DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims filed on 6/1/2023 in relation to application 18/327,218.
This is a pro-se applications with claims filed on 6/1/2023.
The Pre Grant US20240398144 published on 12/5/2024
The case is being examined in Art Unit 3715.
Applicant is advised to contact Examiner Zaman at 571-270-3137 if there any questions regarding this correspondence and/or in replying to this office action.
Claims 1-3 are pending for a first action on merit and been provided below.
SPECIFICATION
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract guidelines as below:
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
Content of Specification
TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g).
A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
The spacing of the lines of the specification must be line that are 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)).
A substitute specification excluding the Claims and Abstract is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the first page of the Specification is not 1-1/2 or double spaced, and the Specification contains sections identified as “Abstract” and “Claim.”
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
*************************************************************************************
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 1-3 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.
The original claims 2 and 3 are in independent but terms , “the vessel” and “The figures” are in definite article form without any precedence of the terms. The claims 2 and 3 are not in dependent form. Again the claims are not in proper original independent for. The claims thereof become indefinite. Corrections would be needed
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Examiner has suggested the claims 2-3 could be recited for a proper dependent form. The office action statements below has been addressed accordingly.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is to a device and fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
The Claims 1-3 are directed to a vessel holding small figures of different shape, size, color, or material. The figures are used to correspond to prayers or meditation while one is unable to hold said figures for the duration of prayer. These are known figures involved in a steps drawn to prayer and meditation that could be categorized as an actions of receiving, observing, identifying, evaluating and judging of physical objects closely. A concept that are “mental processes” and by including prayers or meditation while one is unable to hold said figures are actions like “organizing of certain human activities”. They are generally categorized as a grouping of an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of holding of small figures of different shape, size, color, or material including are important human prayer activity limitations not indicative of any integration into a practical machine application (Step 2A: Prong 2 No).
The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in art. Figs 1, 2 of the instant specification depicting touchable object movements in a common compartment box environment implement the prayer and meditation kit as claimed here. As an example in case of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be functions well-understood, routine, and conventional, when they are claimed in a merely generic form. Further, there found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a box or device itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No). Hence the claims are found to be patent ineligible under 35USC101 considerations.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number US 20210076860 A1 to Williams in view of US Patent Number US 10709277 B2 to Baabad.
Claim 1. Williams a vessel holding small figures used to pray or meditate while one is unable to hold said figures for the duration of prayer (Fig. 1, element 110 paragraph 0002,0029 prayer box with sorting organizer for prayer objects). Williams does not identify vessel holding small figures while one is unable to hold said figures for the duration of prayer. Baabad, however, teaches the holding of one figure while one is unable to hold said figures for the duration of prayer (Fig.1-3, storing of Phylacteries, a special sliding door covers the head Phylactery for physically preventing the user from taking the head Phylactery first after the arm Phylactery has been taken out). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate holding of figures used to pray or meditate while one is unable to hold said figures for the duration of prayer, as taught by Baabad, into the vessel holding small figures for the duration of prayer of William, in order to provide quick control on parameters of each phases of exercise activity, irrespective of which phase the intended activity is in, so that phases could efficiently contribute towards an overall prayer goal.
Claim 2. Williams in combination with Baabad teaches vessel and small figures can be any shape, size, color, or material (Paragraphs 0025 inner volume of the container can contain holy books and artifacts that are various shape, size, color, or material).
Claim 3. Williams in combination with Baabad teaches the figures are used to correspond to prayers or meditation (Para 0006-0008 The principal object in box are configured for organizing the objects box attaching a religious symbol to the prayer letters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner has cited several references that may be considered to anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention and potential claims based on the written specification. It is strongly recommended that applicant consider these references.
US 12022953 B2 Massman; Edward L
Prayer and meditation stand
US D997714 S Williams; Darrell
Prayer box
US D978522 S Looney; Lindsey
Container
US 20200163481 A1 ROSARY PRAYER AID
Alcocer; Steven Michael
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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 at (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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 September 17, 2025
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Please see below for additional information to assist applicant in responding to this Official Action.
A glossary of terms used in this action can be found on the USPTO website at:
http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary#
When responding to this action, please keep the following in mind:
A glossary of terms used in this action can be found on the USPTO website at:
http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary#
When responding to this action, please keep the following in mind:
A proper reply requires a specific format for any amendments. A USPTO Sample Reply to Office actions can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf
Also, please see MPEP 714(II)(C) for additional guidance on making a proper amendment to the claims. Applicant is urged to follow proper amendment practice to avoid any delays in prosecution.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
All amendments of the drawings or specification, and all additions thereto must not include new matter beyond the original disclosure. Matter not found in either, involving a departure from or an addition to the original disclosure, cannot be added to the application even if supported by a supplemental oath or declaration, and can be shown or claimed only in a separate application.
Pay close attention to any time periods for response and fees set forth in this action. Fees and time periods cannot be waived.
All formal replies to Office Actions must be submitted via:
Mail (including this form: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/forms/sb0092.pdf),
Fax (including this form: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/forms/sb0097.pdf) or
EFS web. Formal replies cannot be submitted via e-mail.
Sign all submissions (on the last page). Please note that a proper s- signature requires Applicant’s name within forward slashes and the signer’s name must be:
(A) Presented in printed or typed form preferably immediately below or adjacent the S-signature, and
(B) Reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized.
For example:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
77
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The USPTO understands Internet E-mail communications may be more convenient for the applicants, however, communication via Internet e-mail proses risks to information confidentiality. The USPTO will NOT respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 without a signed written authorization by applicant in place.
For the applicant’s convenience, the examiner has included the following template for authorizing email communications with the examiner if email communication is preferred to telephonic communication. Please note that the authorization must be submitted via mail, facsimile, or EFS-Web (i.e., it cannot be emailed to the examiner):
___________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Application Number:
Filing Date:
Title:
Examiner Name: XXXX
Art Unit: XXXX
* * * * * * * * * *
Date:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
AUTHORIZATION FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
Sir:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I/we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me/us concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I/We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Respectfully submitted,
By: ______________________________________
Printed Name:
Email Address:
__________________________________________________________________________________