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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species II (claim 5) in the reply filed on July 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 2 and 8-10 are withdrawn from examination. Pending claims 1, 3-7 and 11-13 are examined in this non-final action in response to Applicant’s election. A formal response to this office action shall include claims showing the correct status of non-elected claims as “Withdrawn” or “Canceled.”
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
35 USC § 101
Per Step 2B in subject matter eligibility analysis, the claimed invention adds significantly more to the judicial exception as noted: “accessing the internet storage space via accessing the electronic chip by the second person, and retrieving the personal data by the second person.”
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "should" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al., US 2014/0358986 “Min,” in view of Schooley et al., US 2020/0313712 “Schooley.”
In Schooley see at least (underlined text is for emphasis):
Regarding claim 1: A method for transferring data carrying personal inner message, including the steps of:
associating an internet storage space with an electronic chip embedded in a personal item belonging to a first person, and associating the electronic chip with the first person and her/his first access authority to the internet storage space;
[Min: 0005] A cloud database-based interactive control system and method wherein, using a client program, a handheld or portable electronic device (such as a tablet or smartphone) employs a wireless mode to obtain data from a database on a cloud server. A connection is established between the handheld or portable electronic device and an accessory device (such as an intelligent toy with embedded electronics and the like, as further explained below), and after the accessory device sends a conned [sic: connect] command, the client program gives a receive command. The handheld or portable electronic device then transfers data previously obtained from the cloud server to the accessory device, based on user needs. Alternatively, after a launch command is issued by the client program on the handheld or portable electronic device, the accessory device issues a receive command; once data has been transferred to the accessory device, instructions can be sent from the client program for the accessory device to carry out corresponding operations.
[Min: 0006] In the above cloud database-based interactive control system and method, the connection method is preferably near-field communications, including sound waves or Bluetooth.
[Min: 0007] In the above cloud database-based interactive control system and method, the aforementioned actions come from a database. The database will determine, beforehand, a template for content suitable for exchange between the accessory device and the user, or between one accessory device and another. This template is added to or modified through the cloud server and pushed to the client software on the handheld or portable equipment, with the client software updating the data before it is downloaded to the accessory device. Please note: Cloud-based storage is associated with the accessory device’s embedded electronics.
[Min: 0008] In the above cloud database-based interactive control system and method, the corresponding operations include but are not limited to sounds (e.g., speech/dialogue), movements (e.g., gestures and/or actions), and media playback.
[Min: 0009] Cloud database-based interactive control accessory devices, which include a device body with embedded chip. This chip connects, respectively, with the device's user input devices, displays, network/bus interfaces, power supply units, solid state memory, RAM, and speakers. Please note: Cloud-based storage is associated with the accessory device’s embedded electronics chip.
[Min: 0010] The user input for these accessory devices includes one or more of buttons, keyboards, or a wheel.
[Min: 0011] A CODEC is between the speaker and embedded chip in these accessory devices.
[Min: 0012] The power supply units for these accessory devices include a battery that connects with the embedded chip through a charging module. [Min: 0013] The display screen for these accessory devices is an LED or LCD.
[Min: 0037] FIG. 5 is a flowchart of one non-limiting implementation of a connection service 500 that defines a data transfer between a cloud server and a local device on the Internet the process is executed by the local device, which can be handheld or portable. Process (500) begins with the local device detecting a network connection (502) and identifying itself to the server (504), and the server receiving an authentication value (506) from the local device. At this point, the cloud server has executed the authentication process, with the local device providing an authentication and the server determining whether the local device is trusted, based on the authentication value and device identifier. If adjudication (508) determines that the local device has been confirmed trustworthy, the list of accessory devices obtained by the local device through the 300 and 400 connection services is updated (510) to the cloud database; this will help the cloud database to analyze and keep a tally of whether these accessory devices are available. Finally, the local device is authorized (512) to read and download the cloud database, and then it executes the download to the local device (514). Please note: The electronic chip is associated with the first person and her/his first access authority to the internet storage space.
accessing the internet storage space by the first person, and uploading a personal data to the internet storage space by the first person, with the personal data carrying an inner message of said first person;
[Min: 0040] The present system and method can be used in many and varied circumstances. Non-limiting examples include the following:
[Min: 0041] The accessory devices can be stuffed animal toys with the ability to produce speech sounds and potentially the ability to move.
[Min: 0042] A device such as an iPad can be used as the local device.
[Min: 0043] The cloud server can store and download to the iPad a series of "interactions" between the toys, for example to act out a predetermined scene. One example may be a passage from a children's book or fairy tale. For example, there could be an interaction between Winnie the Pooh and Tiger, of a type that is entertaining and/or instructive to a child. Multiple toys can be used to create more complex interactive scenarios.
[Min: 0044] A single toy can be used. One example is that a stuffed animal could tell a story or "read" a book to a child.
[Min: 0045] The toys speech/actions can be fully or partially predetermined and stored in the cloud server.
[Min: 0046] If it is partial, then the user (e.g., a subscriber to a web service) can add his or her own dialogue, potentially in his or her own voice. This way a parent can customize a story for the parent's child, or one or more people can create and put on a play using toys as the "actors."
[Min: 0047] The user can entirely create unique content. For example a parent could record a message or lesson for a child, which is then delivered by the child's favorite toy.
Please note: For examination purpose, the child’s parent is the first person. The child is designated to be a second person.
Please note: Although Min describes a parent-child relationship, as claimed the second person being related to the first person carries no patentable weight. There is no subject matter of weight that distinguishes the “second person who is related to the first person” from merely being a second person, recipient, friend/buddy, co-worker, etc.
passing the personal item from the first person to a second person who is related to the first person, and authenticating the second user a second access authority to the internet storage space by the first person; and accessing the internet storage space via accessing the electronic chip by the second person, and retrieving the personal data by the second person.
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings applied to claim 1 by Min and further upon the combination of Min-Schooley. Although Min teaches a) a first person, e.g. a parent, and a second person, e.g. child, the child being a recipient of a personal message from the parent delivered by the accessory device, e.g. a toy, and b) the parent being authorized to transfer a data between the cloud server and the parent’s local device, Min does not expressly mention the first person passing the accessory device to the second person and authorizing the second user access to the cloud-based database. Schooley on the other hand would have taught Min such techniques.
In Schooley see at least:
[Schooley: 0066] In another embodiment, the accessory device 600, using the wireless circuitry 622, can retrieve specific information and store the specific information that can be accessed by a user. For example, the accessory device 600 may be purchased as a gift, with the intent that a recipient of the accessory device 600 becomes the user. The purchaser of the accessory device 600 can record and store a personal message (such as a birthday message), either on the accessory device 600 or on a cloud-based storage network. Then, when the recipient/user receives the accessory device 600 and installs the electronic device 650 (assumed to be owned by the recipient) in the receptacle 602, the accessory device 600 can initiate a process in which the recipient/user receives the personal message from the accessory device 600 or through the cloud-based storage network, depending on which medium the purchaser chose to store the personal message. The personalized message is subsequently presented on the display assembly 654 and/or through a speaker module (not shown in FIGS. 8 and 9) of the electronic device 650. Accordingly, the accessory device 600 can used to transmit person-to-person information generated by one person with the intent that the information is presented to another person.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Schooley, which a) provide the second user being a recipient of a gift, i.e. accessory device, and b) the second user, now the owner of the gift, initiating a process through the cloud-based storage network to access a personal message, e.g. a birthday message, recorded and stored in the cloud-based by the first person, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Schooley to the teachings of Min would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the system and methods of Min-Schooley to require the second person to be subjected to the same authorization processes as the first person, in order to maintain secure access and retrieval of the personal message via the accessory device.
Regarding claim 3: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Min-Schooley and further upon the combination of Min-Schooley regarding personal inner message of the second person:
[Schooley: 0066] … Accordingly, the accessory device 600 can used to transmit person-to-person information generated by one person with the intent that the information is presented to another person.
Please note: The second person, who owns the accessory device and has access to the cloud-based storage network, can create messages and store in the cloud-based storage network.
Regarding claim 11: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Min-Schooley and further upon the combination of Min-Schooley regarding accessing the internet storage space by accessing the electronic chip:
[Min: 0005] A cloud database-based interactive control system and method wherein, using a client program, a handheld or portable electronic device (such as a tablet or smartphone) employs a wireless mode to obtain data from a database on a cloud server. A connection is established between the handheld or portable electronic device and an accessory device (such as an intelligent toy with embedded electronics and the like, as further explained below), and after the accessory device sends a conned command, the client program gives a receive command. The handheld or portable electronic device then transfers data previously obtained from the cloud server to the accessory device, based on user needs.
Please note: Claim 11 as written based on language in the instant specification is open to interpretation. Other than an assertion in the instant specification that the first user accesses internet storage via accessing the electronic chip, there is no evidence that the first user must connect with the embedded chip first which then connects to the internet storage.
Regarding claims 12 and 13: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Min-Schooley.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Min, US 2014/0358986, and Schooley, US 2020/0313712, as applied to claim 1 further in view of Matousek et al., US 2015/0154676 “Matousek.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Min-Schooley and further upon the combination of Min-Schooley-Matousek. Although Min-Schooley implement access authentication procedures and recording a personal message in cloud service storage (uploading), Min-Schooley do not expressly mention known techniques for message manipulations using a cloud service. Matousek on the other hand would have taught Min-Schooley such techniques.
In Matousek see at least:
[Matousek: 0046] Once a greeting card 20 or 50, whether made from scratch or from an existing template, is saved by the user, the completed card is visible from the "Cards Ready to Send" 14 screen, which is accessible through the main menu. If the "saved card" area is empty, the user is encouraged to make a greeting card and given the option to "Make a New Card" 10 or "Pick a Card" 12. If there are saved cards 20 or 50, the front page P1 of each saved card 20 or 50 is shown on this screen, as shown in FIG. 11. Tapping on the front face P1 of one of the completed cards 20 or 50, brings up the front face P1 of the greeting card 20 or 50 along with a "trash can" icon 38 wherein the user can delete the greeting card 20 or 50, a "pencil" icon 62 wherein the user can edit the saved greeting card 20 or 50, and the "mailbox" icon 64 wherein the user can initiate the send process. The user may store up to "X" completed greeting cards 20 or 50.
[Matousek: 0051] Once the parent or adult has entered through the "parental gateway", he/she may decide to "take a tour" of the application, especially if it is his/her first time using the application. The "take a tour" option will guide the adult user through a series of screens to show the various capabilities and options provided by the application. Text instruction or descriptions may also appear on the screen. Once the user has completed the "take a tour" option, or if he/she bypasses this option, he/she must sign in to the application or if it is the first time ordering greeting cards through the application, he/she must create an account, as shown in FIG. 15. The account creation process begins by entering a unique email address 66 and password 68. Once the unique email address 66 and password 68 are established, the adult must further provide the application with a first name, last name, and birthday.
[Matousek: 0055] Once the application is downloaded to a portable computing device, the app provides a system for merchandising and delivery greeting cards (both physical and electronic). FIG. 22 depicts a flow diagram of this exemplary system environment 100 for electronically merchandising and delivering greeting card content over the internet, consistent with the exemplary methods described herein. In one embodiment, the system environment 100 may include, but is not limited to: a content merchandising system 110, a content delivery platform (not shown), a cloud service system 120 and a plurality of portable computing devices 130.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Matousek, which include establishing passwords, modifying, reading and deleting the data on the space, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Matousek to the teachings of Min-Schooley would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Min, US 2014/0358986, and Schooley, US 2020/0313712, as applied to claim 1 further in view of Sprigg et al., US 2013/0040629 “Sprigg.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 1 by Min-Schooley and further upon the combination of Min-Schooley-Sprigg. Although Min-Schooley teach and suggest the second user gaining access to a personal message via a cloud service, Min-Schooley do not expressly mention techniques for customizing access for the second user. Sprigg on the other hand would have taught Min-Schooley such techniques.
In Sprigg see at least:
[Sprigg: 0023] The various embodiments provide systems for implementing a comprehensive set of parental controls that allow parents to control their children's cell phones and mobile computing devices in a manner that allows children to use their mobile devices for approved and/or productive activities, and at the same time, restrict them from using their mobile devices for improper and/or unproductive activities.
[Sprigg: 0024] A single online interface hosted on the parental control settings server provides parents with a centralized system for managing each individual child's access permissions. This single interface allows parents to control all their children's mobile phones and mobile computing devices quickly and efficiently, without requiring any physical access to the children's devices. Access permissions may be granted, denied and/or limited using a single setting for multiple children based on each child's demographics (e.g., age, sex, etc.), as well as time and location.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Sprigg, which allow a user, e.g. parent, to manage each individual child access permissions, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Sprigg to the teachings of Min-Schooley would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2015/0360139 (Watry) “Interactive Cloud-Based Toy,” discloses: [0007] Intercommunication is the toy's cornerstone. This means that not only can smart devices (phones, tablets, computer and the like) interface with the toy, but the toy can communicate with other cloud connected toys from anywhere as long as there is wireless connection. The interactive cloud-based toy has a communicator located in the housing of the toy. The communicator has electronic circuitry operatively coupled to a cloud database for transmitting and receiving data through a Bluetooth connection with a smart device that then talks to the internet based cloud via a WiFi connection. Or in another embodiment, the communicator can talk direct to the cloud database via WiFi.
Goldstein, Item U “Technology and Play,” discloses:
‘Smart toys’ contain embedded electronics that appear to have the capacity to adapt to the abilities or actions of the player. Tamagotchi (BanDai) was the first smart toy, appearing in 1996. The Tamagotchi was programmed to be 'nurtured' by a child. In 1997 Furby (Tiger Electronics) appeared, followed by other interactive toys including Poo-Chi, Interactive Barney, and Me Barbie. Today’s smart toys may include speech recognition software, touch or motion sensors, and the ability to be networked together with other smart toys or a PC or mobile phone. There is little research on whether ‘smart’ toys and digital games increase children’s cognitive or social skills, although some toys and games are designed with these goals in mind.
Many traditional toys are found in multiple media and embodiments. Action Man, Batman, and Thomas the Tank Engine exist as toys, as interactive computer games, in illustrated books, in animated videos, and as downloadable apps. Although toys may come with programmed responses, they are not used only in pre-scripted ways. When playing with smart toys, children do not always discover their full functionality. This limited discovery may be due to the geometrical layout of the toy or interfaces, software complexities, ambiguous feedback, or, a toy appears similar to one the user had previously encountered. Bergen (2004) observed boys and girls ages 3 to 5 years while playing with ‘talking’ (computer-chip enhanced) and ‘non-talking’ Rescue Heroes figures (firemen, police officers). After an initial exploratory period, most of the children used the toys in similar ways. The children with speech-enabled toys repeated some phrases and sounds that the toy made and initially activated the sound/talk mechanisms, but in their free play most of them used actions and language narratives similar to those of the children with the non-talking toys.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights