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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figures 2, 9, and 16 it is unclear which part of the invention is the . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “152” has been used to designate both a battery (paragraph 0031, line 2) and an electric plug (paragraph 0031, line 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 162 (paragraph 0032, line 1), 162A (paragraph 0032, line 1), 162B (paragraph 0032, line 2), 164 (paragraph 0032, line 2), and 166 (paragraph 0032, line 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 6, element 120E should be element 112E, consistent with paragraph 0043 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 6 line 1, "pressure sensors are" should read "pressure sensor layout is," and in claim 6, line 2 :consisting of" should read “consisting of:". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “equidistant lines extending outward from the circular shape” and “equidistant lines extending outward from the linear U-shape,” respectively. The “equidistant lines” are not defined in the specification or clearly marked in the drawings, rendering the claims unclear. For the purposes of examination, we have assumed this limitation to describe the linear border between the pressure sensors. This linear border being a “plurality of equidistant lines” serves to describe pressure sensors of uniform dimension in the layouts described in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (US 2009/0156308).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses an illuminated playmat system, comprising:
a planar mat surface (Figure 3, element 1) adapted to be stepped onto by a user to perform an exercise, a dance, or a specific game;
a plurality of pressure sensors (Paragraph 0015, line 4-7) embedded into the planar mat surface, the pressure sensors detect when the planar mat surface is stepped onto in order to perform the exercise, the dance, or the specific game, and the pressure sensors are arranged in a layout for the exercise, the dance, or the specific game;
a plurality of lights (Figure 3, element 15; Paragraph 0019 line 15-18) illuminated in response to pressure or movement detected by the pressure sensors when the planar mat surface is stepped onto in order to perform the exercise, the dance, or the specific game;
a control unit (Figure 4, element 12) processing data from the pressure sensors and triggering the lights accordingly;
a power source (Figure 4, element 2) providing electrical power to the planar mat surface; and
a user interface (Figure 4, element 3) having a display that enables a user adapted to select the exercise, the dance, or the specific game
Regarding claim 2, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1 and additionally discloses a planar mat surface with a general rectangular shape (Figure 3, element 1; Paragraph 0015 line 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1 and additionally discloses a control unit managing the timing and sequencing of a user’s steps and activities (Paragraph 0015, line 1-13).
Regarding claim 10, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1 and additionally discloses a control unit that is a microcontroller (Figure 4, element 12).
Regarding claim 11, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1 and additionally discloses a power source that is a battery (Figure 4, element 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 11 and additionally discloses a battery that is a rechargeable battery (Paragraph 0018, line 4-6).
Regarding claim 15, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1 and additionally discloses a user interface including a big screen (Figure 5; Paragraph 0019, line 2).
Regarding claim 16, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 15 and additionally discloses a big screen displaying a robotic video simulating a game (Paragraph 0019, line 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 16 and additionally discloses a big screen displaying the robotic video simulating the game being visualized (Paragraph 0019, line 1-5).
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2009/0156308) in view of Duffy (US 2018/0043205).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, but does not disclose a planar mat surface made of a soft material.
Furthermore, Duffy teaches a planar mat surface is made of a soft material (Figure 2 element 3, Paragraph 0027, line 5-9). Duffy reveals that it is known in the art of interactive mats to include a soft material for the planar mat surface to increase user comfort. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Duffy to provide a soft material to increase user comfort on the playmat surface.
Regarding claim 13, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, but does not disclose a power source that is a power cord and an electric plug that is adapted to be inserted into an electrical outlet.
Furthermore, Duffy teaches a power source that is a power cord and an electric plug that is adapted to be inserted into an electrical outlet (Paragraph 0020, line 12-14). The teachings of Hsu differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of power cord and plug for a battery. The substituted power cord and plug are known in the art, disclosed by Duffy. The results of this substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Duffy to provide a power source that is a power cord and an electric plug that is adapted to be inserted into an electrical outlet, substituting one known element for another.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2009/0156308) in view of Duffy (US 2018/0043205) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tomkiewicz (US 2016/0290625).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu in view of Duffy discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 3, but does not disclose a soft material made of a recycled plastic material.
Furthermore, Tomkiewicz teaches a glowing mat device made of a recycled plastic material (Paragraph 0021, line 6-8). The teachings of Hsu in view of Duffy differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of recycled plastic materials for plastic materials. These substituted recycled plastic materials are known in the art, disclosed by Tomkiewicz. The results of this substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu in view of Duffy to incorporate the teachings of Tomkiewicz to provide a recycled plastic material, substituting one known element for another.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2009/0156308) in view of Darr (US 5,839,976).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, but does not disclose the pressure sensors illuminating in a series of programmed patterns.
Furthermore, Darr teaches pressure sensors that illuminate in a series of programmed patterns (Column, 2 lines 4-10). Darr reveals that it is known in the art of interactive mats to include pressure sensors illuminating in a series of programmed patterns to direct users to interact with the playmat. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Darr to provide pressure sensors illuminating in a series of programmed patterns to guide a user on their next move.
Regarding claim 6, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, and additionally discloses pressure sensors of a rectangular shape that are arranged in a rectangular layout. Hsu does not disclose pressure sensors each having the circular shape that is arranged in the layout that has a generally rectangular shape.
Furthermore, Darr teaches a pressure sensor of a circular shape (figure 7, element 23). The teachings of Hsu differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of pressure sensor of circular shape for pressure sensors of rectangular shape. These substituted circular and rectangular pressure sensors are known in the art, disclosed by Darr (Column 8, line 29-30). The results of this substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Darr to provide pressure sensors each having a circular shape, substituting one known element for another.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2009/0156308) in view of Hautop Lund (US 9,662,557).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, but does not disclose a layout with the linear U-shape with a plurality of equidistant lines extending outward from the linear U-shape.
Furthermore, Hautop Lund teaches pressure sensors in a layout composed of modular housings connected to each other to form a flat surface (Column 6, line 64-67). The modular devices can be connected in a variety of layouts where each modular device (Figure 1, element 12) is “juxtaposed to at least one other … device” (Column 6, line 67 - Column 7, line 2). Hautop Lund reveals that it is known in the art of interactive pressure sensitive systems to arrange sensors in a variety of layouts.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the layout of the pressure sensors would result in a difference in function of the Hsu system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the interactive playmat of Hsu, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification as it appears the system would function as intended being given the claimed layout. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed layout solves any stated problem, indicating that the layout “may” be arranged in a linear U-shape, and offering other acceptable layouts (Specification paragraphs 0035-0051) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat system of Hsu to have a pressure sensor layout of a linear U-shape.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2009/0156308) in view of McClard et al. (US 2018/0021677) hereafter referred to as McClard.
Regarding claim 8, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, but does not disclose lights that are a plurality of LED lights.
Furthermore, McClard teaches lights that are a plurality of LED lights (Figure 3B, element 28; Paragraph 0020, line 15-20). The teachings of Hsu differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of LED lights for lights. These substituted LED lights are known in the art, as disclosed by McClard. The results of this substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of McClard to provide a plurality of LED lights, substituting one known element for another.
Regarding claim 14, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, but does not disclose a digital display that includes a plurality of digital buttons and/or a plurality of digital switches.
Furthermore, McClard teaches a digital display (Figure 5B, element 45) that includes a plurality of digital buttons (Figure 5B, element 44, 46, and 48) and/or a plurality of digital switches. McClard reveals that it is known in the art of interactive mats to include a user interface with a digital display and a plurality of digital buttons to receive user input and initialize a game. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of McClard to provide a user interface with a digital display and a plurality of digital buttons to receive user input.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2009/0156308) in view of Aharonson et al. (US 2022/0172640) hereafter referred to as Aharonson.
Regarding claim 18, Hsu discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 1, but does not disclose a display that is an analog display.
Furthermore, Aharonson teaches a display that is an analog display (Paragraph 0141, line 1-2) in the form of a Cathode-ray Tube (CRT) display (Paragraph 0142, line 1-2). Aharonson reveals that it is known in the art of interactive music systems to include a user interface with an analog display and a plurality of digital buttons to present a musical piece to a user. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the display of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Aharonson to provide an analog display to present a musical piece to a user.
Regarding claim 19, Hsu in view of Aharonson discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 18. Aharonson additionally teaches an analog display that includes a plurality of buttons and/or a plurality of switches (Paragraph 0141, line 18-21). Aharonson reveals that it is known in the art of interactive music systems to include a user interface with an analog display that includes a plurality of buttons and/or a plurality of switches to allow the user to control and effect the display operations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Aharonson to provide an analog display that includes a plurality of buttons and/or a plurality of switches to allow the user to control and effect the display operations.
Regarding claim 20, Hsu in view of Aharonson discloses the illuminated playmat system of claim 19. Aharonson additionally teaches a speaker that gives audio guides adapted to assist the user with how to engage the illuminated playmat system (Paragraph 0155, line 1). Aharonson reveals that it is known in the art of interactive music systems to include a speaker to provide audio feedback to the user. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the playmat of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Aharonson to provide a speaker to provide audio feedback to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711