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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATENT US 11077359 B1 to Wigh (“Wigh”), in view of PGPUB US 20220379194 A1 by Garofalo (“Garofalo”).
In regard to Claim 1, Wigh teaches a method for waking up smart magic cube, comprising:
step S10, detecting acceleration values […] of a smart magic cube by an accelerometer arranged in the smart magic cube;
[…]
step S40, restarting a system of the smart magic cube by the micro control unit to enable the smart magic cube to enter a normal working mode
(see, e.g., C16; L25-50).
Furthermore, to the extent that the otherwise cited prior art fails to teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference Garofalo teaches
detecting acceleration values of an X-axis, a Y-axis, and a Z-axis of a smart […] cube by an accelerometer arranged in the smart […] cube
(see, e.g., p48);
step S20, obtaining the acceleration values of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the smart […] cube when detecting that an acceleration is generated in any one of directions of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the smart […] cube;
step S30, comparing the acceleration values of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the smart […] cube with an awakening threshold, and when one of the acceleration values of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the smart […] cube is greater than the awakening threshold, sending an awakening signal to a micro control unit of the smart […] cube by the accelerometer;
(see, e.g., p159-160);
[…]
S50, starting a firmware program of the smart magic cube, and starting the accelerometer;
step S60, detecting the acceleration values of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the smart magic cube by the accelerometer, and obtaining a posture state of the smart magic cube according to the acceleration values of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the smart magic cube.
(see, e.g., p159-160 and p164-166);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality taught by Garofalo to the method otherwise taught by Wigh, in order to conserve power.
In regard to Claim 2, Garofalo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p159-160.
In regard to Claim 3, Garofalo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p159-160 and 164.
In regard to Claim 4, Garofalo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p159-169 in regard to the system returning to Low Mode from some other mode.
In regard to Claim 5, Garofalo teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p162.
In regard to Claims 17-20, see rejection of Claims 2-5.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigh, in view of Garofalo, further in view of PGPUB US 20100194682 A1 by Orr et al (“Orr”).
In regard to Claim 9, while the otherwise cited prior art teaches the other claimed limitation (see rejection of Claim 1), however, in an analogous reference Orr teaches wherein an accelerometer is connected to an MCU via a bandpass filter (see, e.g., F6);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality taught by Orr to the system otherwise taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to smooth out the signals reaching the MCU.
In regard to Claims 10-13, see rejection of Claims 2-5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 14-16 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 listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715