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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 09/29/2029.
a. Claims 1-12 are amended
b. Claims 13-14 are new
Overall, Claims 1-14 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/359,114, filed on 07/07/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hardware coupler configured to” in claim 1, claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-6, 13 are directed to a system, claims 7-12, 14 are directed to computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 1 (which is representative of Claim 7) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of Claim 7) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold, while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional element according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
[A] A system configured to implement attributes that define a personality entity associated with a digital asset via a physical object, the system comprising:
[B] a physical object configured to exemplify an attribute, the attribute including at least one of a physical attribute or a behavioral attribute, wherein the physical object includes:
[C] a transmitter-receiver configured to communicate and receive information;
[D] a sensor configured to generate an output signal that convey use of the physical object by a user;
[E] a hardware coupler configured to couple the physical object with a private portable device that stores a private key, wherein the private key provides access to a digital wallet that is associated with an address on a decentralized ledger, wherein the digital wallet indicates ownership of a digital asset that associated with the attribute; and
[F] one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
[G] determine the attribute associated with the digital asset;
[H] receive the output signal from the sensor;
[I] determine interaction information based on the output signal, wherein the interaction information includes one or more of vocal communication by the user with the physical object, physical touch by the user with the physical object a change in location of the physical object, or a change in position of the physical object;
[J] determine, based on the decentralized ledger and the address, a change in ownership of the digital asset, wherein the change in ownership is caused by one or both of acquisition of another digital asset associated with the attribute relinquishment of the digital asset;
[K] determine an adjustment to the attribute based on the interaction information and the change in ownership;
[L] effectuate the adjustment to the attribute;
[M] transmit the adjustment to the physical object via the transmitter- receiver such that the physical object implements the adjustment to the attribute;
[N] receive an indication that the private portable device decoupled from the hardware coupler; and
[O] initiate, responsive to the indication, a wrap smart contract that is configured to link an ownership right to the digital asset in the digital wallet into a packaged digital asset such that the ownership to the digital asset in the digital wallet at the time of the indication is required to be held by a same user, wherein the digital wallet indicates ownership of the packaged digital asset.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) recites: a system for implements attributes on physical object ([A]-[B]); stores private key to access wallet ([E]); determining attributes, interaction information, change in ownership ([G], [I]-[J]); determining an adjustment and transmitting the adjustment ([K]-[M]); receiving an indication, linking ownership of the asset ([N]-[O]) determining interaction information ([I]); determining changes in ownership ([J]); determining the adjustments of attributes ([K]); effectuate and transmit the adjustment to the physical object ([L]-[M]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at enabling system for adjusting and trading asset.
The overall combination, covers agreement in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) because the claim language recites recording asset’s interaction, linking ownership, and changing ownership of asset. The one of skill in the art can determine that assets are being traded. Additionally, the recited limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “digital,” “processor,” “transmitter-receiver,” and “sensor,” “hardware coupler,” “private portable device,” “decentralized,” “user” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of for adjusting and trading asset. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: a transmitter-receiver configured to communicate and receive information ([C]), a sensor configured to generate output signals … by a user ([D]), one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to ([F]), receive the output signal from the sensor ([H]), digital ([A], [E], [G], [J], [O]), hardware coupler ([E], [N]), private portable device ([E], [N]), decentralized ([E], [J]), user ([D], [I], [O]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[J], [N]-[O]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of for adjusting and trading asset could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 1, (which is representative of claim 7) deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-6, 13, 8-12, 14 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 2 (which is a representative of claim 8), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein coupling of the private portable device with the hardware coupler of another physical object effectuates the attributes in the other physical object.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting and trading asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3 (which is a representative of claim 9), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the set of sensor includes one or more of an audio input sensor, a pressure sensor, a location sensor, or and/or a light sensor.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4 (which is a representative of claim 10), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the attribute includes one or more of an eye color, a voice, one more phrases, one or more movements, a skin or one or more sound effects.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting and trading asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 (which is a representative of claim 11), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the attribute is recorded in electronic storage, the electronic storage is separate from the decentralized ledger, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to communicate with the electronic storage.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting and trading asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6 (which is a representative of claim 12), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the attribute is recorded in electronic storage, the electronic storage is the decentralized ledger such that the adjustment to the attribute is recorded on the decentralized ledger.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of storing attributes. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13 (which is a representative of claim 14), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the physical object comprises an action figure, a stuffed animal, a toy vehicle, or a portable computing device.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of adjusting and trading asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulier (US 20220043557 A1), in view of Wager (US 20170024818 A1), in further view of Jessamine (US 20190066063 A1), in further view of Burton (US 20210023468 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 7. Pulier discloses:
A system configured to implement attributes that define a personality entity associated with a digital asset … the system comprising: [see at least (0027) third party system to determine the current attributes of a virtual object, and the method of making changes to these virtual objects such that their new state can be understood by other interpreters.]
… exemplify an attribute, the attribute including at least one of a physical attribute or a behavioral attribute … [see at least (0038) Virtual object platform 130 can include tools and programs that can be used by the providers to create the virtual objects by establishing characteristics, evolutionary rules, software code, and attributes of the virtual objects.]
wherein the private key provides access to a digital wallet that is associated with an address on a decentralized ledger, wherein the digital wallet indicates ownership of a digital asset that associated with the attribute; and [see at least (0045) Once created, the virtual objects can be distributed to users, such as by being added to a user's digital account, which may be referred to as a digital wallet or garage) (reads on: virtual object being the digital asset and digital wallet stores the ownership information of the digital object]
determine, based on the decentralized ledger and the address, a change in ownership of the digital asset, wherein the change in ownership is caused by one or both of acquisition of another digital asset associated with the attribute relinquishment of the digital asset; [see at least Fig. 7, (0092) By selecting any one of the cards, the application will allow the user to transfer ownership to another user (e.g., using an interface such as the one shown in 11F). The ownership transfer is recorded and tracked.]
determine an adjustment to the attribute based on the interaction information and the change in ownership; [see at least Figs. 5-6, (0065) When determination operation 530 determines that a modification is authorized, determination operation 530 branches to modification operation 540 to modify the state of the virtual object. The modified state information is recorded with the blockchain system with recordation operation 550.]
effectuate the adjustment to the attribute; [See at least (0066) access operation 610, the application can retrieve one or more of the virtual objects from platform 130 and present them to the user. During request operation 620, the application receives a request form the user, via the application, for a real world push of one of the virtual objects, such as a request to redeem a virtual object for a real-world item (i.e., money or goods) or a service.]
transmit the adjustment to … implements the adjustment to the attribute; [see at least (0034) virtual object platform 130 or other portable electronic devices by transmitting and receiving wireless signals using licensed, semi-licensed or unlicensed spectrum over communications network 120. (0091) the owner may use the consumer application to generate a real world push which can be accessed by a business application that will validate and update ownership via the block chain system (reads on: transmitting the real world push of the object)]
… wherein the digital wallet indicates ownership of the packaged digital asset. [see at least (0045) Once created, the virtual objects can be distributed to users, such as by being added to a user's digital account, which may be referred to as a digital wallet or garage) (reads on: virtual object being the digital asset and digital wallet stores the ownership information of the digital object)]
Pulier discloses managing digital asset, however, Puiler does not disclose:
a physical object configured to exemplify … wherein the physical object includes: a transmitter-receiver configured to communicate and receive information;
a sensor configured to generate an output signal that convey use of the physical object by a user;
a hardware coupler configured to couple the … with a private portable device that stores a private key,
one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: determine the attribute associated with the digital asset;
receive the output signal from the sensor;
determine interaction information based on the output signal, wherein the interaction information includes one or more of vocal communication by the user with the physical object, physical touch by the user with the physical object a change in location of the physical object, or a change in position of the physical object
receive an indication that the private portable device decoupled from the hardware coupler; and
initiate, responsive to the indication, a wrap smart contract that is configured to link an ownership right to the digital asset in the digital wallet into a packaged digital asset such that the ownership to the digital asset in the digital wallet at the time of the indication is required to be held by a same user…
Nonetheless, Wager discloses ledger storing data:
one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: determine the attribute associated with the digital asset; [see at least (0031) The distributed ledger system may also be decentralized and accessible only to participating entities that receive a distributed ledger. (0032) distributed ledger being provided to all participating entities, the cryptography may be used for each block and transaction added to a chain along with details associated therewith, particularly new ownership or updated ownership of tokens (reads on: the ledger stores ownership information about the asset)]
initiate, responsive to the indication, a wrap smart contract that is configured to link an ownership right to the digital asset in the digital wallet into a packaged digital asset such that the ownership to the digital asset in the digital wallet at the time of the indication is required to be held by a same user… [see at least (0030) In a particular example where the commodity is a security, the mutable metadata of a corresponding token may include the current owner, the beneficial owner, time information when the token was last traded, and an active smart contract associated with the token.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Pulier to include the features of Wager. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would securely store the asset with the storing asset in a wallet with asset as taught by Pulier using the smart contract as taught by Wager. Puiler discloses asset being stored in a wallet. Wager teaches the smart contract containing metadate associated with the asset. Because both Puiler as well as Wager are in the filed of managing assets and the smart contract as taught by Wager would be used the asset of Puiler to securely store the asset. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Pulier, as well as Wager would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Pulier/Wager.
The combination of Pulier in view of Wager discloses storing and linking asset. However, the above combination of Pulier, Wager does not disclose:
a physical object configured to exemplify … wherein the physical object includes: a transmitter-receiver configured to communicate and receive information;
a sensor configured to generate an output signal that convey use of the physical object by a user;
a hardware coupler configured to couple the … with a private portable device that stores a private key,
receive the output signal from the sensor;
determine interaction information based on the output signal, wherein the interaction information includes one or more of vocal communication by the user with the physical object, physical touch by the user with the physical object a change in location of the physical object, or a change in position of the physical object
receive an indication that the private portable device decoupled from the hardware coupler; and
However, Jessamine discloses:
hardware coupler configured to couple the individual … with a private portable device that stores a private key, wherein the private key provides access to a digital wallet that is associated with an address on a decentralized ledger … [see at least (0397) The encrypted content 651 is encrypted using a public-private key pair generated and supplied by identity server 206, which is specific to the device on which the SID is created (such as user device 202)]
receive an indication that the private portable device decoupled from the hardware coupler; and [see at least (0202) if the mobile computing device is removed from proximity to “A”, then the mobile computing, device may no longer be authenticated to “A”, Similarly, if the mobile computing device is no longer within range of the “A” to use one of the above referenced transport mediums, the mobile computing device may no longer be authenticated to “A”.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Pulier, Wager to include the features of Jessamine. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would securely store the asset with the storing asset in a wallet with asset as taught by Pulier, Wager using the cryptographic keys as taught by Jessamine. Puiler, Wager discloses asset being stored in a wallet. Jessamine teaches generating cryptographic keys. Because both Puiler, Wager as well as Jessamine are in the field of managing assets and the cryptographic keys as taught by Jessamine would be used the asset of Puiler, Wager to securely store the asset. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Pulier, Wager as well as Jessamine would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Pulier, Wager/Jessamine.
The combination of Pulier in view of Wager, in further view of Jessamine discloses managing asset. However, the above combination of Pulier, Wager does not disclose:
a physical object configured to exemplify … wherein the physical object includes: a transmitter-receiver configured to communicate and receive information;
a sensor configured to generate an output signal that convey use of the physical object by a user;
receive the output signal from the sensor;
determine interaction information based on the output signal, wherein the interaction information includes one or more of vocal communication by the user with the physical object, physical touch by the user with the physical object a change in location of the physical object, or a change in position of the physical object
However Burton discloses:
a physical object configured to exemplify … wherein the physical object includes: a transmitter-receiver configured to communicate and receive information; [see at least (0029) In some embodiments, the utilization of both the light emitter/transmitter, the light receiver/detector and the wireless communication transceiver allows for different tasks to be performed by light emitter/transmitter and receiver/detector as compared to the wireless communication transceiver.]
a sensor configured to generate an output signal that convey use of the physical object by a user; [see at least (0059) a toy robotic device may first initialize its assemblies and/or components, e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes, sensors, and/or one or more processors (along with other components). In some embodiments, the toy robotic device may look or search for infrared signals utilizing its infrared sensors or receivers.]
determine interaction information based on the output signal, wherein the interaction information includes one or more of vocal communication by the user with the physical object, physical touch by the user with the physical object a change in location of the physical object, or a change in position of the physical object; [see at least (0039) the one or more gyroscopes and/or accelerometers 130 may be combined to allow tracking of movement of the toy robotic device and/or may also be utilized to identify a position or location of the toy robotic device. (reads on: location of the physical object)]
receive the output signal from the sensor; [see at least (0078) the other toy robotic devices may determine a direction 630 of the received or sensed infrared signal is received from or came from based on which infrared receivers or sensors on the toy robotic device detected and/or received the transmitted digital infrared signal.]
… the physical object via the transmitter- receiver such that the physical object implements the … attribute; [see least (0039) the toy robotic device may comprise one or more gyroscopes and/or one or more accelerometers 130 to monitor and/or measurement acceleration and/or direction of the toy robot device 100.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine to include the features of Burton. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would securely store the asset with the storing asset in a wallet with asset as taught by Pulier, Wager, Jessamine using the physical attribute taught by Burton. Puiler, Wager, Jessamine discloses asset being stored in a wallet. Burton teaches physical object with physical attribute. Because both Puiler, Wager, Jessamine as well as Burton are in the field of managing assets and the physical attribute as taught by Burton would be used the asset of Puiler, Wager, Jessamine to securely store the asset. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Pulier, Wager, Jessamine as well as Burton would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Pulier, Wager, Jessamine/Burton.
Regarding Claims 2, 8. Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Puiler further discloses:
effectuates exemplification of the attributes associated with the packaged digital asset. [see at least (0038) Virtual object platform 130 can include tools and programs that can be used by the providers to create the virtual objects by establishing characteristics, evolutionary rules, software code, and attributes of the virtual objects.]
However the above combination of Pulier in view of Wagner in view of Jessamine in view of Burton does not disclose (in italics) wherein coupling of the private portable device with the hardware coupler of another physical object effectuates exemplification of the attributes associated with the packaged digital asset. In other words, the above combination teaches the result of what is effectuated but not the trigger that leads to that result.
Nonetheless, Burton further discloses:
wherein coupling of the private portable device with the hardware coupler of another physical object [see least (0039) the toy robotic device may comprise one or more gyroscopes and/or one or more accelerometers 130 to monitor and/or measurement acceleration and/or direction of the toy robot device 100.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton to include the additional features of Burton. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would securely store the asset with the storing asset in a wallet with asset as taught by Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton using the physical attribute taught by Burton. Puiler, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses asset being stored in a wallet. Burton teaches physical object with physical attribute. Because both Puiler, Wager, Jessamine as well as Burton are in the field of managing assets and the physical attribute as taught by Burton would be used the asset of Puiler, Wager, Jessamine to securely store the asset. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 3, 9. Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Burton further discloses:
wherein the set of sensor includes one or more of an audio input sensor, a pressure sensor, a location sensor, or a light sensor. [see at least (0029) the utilization of both the light emitter/transmitter, the light receiver/detector and the wireless communication transceiver allows for different tasks to be performed by light emitter/transmitter and receiver/detector as compared to the wireless communication transceiver (reads on: light sensor). (0039) the utilization of both the light emitter/transmitter, the light receiver/detector and the wireless communication transceiver allows for different tasks to be performed by light emitter/transmitter and receiver/detector as compared to the wireless communication transceiver (reads on: location sensor).]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton to include the additional features of Burton. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would securely store the asset with the storing asset in a wallet with asset as taught by Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton using the physical attribute taught by Burton. Puiler, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses asset being stored in a wallet. Burton teaches physical object with physical attribute. Because both Puiler, Wager, Jessamine as well as Burton are in the field of managing assets and the physical attribute as taught by Burton would be used the asset of Puiler, Wager, Jessamine to securely store the asset. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4, 10. Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Puiler further discloses:
wherein the attribute includes one or more of an eye color, a voice, one more phrases, one or more movements, a skin color, or one or more sound effects. [see at least (0049) States module 225 within platform 130 maintains the state of the virtual objects. Examples of states can include ownership, aesthetic or visual properties (e.g., color, patterns, etc.), audio properties (e.g., sounds]
Regarding Claims 6, 12. Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Pulier further discloses:
wherein the electronic storage is the decentralized ledger such that the adjustment to the attributes are recorded on the decentralized ledger. [see at least (0065) When determination operation 530 determines that a modification is authorized, determination operation 530 branches to modification operation 540 to modify the state of the virtual object. The modified state information is recorded with the blockchain system with recordation operation 550.]
Regarding Claims 13, 14. Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Burton further discloses:
wherein the physical object comprises an action figure, a stuffed animal, a toy vehicle, or a portable computing device. [see at least Fig. 1, (0028) robotic toy device that is able to efficiently communicate with other robotic toy devices, track other robotic devices position and/or engage in actions and operations (such as game play) with other toy robotic devices.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton to include the additional features of Burton. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would securely store the asset with the storing asset in a wallet with asset as taught by Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton using the physical attribute taught by Burton. Puiler, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses asset being stored in a wallet. Burton teaches physical object with physical attribute. Because both Puiler, Wager, Jessamine as well as Burton are in the field of managing assets and the physical attribute as taught by Burton would be used the asset of Puiler, Wager, Jessamine to securely store the asset. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulier, in view of Wager, in further view of Jessamine, in further view of Burton, as applied to claims [1, 7] above, further view of Cella (US 20220366494 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, 11. Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Pulier further discloses:
… wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to communicate with the electronic storage. [see at least (0065) When determination operation 530 determines that a modification is authorized, determination operation 530 branches to modification operation 540 to modify the state of the virtual object. The modified state information is recorded with the blockchain system with recordation operation 550.]
The combination of Pulier, in view of Wager, in further view of Jessamine, in further view of Burton discloses managing asset. However, the above combination of Puiler, Wager, Jessamine, Burton does not disclose:
wherein the electronic storage is separate from the decentralized ledger
However, Cella discloses:
wherein the electronic storage is separate from the decentralized ledger [see at least (0020) the term “distributed” may refer to multiple computing platforms located in multiple separate and distinct geographical locations operating together to provide particular functionality, such as, e.g., in the case of a particular distributed database. (0022) Asset component 108 may be configured to electronically store information in electronic storage 130. In some implementations, stored information may include information regarding one or more types of digital assets.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton to include the features of Cella. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would securely store the asset with the storing asset in a wallet with asset as taught by Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Burton using the sperate distributed ledger as taught by Cella. Puiler, Wager, Jessamine, Burton discloses asset being stored in a wallet. Cella teaches separate distributed ledger. Because both Puiler, Wager, Jessamine as well as Burton are in the field of managing assets and the sperate ledger of Cella would be used the asset of Puiler, Wager, Jessamine, Wager to securely store the asset. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Bruton as well as Cella would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, Bruton/Cella.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210226951 A1 Goldstein; Peter Martin et al. AUTOMATED AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHORIZATION IN A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM - An application-operating organization may delegate a third-party server to serve as an automated contextual authentication responder and an authorization responder. The third-party server may manage a delegated section of the organization's namespace that includes the public identities of various devices controlled by the organization. The third-party server may also dynamically generate interaction control list that is tailored to a requesting device's context based on the interaction control policies set forth by the organization. The interaction control list may include information that determines the authorization of the requesting device to interact with another device. The third-party server may also automatically determine the role of a new device to which existing policies are inapplicable and provide guided workflow for the organization to set up new interaction control policies in governing the new device. The determination of the roles of devices may be based on an iterative process using external data sources.
US 20210289001 A1 Wilson; Ashley Duane et al. AUTOMATED AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHORIZATION IN A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM - An application-operating organization may delegate a third-party server to serve as an automated contextual authentication responder and an authorization responder. The third-party server may manage a delegated section of the organization's namespace that includes the public identities of various devices controlled by the organization. The third-party server may also dynamically generate interaction control list that is tailored to a requesting device's context based on the interaction control policies set forth by the organization. The interaction control list may include information that determines the authorization of the requesting device to interact with another device. The third-party server may also automatically determine the role of a new device to which existing policies are inapplicable and provide guided workflow for the organization to set up new interaction control policies in governing the new device. The determination of the roles of devices may be based on an iterative process using external data sources.
US 20220164423 A1 CALLEGARI; Umberto et al. METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR USER RECOGNITION - Computer recognition is performed to recognise whether a user interacting with a user device in an identified interval of time is the same user as a user that has interacted with the device at other times. First user behaviour data is derived by processing first data representative of a user interacting with the user device, generated by a plurality of different elements of the user device including a sensor. At least a first interval of time is identified relating to an interaction of a user with the user device. Second user behaviour data is derived by processing second data representative of a user interacting with the user device during at least the first interval of time. User verification data, based on the first user behaviour data and the second user behaviour data, is transmitted from the user device to an interaction verification system.
US 20220215361 A1 Koch; Rudy SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SHARING USER INVENTORY INFORMATION TO INITIATE A PEER-TO-PEER EXCHANGE OF A NON-FUNGIBLE DIGITAL ASSET - Systems and methods for sharing user inventory information to initiate peer-to-peer exchanges of digital assets that are usable within an online gaming platform are disclosed. Exemplary implementations may: receive a sharing request for information regarding a first user inventory; access a blockchain to obtain asset information; transfer the asset information in response to the sharing request; receive an offer request for the transfer of ownership of a first digital asset from a first user to a second user; if the offer according to the offer request is accepted, receive a transfer request and transfer the ownership of the first digital asset as requested.
US 11487850 B1 Nieto; Andrea et al. Activation architecture for processing digital assets and related physical products - Systems and method disclosed herein provide a digital asset system that interconnects the processing of digital assets and related physical products within an enterprise network. Digital assets may be generated and updated based on a number of factors including the interactions with the digital asset within the enterprise network and the physical and commercial attributes of the related physical products. Digital assets may be dynamically updated on real-world conditions and utilized to facilitate cross-system interaction between users, manufacturing, and user engagement systems.
US20110021109 A1 Khanh M. Le Toy and companion avatar on portable electronic device - A toy and software application accessory extends the distinguishing play experience of a particular toy to a digital play experience on personal digital assistant, personal navigation device, or other electronic device like an iPod or iphone with an accelerometer, speaker, and a touch-sensitive display screen. The software application accessory creates a digital play experience or video game on the electronic device that presents avatars, dialog, and backgrounds that convincingly accessorize the physical toy. Wireless connectivity to a PC and the Internet allows the toy or the electronic device to download updates, modifications, and enhancements to its basic program. New personalities can be downloaded that change the toy play experience, and extend the play life of the toy by introducing new and creative play experiences. A personality accessory kit includes the new personalities, clothes, props, and other matching accessories.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claim interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f).
Applicant submits: “With respect to § 112(f) interpretation and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) concerning the "hardware coupler" feature, Applicant's representative explained the feature in light of the Specification as filed. The Examiners agreed that Applicant's representative's explanation would overcome the interpretation and rejections if put in writing in a formal reply. The below remarks reflect this explanation.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Applicant can overcome the 35 USC 112(f) by amending or showing sufficient structure. Thus the claim interpretation of 35 USC 112(f) has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Applicant submits: “The Office Action rejects claims 1 and 7 under § 112(a) because the term "hardware coupler configured to" is allegedly not supported by "sufficient algorithms in the specification or drawings." [Office Action, p. 11]. Applicant disagrees - this term complies with the written description requirement. At least for the reasons presented above in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) Interpretation section, the hardware coupler is a physical component and is expressly supported by the Specification as filed. The alleged lack of support by "sufficient algorithms" is not relevant since it is not a software feature. Accordingly, the rejection under § 112(a) should be withdrawn.”
Examiner responds: After further consideration, the rejection is withdrawn based on applicant specification [0029]. Thus, the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection for is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: “B. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 4 112(b) Should Be Withdrawn.
The Office Action rejects claims 1 and 7 under § 112(b) because the § 112(f) interpretation of "hardware coupler configured to" allegedly rendered the claims indefinite. [Office Action, pp. 11-12]. Applicant disagrees - this term is clear and definite. At least for the reasons presented above in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) Interpretation section, the hardware coupler is a physical component and is expressly supported by the Specification as filed. Accordingly, the rejection under § 112(b) should be withdrawn. “
Examiner responds: After further consideration, the rejection is withdrawn based on applicant specification [0029]. Thus, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection for is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “a. "Enabling System For Adjusting And Trading Asset" Is Not A Succinct Concept. The concept identified by the Office Action cannot service as an identification of an abstract idea to which the claims are allegedly directed because it is not a succinct concept. This is because it is not a semantically and/or grammatically correct phrase. For example, the phrasing "adjusting and trading asset" appears to be grammatically incorrect. Is this supposed to read "adjusting and trading an asset" or "adjusting and trading of assets"? Moreover, the phrase starts with the present participle "enabling." It is unclear whether the Office Action is identifying an "enabling system" (e.g., a system that enables "adjusting and trading"), or the concept of enabling a system which performs "adjusting and trading." These are deficiencies in the formulation of the rejection, which reflects a clear failure to "explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically." [MPEP 2106.07]. At least for these reasons, the Office Action fails to show under Step 2A, Prong One that the claims "recite" (set forth or describe) an abstract idea.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s argument is not directed towards the claim language, but it argues whether the abstract is grammatically correct. The examiner would like emphasize that applicant is providing any explanation as to why the claim language does not recite an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: "Enabling System For Adjusting And Trading Asset" Is Overly Broad. Even if the claims at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply concepts of enabling "adjusting and trading" of assets, this is still not enough to conclude patent ineligibility. [Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Cellzdirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Rapid Litig."), "it is not enough to merely identify a patent- ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must determine whether that patent- ineligible concept is what the claim is 'directed to."']. Indeed, in Mayo, the Supreme Court clarified that "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." [Mayo, 71]. We must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure that the Step One inquiry is meaningful. [See, e.g., Alice, 217 ("[W]e tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.")]. Moreover, the Federal Circuit cautions against overgeneralizing claims, such as "describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims...." [See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Enfish")].
The concept of "enabling system for adjusting and trading asset" is overly broad and untethered from the language of the claims. This concept is, at most and without concession, a highly abstract concept underlying the claims. The specificity of the language of the claims (as originally filed and/or amended herein) clearly goes well beyond this concept. At least for these reasons, the concept of "enabling system for adjusting and trading asset" is not an accurate characterization of what is described by at least the amended claims.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s argues the abstract idea is broad, however does not recite why the claim does not recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the examiner would like to emphasize, “relinquishment of asset” (i.e. trading away the asset) (see claim 1 and 7). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: At Least The Amended Independent Claims Describe A Concept Which Is Not Abstract. At least the independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed features do not describe or set forth a concept which is abstract. Instead, the claims describe or set forth a specific, non-abstract, concept. Here, a non-abstract concept described or set forth by at least the amended independent claims is sensor-enabled toys and a system to manage attributes exemplified by the toys ("Applicant's asserted concept"). [See, e.g., Specification as filed, 3-5, and/or 29]. This is a specific, accurate, and non-overgeneralized concept described by the amended claims. Applicant's asserted concept is supported by the disclosure and reflected in the claims. d. If The Examiner Disagrees With Applicant's Asserted Concept, Explicit Reasons Of Why It Is Not The Concept Described By The Claims Should Be Provided. If, for whatever reason, the Examiner disagrees that Applicant's asserted concept is the concept described by the claims, the Office Action must give explicit reasons as to why the Office Action believes Applicant's asserted concept is not the concept described by the claims. These explicit reasons must be given separately from any assertions of a different concept identified in the Office Action and argued to be a concept described by the claims.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s argues the cited paragraph ([0003]-[0005], [0029]) discloses a “a specific, accurate, and non-overgeneralized concept described by the amended claims”. However, the cited paragraphs merely recites the claim language. Furthermore, the claim language describes how it is implemented as a tool, but does not point to the improvement on technology. See MPEP 2106.04 and see updated rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “a. The Physical Object Is Recited In The Claims With Particularity.
This factor considers "[t]he particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines)." [MPEP 2106.05(b) I]. Here, the physical object can be specifically identified and includes a set of specific components (e.g., transmitter-receiver, a sensor, and a hardware coupler). Accordingly, this factor weighs toward a finding that the physical object imposes meaningful limits. Therefore, the claims as a whole integrate any alleged exception into a practical application. b. The Physical Object Is Integral In The Performance Of The Method Of Claim 7. This factor considers whether there is "[i]ntegral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method...." … c. The Physical Object Imposes Meaningful Limits And Is Not Extra- Solution Activity Or A Field-Of-Use. This factor considers "the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim" beyond "only nominally or insignificantly." [MPEP 2106.05(b) III]. For example, in the independent claims, the physical object is meaningful because it substantially impacts one or more operations of the claims. For example, operation(s) in the claims depend on the functions of the components of the physical object. Thus, at least the physical object in the independent claims is required to be used to practice the claims, is a source of other tangible elements in the claims, and is not merely a source of data. Accordingly, this factor weighs toward a finding that the physical object imposes meaningful limits. Therefore, the claims as a whole integrate any alleged exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respond: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.04(d) discloses that “an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (Emphasis added) “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Step 2B Analysis. Applicant's right to argue grounds for traversal of the rejection based on Step 2B analysis are hereby preserved. Applicant's election not to provide substantive remarks under Step 2B in this paper should not be considered a waiver of any rights.”
Examiner responds: See the updated rejection. The rejection been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “A. The Cited References Fail To Describe All The Claim Features. The rejection of independent claim 1 should be withdrawn at least because, in articulating an alleged disclosure of the claimed "physical object," the Office Action relies on portions of Pulier that merely describe virtual objects. In pertinent part, amended claim 1 recites:
a physical object configured to exemplify an attribute, the attribute including at least one of a physical attribute or a behavioral attribute, wherein the physical object includes: a transmitter-receiver configured to communicate and receive information;”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the combination of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, and Burton discloses the claim limitation of claim 1 and 7. The newly cited reference Burton discloses physical object (i.e. robotic toy) with sensor to locate its location. See updated rejection. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Wagner Is Non-Analogous. Wagner Is Not From The Same Field Of Endeavor As The Claimed Invention. Wagner Is Not Reasonably Pertinent To The Particular
Problem(s) Faced By The Inventor(s). Step 1- Jessamine Is Not From The Same Field Of Endeavor As The Claimed Invention. Jessamine is not in the same field of the claimed invention's endeavor because Jessamine's field of endeavor is electronic ticketing and event management. [Jessamine, Abstract, 2-11]. Nowhere in Jessamine is there description of toys generally, let alone toys outfitted with the technology to allow them to exemplify a personality derived from user interaction therewith. Therefore, Jessamine is not from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. 2. Step 2 - Jessamine Is Not Reasonably Pertinent To The Particular Problem(s) Faced By The Inventor(s).”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the cited references of Wager and Jessamine are not analogous in art and further argues the cited reference is not pertinent to the problem. However, the examiner emphasizes, the combination of combination of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, and Burton discloses the claim limitation of claim 1 and 7. See the updated rejection and reasoning for combining the reference. Furthermore, the reference does not need to answer the problem faced by the inventor for it be considered a reference. Furthermore, the newly added claims 13 and 14 are rejected by the combination of Pulier, Wager, Jessamine, and Burton. See the updated rejection above. Thus rejection is proper and has been maintained.
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 MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 02/08/2026
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698