contain at least one board, the phoneme manipulatives and the grapheme manipulatives, as taught by Sanchez, in order to provide a convenient storage solutions preventing the user of misplacing different part of the system.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber US 6,626,675 in view of UFLI Word Work Mat, in view of Bragin US 4,832,605 and further in view of Sanchez WO 2004/080258
Claim 17: The Webber reference provide a teaching an apparatus for literacy development, comprising:
a. a first board comprising: (see FIG 1 item 12, 16 and 20 showing different boards).
i. a grapheme manipulative presentation area comprising a plurality of grapheme presentation placeholders (the FIG. 8 item 20 and 36 areas that can be used as a grapheme placeholder), wherein each grapheme presentation placeholder is perceptibly delineated (the examiner notes that the FIG. 8 item 20 and 36 are perceptibly delineated),
The examiner notes that the limitation of plurality of grapheme word building placeholders/ presentation area are an intended use limitation that do not result in a structural difference between the Webber prior art and the claim limitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure, without being modified, is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the area shown in FIG. 2 item 12, 16 and 20) can perform the function as area of having plurality of grapheme word building placeholders wherein each grapheme word building place holder is perceptibly delineated.
b. a second board embedded in a backing material comprising: (see FIG 1 item 12, 16 and 20 showing different boards).
2i. a phoneme manipulative presentation area comprising a plurality of phoneme presentation placeholders, wherein each phoneme presentation placeholder is perceptibly delineated (the FIG. 8 item 20 and 36 areas that can be used as a grapheme placeholder),
The Webber reference is silent on the teaching of an interactive word building area, wherein the word building area comprises: a phoneme building area arranged as a plurality a plurality of word building place holder printed on imprinted on the second board; and a grapheme building are arranged as a respective one of the phoneme world building place holders.
However, the UFLI reference provides a teaching of an interactive word building area, wherein the word building area comprises: a phoneme building area arranged as a plurality a plurality of word building place holder printed on imprinted on the second board (see annotated figured below); and a grapheme building are arranged as a respective one of the phoneme world building place holders (see annotated figured below).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Webber reference with the feature of an interactive word building area, wherein the word building area comprises: a phoneme building area arranged as a plurality a plurality of word building place holder printed on imprinted on the second board; and a grapheme building are arranged as a respective one of the phoneme world building place holders, as taught by the UFLI reference, in order to provide a convenient and intuitive way to perform word composition.
Any difference between the claimed limitation, and the combination of Webber and UFLI can be interpreted as non-functional descriptive printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). In this case, the plurality of a phoneme building area and grapheme building area are area that relies on the user perception/interpretation.
With respect to the limitation an arrangement or mechanism1 is provided to perceive a one-to-one mapping of each grapheme word building placeholder to an associated phoneme word building placeholder. However, the examiner notes that these limitation is directed to the rule of using the board/invention (an intended use limitation) that do not require a structural element of the claimed subject matter.
The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure, without being modified, is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the Webber reference without being modified can perform the function of having an arrangement or mechanism is provided to perceive a one-to-one mapping of each grapheme word building placeholder to an associated phoneme word building placeholder. As these limitations can be interpreted to be a rule of how the board are supposed to be interpreted.
The Webber reference also provide a teaching of:
c. a plurality of phoneme manipulatives, wherein each phoneme manipulative comprises: i. a magnetic substrate (see col. 3:53-57 magnetic symbols).),
d. a plurality of grapheme manipulatives, wherein each grapheme manipulative comprises: i. a magnetic substrate ((see col. 3:53-57 magnetic shape).)
With respect to the difference between the exact content of the phoneme, grapheme/multi-letter grapheme manipulative; the examiner notes the difference between the Webber reference (FIG. 6 item 32a-32c) is on the content of the information contained on the different pieces. The examiner notes that the phoneme, grapheme manipulatives are directed to the information content of the piece (or commonly known as non-functional descriptive material). To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). In this case, the phoneme, grapheme/multi-letter grapheme do not have a functional relationship between the substrate (the board) and the descriptive material (the phoneme/grapheme manipulative), since the manipulative are relying on the meaning of that a user creates in their mind.
The Webber reference provides a teaching of a writing tool suitable for marking whiteboards (see FIG. 5 writing implement on the bottom of the board and col. 4:40-46).
The Webber reference is silent on the teaching of a storage compartment is sized and shaped for holding the plurality of phoneme manipulatives and plurality of grapheme manipulative and enclosure capable of containing the first board, the second board, the plurality of phoneme manipulatives, the plurality of grapheme manipulatives, the storage compartment and the writing tool.
However, the Bragin reference provides a teaching of a storage compartment is sized and shaped for holding the plurality of phoneme manipulatives and plurality of grapheme manipulative (see col. 4:40-50 zipped bag storing magnetic member).
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 Webber reference with the feature of a storage compartment is sized and shaped for holding the plurality of phoneme manipulatives and plurality of grapheme manipulative, as taught by the Bragin reference, in order to safely store pieces (see paragraph 4:50-55).
However, the Sanchez reference provides a teaching of an enclosure capable of containing the first whiteboard, the second whiteboard, the plurality of phoneme manipulatives, the plurality of grapheme manipulatives, the storage compartment and the writing tool (see FIG. 1 an zippable enclosure).
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 Webber reference with the feature of enclosure capable of containing the first whiteboard, the second whiteboard, the plurality of phoneme manipulatives, the plurality of grapheme manipulatives, the storage compartment and the writing tool, the phoneme manipulatives and the grapheme manipulatives, as taught by Sanchez, in order to provide a convenient storage solutions preventing the user of misplacing different part of the system.
Claim 19: The Webber reference is silent on an explicit teaching of each grapheme manipulative of the plurality of grapheme manipulatives comprises a top surface having a solid color with no markings or has a solid color with the markings of a grapheme of human language.
With respect to the difference between the exact content of each grapheme manipulative of the plurality of grapheme manipulatives has a solid color with no markings or has a solid color with the markings of a grapheme of human language; the examiner notes the difference between the Webber reference (FIG. 6 item 32a-32c) is on the content of the information contained on the different pieces. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). In this case, the color and symbols of the grapheme manipulative do not have a functional relationship between the substrate (the manipulative) and the color (the printed matter), since the manipulative are relies on the meaning of that a user creates in their mind.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 9-14, 16-19, 21- have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (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 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 A reading of the specification, paragraph 32, appears to indicate that the arrangement or mapping appears to be symbolic or rule based in nature. No structural element are suggested to perform the arrangement or mapping.
Prosecution Insights