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 .
Applicant’s Responses
In response to Applicant’s reply filed 12/30/2025, claims 3-5 are cancelled, and claims 1, 6-8 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 6-8 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that “[t]he present application does not teach the inclusion of a typing cover or its use for determining the inputting of Braille data. The absence of the typing cover reduces complexity and cost of the final product,” it is respectfully disagreed. Applicant appears to be confused between (i) whether the prior art teaches the claimed invention or (ii) whether the Applicant’s disclosure teaches claims of the prior art. The instant rejection shows the prior art teaches the claimed invention thus a prima facie case has been established. And Applicant fails to traverse the established prima facie case because the fact that Labbe teaches a typing cover while Appilcant’s disclosure is not does not prove whether Labbe does not teach any claimed limitation.
In response to the argument that “Labbe only discloses raising and lowering of pins electromechanically and fails to anticipate the rotary or vibratory motion of the Braille dot element,” it is noted that the rejection already admitted Labbe does not teach the rotary/vibratory features, and relies on Pitts and Gouzman to teach the limitations. Here, Applicant fails to provide any explanation why the provided Pitts and Gouzman do not teach the limitations.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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 6-8 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.
Claim 6 indicates the status of claim “Amended and newly presented as Claim 3.” It is unclear whether it is intended to be claim 6 or renumbered claim 3 because “when claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered.” MPEP 714(II)(C). For similar reason, claims 7 and 8 are rejected as well.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labbe et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262509), hereinafter Labbe, in view of Pitts et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0104175), hereinafter Pitts, and further in view of Gouzman et al (U.S. Patent 6278441), hereinafter Gouzman.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Labbe discloses a refreshable Braille display system (10 in FIG. 1) comprising
a plurality of Braille cells (braille cells 38),
an interface (a virtual Braille keyboard 20 in ¶24; see also keys or buttons in ¶56), and
a microcontroller unit (processing unit 18 in FIG. 3),
the refreshable Braille display system characterized by:
each of the braille cells comprising:
an array of openings such that each opening (openings for pins 40 in FIG. 1) houses a Braille dot element (pins 40 in FIG. 1);
at least one motor positioned within each opening of the array of openings, wherein the at least one motor is configured to raise or lower the Braille dot element (¶54 discloses a means for electromechanically actuating the pins 40 to raise and lower);
the microcontroller unit configured to:
determine an input received from the interface (¶24: “The touch-sensitive surface 14 is provided on the housing 12 and is configured to implement a virtual Braille keyboard 20 configured for entry of input Braille data from a user 22.”); and
selectively control the at least one motor of the array of openings based on the determined input (¶54: “As known in the art, the electromechanically actuated pins 40 of each Braille cell 38 can be moved up and down in response to an electrical signal originating from the processing unit to form different combinations of raised pins representing Braille characters such as, for example, letters, numbers, punctuations, symbols, indicators, Braille composition signs, and the like.”), wherein an output shaft of the at least one motor is in contact with an inner surface of the Braille dot element (FIG. 1 illustrates the pin 40 on top; ¶54 discloses raise or lower the pin 40 using the actuator, suggesting that the actuator contacts the bottom portion of the pin 40 to raise or lower).
Labbe does not explicitly disclose that a rotary motion of the output shaft causes a rotary motion of the Braille dot element.
Pitts teaches programmable actuators for tactile conveyance of information for Braille (Abstract) comprising a rotary motion of the output shaft causes a rotary motion of the Braille dot element (¶3: “For example, the rotating mechanism can be a tactile pin made of a ferrous medium that can be programmed to rotate between two fixed magnets depending on the applied electric field.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in Labbe by adding the customizable features as taught in Pitts in order to “convey written characters and images which are found in digital and written medium in many different languages in the form of a Braille character” (¶2 of Pitts), and/or Labbe explicitly suggest the pins “could be activated using any other suitable actuation technology” (¶55 of Labbe).
Further, Labbe does not explicitly disclose that a vibratory motion of the output shaft (102a) causes a vibratory motion of the Braille dot element.
Gouzman teaches tactile interface system for electronic data display system (Abstract) comprising a vibratory motion of the output shaft causes a vibratory motion of the Braille dot element (col. 15, ll. 44-49: “It has been found by the inventor that the vibration of pins so as to form a Braille character on an ETD, between two neighboring height levels, at a low frequency oscillation, typically in the range 3-5 Hz, facilitates rapid comprehension of the characters thus displayed, thus leading to faster reading.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in Labbe by adding the customizable features as taught in Gouzman in order to “facilitate[] rapid comprehension of the characters thus displayed, thus leading to faster reading” (col. 15, ll. 48-49 of Gouzman).
Regarding claim 2, Labbe further discloses that the Braille dot element (105) is raised or lowered using a mechanical actuator (¶54 discloses a means for electromechanically actuating the pins 40 to raise and lower).
Regarding claim 7, see supra rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, see supra rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6PM.
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 co-supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729