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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares, II et al. (US 2017/0366858) in view of Keune (US 2018/0357888).
Referring to Claim 1, Olivares teaches a sex toys system, comprising:
an application program to be executed on a user terminal in a form selected from a group consisting of: a personal computer and a smartphone (see paragraph 16 which shows a computer device as the user terminal which executes an application and paragraph 17 which shows the computer device as a PC or smartphone), said application program being adapted to:
a) display a movie streamed from a movie server over the internet (see paragraph 44 which shows a user device displaying a streamed movie and paragraph 38 which shows a user device 10 obtaining a streaming video over the internet);
b) receive a command file from a commands file server, said command file comprising a plurality of commands each associated with a predefined time of said movie (see paragraph 5 which shows a file with commands associated with a time of a movie saved as an independent file and paragraph 7 which shows the independent file uploaded to a file sharing platform which implies that the file is later downloaded/received by a user from the file sharing platform);
c) propagate a command, over a short-range wireless communication channel, to a sex toy, to be executed by said sex toy (see paragraph 14 which shows wireless connection between user device (display device or tablet computer as shown in paragraph 15) and the tactile stimulation device which is the toy by multiple forms of short-range wireless as shown in paragraph 41 and paragraph 16 which shows the display device sending commands to the toy) at a predefined time of said movie (see paragraph 5 which shows commands to the toy saved along with the period of time for the command to take place and paragraph 6 which shows the video reading the saved commands to execute the commands at a certain period of time of the video playback),
and wherein synchronization between said movie and said commands is performed solely by said application program on said user terminal (see paragraph 5 which shows the user applying all of the commands according to specific times of the movie which shows that all of the synchronization is being done by the user on the user application of the user terminal and therefore, implies that the synchronization takes place solely by the application program on the user terminal since no other device or server determines when the commands take place).
Olivares does not teach wherein said movie server and the commands file server are separate entities and do not communicate with each other. Keune teaches wherein said movie server and the commands file server are separate entities and do not communicate with each other (see paragraph 14 which shows how the streamed content (as described in paragraph 10) and the control commands are on different servers and downloaded by the terminal separately which implies that there is no communication between the separate servers since they only communicate with the terminal and not with each other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Keune to the device of Olivares in order to enable more convenient interactions between users involving video.
Referring to Claim 2, Olivares also teaches a commands file editor, for defining
(a) a time of the streamed movie to execute said command (see paragraph 5 which shows commands to the toy saved along with the period of time for the command to take place and paragraph 6 which shows the video reading the saved commands to execute the commands at a certain period of time of the video playback where paragraph 44 shows the video as streamed video), and
(b) operation parameters of said command (see paragraph 34 which shows operation parameters along with time stamp);
wherein said commands file editor is executed on a different computing entity separate from said movie server (see paragraph 5 which shows the editing of the commands and saving to a file occurring on the user terminal which is separate from the server).
Referring to Claim 3, Olivares also teaches a user interface for changing an operation of said sex toy (see control panel interface in fig. 3 which is shown to change operations).
Referring to Claim 5, Olivares also teaches said movie comprises a unique ID for associating thereto a commands file (see paragraph 50 which shows the identifier for the movie and paragraph 52 which shows associating the movie subtitles to commands based on the identifier).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares and Keune and further in view of Homer (US 2006/0270897).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach said sex toy as a heart tracker, to be embedded within an operation of another sex toy. Homer teaches said sex toy as a heart tracker, to be embedded within an operation of another sex toy (see paragraphs 34 and 45 which shows heart and pulse monitors as part of adult toys). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Homer to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better monitor the health of users using adult devices.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares and Keune and further in view of Topolovac et al. (US 2014/0046127).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach the sex toy as a shocker. Topolovac also teaches the sex toy as a shocker (see paragraph 19 which shows electrodes which outputs electric shocks). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Topolovac to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to expand the capabilities of the device.
Referring to Claim 9, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach the sex toy as an atmosphere light. Topolovac teaches the sex toy as an atmosphere light (see paragraph 47 which shows a LED or lamp on the device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Topolovac to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to expand the capabilities of the device.
Claim(s) 4 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares and Keune and further in view of Serbanescu (US 2003/0162595).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach an input of said user interface carried out by speaking. Serbanescu teaches an input of said user interface carried out by speaking (see paragraph 12 which shows text commands input to a device to perform certain features and fig. 1 which shows a voice to text feature which implies that spoken word also is used as a user command input). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Serbanescu to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better adapt the device to different environments.
Referring to Claim 10, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach said sex toy as a fan. Serbanescu teaches said sex toy as a fan (see paragraph 47 which shows the fan giving a wind sensation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Serbanescu to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better adapt the device to different environments.
Referring to Claim 11, Serbanescu also teaches said sex toy as a liquid splashier (see paragraph 47 which shows liquid spray outputs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Serbanescu to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better adapt the device to different environments.
Referring to Claim 12, Serbanescu also teaches said sex toy as a sprayer (see paragraph 47 which shows liquid spray outputs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Serbanescu to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better adapt the device to different environments.
Referring to Claim 13, Serbanescu also teaches said sex toy as a sex chair (see paragraph 13 which shows a vibrating chair). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Serbanescu to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better adapt the device to different environments.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares and Keune and further in view of Merkley et al. (US 10,861,265).
Referring to Claim 14, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach said sex toy as a padlock. Merkley also teaches said sex toy as a padlock (see col. 37, lines 12-16 which shows the end device receiving a command as a padlock). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Merkley to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to increase the user friendliness of video communications involving end devices using short range communication.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares and Keune and further in view of Fung et al. (US 2018/0168919).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach said sex toy as handcuffs. Fung teaches said sex toy as handcuffs (see paragraph 78 which shows the device as handcuffs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Fung to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better enable the device to more quickly adapt to changing situations.
Referring to Claim 16, Fung also teaches said sex toy as a chastity belt (see paragraph 79 which shows the device as a worn device including a belt). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Fung to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better enable the device to more quickly adapt to changing situations.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares and Keune and further in view of Sankararaman et al. (US 2021/0327182).
Referring to Claim 15, the combination of Olivares and Keune does not teach said sex toy as a safety box configured to be locked or unlocked in response to said propagated commands. Sankararaman teaches said sex toy as a safety box configured to be locked or unlocked in response to said propagated commands (see paragraph 32 which shows the locking and unlocking of a box due to a signal command while a video stream is in progress). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Sankararaman to the modified device of Olivares and Keune in order to better ensure safer operations of the devices by the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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 EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648