DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Features such as wherein each of the legs and the arms comprise a joint configured to lock and unlock the respective leg and arm to the robot based on the wireless handshake (Claim 2); wherein the card deck battle attributes relate to the robot movable legs, arms, head and voice (Claim 3); wherein the card deck battle attributes are based on a toy jack hammer and on a revolving saw (Claim 4); a plurality of LED (light emitting diodes) displayed on the arms and the legs of the toy robot driven by the plurality of state machine circuits (Claim 8); wherein the plurality of state machine circuits comprise an artificial intelligence neural network (Claim 11); wherein the artificial intelligence learns a pattern of play of the robot with the card deck (Claim 13); wherein the attribute circuits include movements, timing and speech patterns of interaction between the toy robot and the deck of cards (Claim 14); further including a plurality of toy robots which communicate with each other via a plurality of state machine circuits (Claim 15); and wherein a plurality of toy robots have interchangeable arms and legs and heads according to a set of collection game rules (Claim 16) lack antecedent basis within the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 contains the limitation “deck . in”; however, such limitation should be amended to “deck in” to remove the extra period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2).
Claim 1: Aman discloses a game comprising: a toy robot (combination of (8a-1) and 8c of Fig. 7) configured with legs, movable arms, movable head and voice (Fig. 7, Col. 7:33-45, Col. 21:8-29, Col. 22:18-29, Col. 24:14-57, Col. 49:7-12) and comprise a control circuit therefore (Col. 24:14-57, Col. 49:7-12, Col. 7:33-45) and a wireless handshaking circuit (Col. 6:15-67); a card deck wherein each card comprises an attribute circuit having battle attributes of the toy robot communicable wirelessly to a prompt (Col. 8:4-17, Col. 17:54-Col. 28:28, Col. 29:6-Col. 30:4, Col. 46:66-Col. 47:39); and a plurality of state machine circuits (Col. 9:35-45, Col. 10:6-23, inherent components/modules such as Bluetooth hardware, a processor, etc of a computing device) in a wireless electronic pad (computing device 15 or 17)(Col. 4:52-67, Col. 9:35-45, Col. 10:6-23) configured to wirelessly handshake with the toy robot and prompt the card deck (see above, Col. 29:7-38).
Aman teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the legs being movable. Aman at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (Col. 49:58-62) and that the toy robot can includes various moving parts (Fig. 7, Col. 24:14-57, Col. 49:7-12). Furthermore, an analogous art of Decre teaches similar game pieces that include movable parts including movable legs (pg. 4:3-11, pg. 6:1-5). 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 legs of Aman such that they are movable as taught by Decre to provide an improved gaming system (Decre – pg. 2:19-20). Such as modification pertaining to controllable actions of the toy robot makes the system or game more exciting and interesting in which Aman is intended (Col. 24:19-21).
Claim 2: Aman in view of Decre teaches wherein each of the legs and the arms comprise a joint configured to lock and unlock the respective leg and arm to the robot based on the wireless handshake (Aman - Fig. 7 (rotation of arm on joint), Col. 21:8-29, Col. 22:18-29, Col. 24:14-57, Col. 49:7-12, Decre - pg. 4:3-11, pg. 6:1-5 (it is understood if the legs move via motors that it moves relative to a joint)).
Claim 8: Aman in view of Decre teaches a plurality of LED (light emitting diodes) displayed on the toy robot driven by the plurality of state machines (see above, Col. 7:33-45, Col. 24:14-36), but fails to disclose the LEDs located on the arms and legs of the robot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have provides the LEDs on the arms and legs of the toy robot, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 9: Aman teaches wherein the wireless electronic pad is configured as a cell phone (Col. 4:52-67, Col. 9:35-45, Col. 10:6-23).
Claim 10: Aman teaches the game comprising a plurality of toy robots (Col. 3:42-53, Col. 46:65-Col. 47:39) and a plurality of state machine circuits (see above, Col. 10:7-49).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Hornsby (US 2002/0123297).
Claim 3: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above but lacks explicitly suggesting the card deck battle attributes relating to the robot movable legs, arms, head and voice. At least Aman teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); that attributes include names, special powers, gear, etc (Col. 28:17-20); and that toy robot includes movable legs, arm, head, and voice that are activated via operational control/command signals based on any game datum (see above with respect to the combination of Aman in view of Decre, Aman – Col. 7:33-45). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hornsby teaches that the use of a card deck, wherein cards thereof include battle attributes (¶ 20) that determine or relate to operational control/command signals for the corresponding toy robot to make or execute (¶ 15-21). 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 card deck battle attributes of Aman in view of Decre to include the operational control/command signals as taught by Hornsby to provide improvement in interactivity and interest of the toy robots (Hornsby - ¶ 8).
The above combination resulting in the operational control/command signals pertaining to the control of the movable legs, arms, head, and voice of the toy robot of Aman in view of Decre being applied as attributes to the card deck of Aman in view of Decre as taught by Hornsby.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Scryfall (combination of https://web.archive.org/web/20220419214626/https://scryfall.com/card/snc/111/jackhammer and https://web.archive.org/web/20220702204435/https://scryfall.com/card/vow/220/spiked-ripsaw ), herein Magic: The Gathering.
Claim 4: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the card deck battle attributes are based on a toy jack hammer and on a revolving saw. Aman at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and that various attributes include special power, gear, etc of the characters/toy robots (see above, Col. 28:9-25, Col. 46:66-Col. 47:40). Furthermore, an analogous art of Magic: The Gathering teaches card decks, where the card include battle attributes that are based on a toy jack hammer and on a revolving saw (see pages 1-2 of attached pdf). 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 attributes of Aman in view of Decre to include attributes based on a toy jack hammer and or a revolving saw as taught by Magic: The Gathering because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing various forms of gear in the battle game in which at least Aman is intended (see above). Such a modification would provide more interest and/or exciting to the battle game.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Cullen (US 2015/0001799).
Claim 5: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the game further comprising three each six sided die for use with the card deck in determination of players options against other player. Aman at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and players playing against other players with use of the deck of cards (see above, Col. 46:66-Col. 47:40). Furthermore, an analogous art of Cullen teaches a game further comprising three each six sided die for use with the card deck in determination of players options against other player (Fig. 13, ¶ 34-40, 47-48, 50-51, 103). 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 game of Aman in view of Decre with the three six-sided dice means of Cullen to affect the outcome of the game (Cullen - ¶ 7, 9). Such a modification provides a more improved game (Cullen - ¶ 5).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Hulkbuster Jackhammer Arm (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isl4LKMUOMo ), herein Hulk.
Claim 6: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting where at least one of the arms comprises a toy jack hammer. At least Aman teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hulk teaches at type of toy robot wherein at least one of the arms includes a toy jack hammer (time 1:46-2:38). 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 toy robot of Aman in view of Decre with the toy jack hammer means of Hulk to improve the overall aesthetics of the toy robot. Such a modification making the toy robot more appealing to the user in terms of the battle game in which it is played.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Talking Optimus Prime (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GAhO3ZWdJA ), herein Prime.
Claim 7: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting where at least one of the arms comprises a toy revolving saw. At least Aman teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Prime teaches at type of toy robot wherein at least one of the arms includes revolving saw (time 1:55-2:17). 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 toy robot of Aman in view of Decre with the toy revolving saw means of Prime to improve the overall aesthetics of the toy robot. Such a modification making the toy robot more appealing to the user in terms of the battle game in which it is played.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Shin (US 2021/0023440).
Claim 11: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the plurality of state machine circuits comprise an artificial intelligence neural network. At least Aman teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and providing control signals to at least two toy robots (see above, Col. 8:39-50, Col. 9:30-Col. 10:5, Col. 47:23-39). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shin teaches wireless electronic pad including a plurality of state machine circuits (processor, memory, etc (parts of the pad)) that include an artificial intelligence neural network (Fig. 9, ¶ 50-53, 57-59, 65-67, 132-134, 136, 188-196, emphasis on ¶ 57-59, 65-67). 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 plurality of state machine circuits of Aman in view of Decre with the artificial intelligence neural network means of Shin because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of controlling a group of toy robots in which at least Aman is intended (see above). Such a modification would help improve the quality of action robot content output (Shin - ¶ 10).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Herard (FR 2696652 A1)(please refer to FR 2696652 A1 English Translation found at https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=FR&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2696652&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=fr&TRGLANG=en and attached herein).
Claim 12: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the toy robot comprises an artificial intelligence neural network. At least Aman teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); providing a controlling means for providing motion within the toy robot (see above, Col. 7:33-45, Col. 24:14-36); and the toy robot including environmental sensors such as light and/or temperature (Col. 20:47-Col. 21:7). Furthermore, an analogous art of Herard teaches toys that include environment sensors (light, temperature) and an artificial intelligence neural network for providing motion such as movements of a body part (pgs. 5-6, 8-10). 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 toy robot of Aman in view of Decre with the artificial intelligence neural network means of Herard because such a modification would provide a means of the toy robot to imitate behaviors of human beings, humanoids, etc (Herard – page 4 ). Such a modification improving upon the entertainment value of the toy robot.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Trickett (US 2013/0065482).
Claim 15: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, in addition to a plurality of toy robots (see above, Col. 8:39-50, Col. 9:30-Col. 10:5, Col. 47:23-39), but lacks explicitly suggesting the plurality of toy robots communicating with each other via a plurality of state machine circuits. At least Aman teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Trickett teaches a plurality of toy robots that communicate with each other via a plurality of state machine circuits (¶ 91, 97, 109-110, 126, 202, 272). 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 toy robot of Aman in view of Decre with the communication means of Trickett because such a modification would sustain a user’s interest by making the game play more varied and more fun (Trickett - ¶ 4-5, 275).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman (US 10,857,450) in view of Decre (WO 2006/064474 A2), and in further view of Bellaire (US 2018/0099213 A1).
Claim 16: Aman in view of Decre teaches the above, in addition to a plurality of toy robots (see above, Col. 8:39-50, Col. 9:30-Col. 10:5, Col. 47:23-39), but lacks explicitly suggesting the plurality of toy robots having interchangeable arms and legs and heads according to a set of collection game rules. At least Aman teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Bellaire teaches a plurality of toy robots that have interchangeable arms and legs and heads according to a set of collection game rules (Abstract, ¶ 7, 31-32, 89-90). 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 toy robot of Aman in view of Decre with interchangeable of Bellaire because such a modification would enhance the play of the game and/or game features (Bellaire - ¶ 432).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715