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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to the application filed 08/17/2023. Claims 1-6 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and dependents thereof are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The recitation of “no bumpers on the sides” in claim 1 is unclear because “the sides” may refer to any plural number of sides. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned.
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Laghi (US 5080592 A).
Re claim 1:
[Claim 1] Laghi teaches or at least suggests a product of a Galton board-type device and with multiple holes at the top that are accessible to the user and a collection bin which is accessible to the user on the bottom, such that balls or rounded tokens can be dropped in various holes on the top and taken out from the bottom collection bin (at least col 1, lines 15-17: A common device specifically designed for statistical modeling is the Quincunx which was invented by Lord Francis Galton in the 1870's; col 2, lines 10-16: The balls collected in the grooves would eventually fall into a bell-shaped pattern called a "normal" or "Gausslan" distribution; col 3, lines 18-35: there is shown by the numeral 10 a Quincunx type of statistics teaching device. The device comprises a top ball reservoir 12, a movable funnel shaped conduit 22 and a pinplate 26. Below the pinplate is the ball stacking area which comprises a row of vertically extending grooves 50. Located laterally across the grooves are a number of spring loaded ball-stops 32. At the bottom of the Quincunx, is a ball collection reservoir 52. A side passage 54 connects the bottom ball reservoir 52 to the top ball reservoir 12. Between the top ball reservoir 12 and the conduit 22 there is a movable feeder member 14 that includes an exterior handle 16. The feeder member includes a plurality of slots 18 which are each sized to receive a ball from the upper reservoir. Below the feeder member is an entry orifice 20 which allows one ball at a time to fall into the movable conduit 22; col 4, lines 65-67: in FIG. 1, the balls would collect above one of the ball-stops and thereby illustrate a normal distribution).
Laghi appears to be silent on the Galton board-type device being with no bumpers on the sides. However, the limitation “with no bumpers on the sides" is deemed an attempt to avoid (a) prior art reference(s) by simply excluding a particular feature. In particular, Applicant’s published disclosure (¶ 9) states “use of a pachinko-style board that has bumpers that alter the degree of chance of objects falling into any of the slots on the bottom as opposed to a normal distribution”. Cited reference US 20210241584 A1 discloses ¶¶ 15, 64” “The annular bumper may comprise a resilient material, and wherein the top surface and the bottom surface of the motion device have a friction coefficient below a threshold value. The annular bumper may comprise rubber or silicon …”. The cited prior cited in Applicant’s disclosure not only establishes an added feature (“bumpers”) but also indicates the absence of such feature in other prior art references is known and not unexpected. Additionally, by definition, “[T]he Galton board, also known as the Galton box or quincunx or bean machine (or incorrectly Dalton board), is a device invented by Francis Galton[1] to demonstrate the central limit theorem, in particular that with sufficient sample size the binomial distribution approximates a normal distribution.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board. Laghi follows that definition, as evident in col 2, lines 10-16: “[T]he balls collected in the grooves would eventually fall into a bell-shaped pattern called a "normal" or "Gausslan" distribution” and col 4, lines 65-67: “in FIG. 1, the balls would collect above one of the ball-stops and thereby illustrate a normal distribution”. Hence, modifying Laghi as claimed would have been an obvious matter of choice because it would not give unexpected results. In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965).
Re claim 2:
[Claim 2] Laghi teaches or at least suggests the product in claim 1 that allows for interaction with balls or rounded tokens while using the board (at least col 2, lines 7-13: Dropping a large number of balls into the pinplate would simulate an equally large number of attempts at stacking. The balls would stack up in the grooves and illustrate the distribution of probable stack heights. The balls collected in the grooves would eventually fall into a bell-shaped pattern called a "normal" or "Gausslan" distribution; col 3, lines 29-35: Between the top ball reservoir 12 and the conduit 22 there is a movable feeder member 14 that includes an exterior handle 16. The feeder member includes a plurality of slots 18 which are each sized to receive a ball from the upper reservoir. Below the feeder member is an entry orifice 20 which allows one ball at a time to fall into the movable conduit 22).
Re claim 3:
[Claim 3] Laghi teaches or at least suggests an educational method for using the product in claim 1 by using the holes at the top of the board to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to a normal distribution (at least col 3, lines 29-35: Between the top ball reservoir 12 and the conduit 22 there is a movable feeder member 14 that includes an exterior handle 16. The feeder member includes a plurality of slots 18 which are each sized to receive a ball from the upper reservoir. Below the feeder member is an entry orifice 20 which allows one ball at a time to fall into the movable conduit 22).
Laghi appears to be silent on numbers on the board. However, it is common knowledge that curves and graphs are drawn with numbers to provide context. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used numbers on the board to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to a normal distribution as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 4:
[Claim 4] Laghi teaches or at least suggests an educational and interactive method for using the product in claim 1 by varying the holes used at the top of the board to illustrate statistical principles pertaining (at least col 3, lines 29-35: Between the top ball reservoir 12 and the conduit 22 there is a movable feeder member 14 that includes an exterior handle 16. The feeder member includes a plurality of slots 18 which are each sized to receive a ball from the upper reservoir. Below the feeder member is an entry orifice 20 which allows one ball at a time to fall into the movable conduit 22).
Laghi appears to be silent on numbers on the board. However, it is common knowledge that curves and graphs are drawn with numbers to provide context. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Laghi to use numbers on the board to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to a normal distribution as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Laghi appears to be silent on more than one normal distribution. However, it is apparent that using more than one of Laghi’s device would allow one of ordinary skill on the art to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to more than one normal distribution. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Laghi to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to more than one normal distribution as a mere duplication and rearrangement of parts producing no new and unexpected result. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950).
Re claim 5:
[Claim 5] Laghi teaches or at least suggests an educational and interactive method for using the product in claim 1 by varying the holes used at the top of the board (at least col 3, lines 29-35: Between the top ball reservoir 12 and the conduit 22 there is a movable feeder member 14 that includes an exterior handle 16. The feeder member includes a plurality of slots 18 which are each sized to receive a ball from the upper reservoir. Below the feeder member is an entry orifice 20 which allows one ball at a time to fall into the movable conduit 22).
Laghi appears to be silent on numbers on the board. However, it is common knowledge that curves and graphs are drawn with numbers to provide context. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have varied numbers on the board as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Laghi appears to be silent on varying the use of different color balls or rounded tokens to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to sample sizes and hypothesis testing. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of the use of different color of items for illustration purposes were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Laghi as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Laghi appears to be silent on multiple groups. However, it is apparent that using more than one of Laghi’s device would allow one of ordinary skill on the art to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to sample sizes and hypothesis testing for multiple groups. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Laghi to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to sample sizes and hypothesis testing for multiple groups as a mere duplication and rearrangement of parts producing no new and unexpected result. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950).
Re claim 6:
[Claim 6] Laghi teaches or at least suggests an educational and interactive method for using the product in claim 1 by varying the holes used at the top of the board (at least col 3, lines 29-35: Between the top ball reservoir 12 and the conduit 22 there is a movable feeder member 14 that includes an exterior handle 16. The feeder member includes a plurality of slots 18 which are each sized to receive a ball from the upper reservoir. Below the feeder member is an entry orifice 20 which allows one ball at a time to fall into the movable conduit 22).
Laghi appears to be silent on varying the use of different color balls or rounded tokens to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to sample sizes and hypothesis testing. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of the use of different color of items for illustration purposes were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Laghi as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Laghi appears to be silent on multiple groups. However, it is apparent that using more than one of Laghi’s device would allow one of ordinary skill on the art to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to sample sizes and hypothesis testing for multiple groups. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Laghi to illustrate statistical principles pertaining to hypothesis testing for a single score as a mere duplication and rearrangement of parts producing no new and unexpected result. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950).
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 EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, NATHANIEL E. WIEHE can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of originally filed or unoriginally filed applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unoriginally filed 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715