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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract refers to purported merits (Abstract, “…the manufacturing cost of smart blocks may be lowered…”) and speculative applications of the invention (Abstract, “…enabling learning, playing…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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, sixth paragraph, 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 limitations are:
“beacon module” in claim 6;
“ID module” in claims 14 and 18;
“pairing module” in claims 14 and 15;
“function module” in claims 14 and 15;
“pairing control module” in claim 15;
“function control module” in claim 15;
“sequence control module” in claim 15;
“interface unit” in claims 16 and 17;
“coding processing unit” in claims 16-18;
“conversion processing module” in claim 17;
“compilation processing module” in claim 17;
“error analysis module” in claim 17;
“error display module” in claim 17;
“control code transmission module” in claim 17;
“coding target specifying module” in claim 18;
“identification information display module” in claim 18;
“identification information selection module” in claim 18; and
“identification information designation module” in claim 18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-11 and 13-18 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase, “…the function block is formed to be able to be coupled to each other on the side surfaces, and is configured to transmit electric power…” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim includes an incorrectly placed comma (i.e., a comma splice), thereby intending to state the function block is configured to transmit electric power, or whether the Applicant intended to appropriately utilize the comma alongside the conjunction, “and”, and accidentally omitted the subject of the following independent clause that is configured to transmit electric power.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the comma is a typographical error and intended to recite the function block is configured to transmit electric power.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “…is stacked in an upward and downward direction…” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the power block itself is stacked, multiple power blocks are stacked, or the power block allows stacking in both directions.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to recite the power block allows stacking in both directions.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the term “certain” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The requisite internal space and volume of a block are unclear; therefore, the main body necessary to form a smart block is indefinite.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11, the phrases, “side thereof” and “the side surface thereof” and render the claims indefinite as it is unclear whether “thereof” refers to the side/side surface of one of the various plates or one of the various blocks recited.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant was referring to whichever subject appeared directly before the usage of the term, “thereof”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites a singular “function block”, yet the claim later recites “receive” in the plural form. It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to recite a single function block or a plurality of function blocks.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to recite a single function block.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “everyday term” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “everyday term” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of the usage of the phrase “everyday term”, the function of the conversion processing module is indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to recite that the conversion processing module renders programmable code from natural language, such as narrative text as typically utilized by children and adolescence.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“beacon module” in claim 6;
“ID module” in claims 14 and 18;
“pairing module” in claims 14 and 15;
“function module” in claims 14 and 15;
“pairing control module” in claim 15;
“function control module” in claim 15;
“sequence control module” in claim 15;
“interface unit” in claims 16 and 17;
“coding processing unit” in claims 16-18;
“conversion processing module” in claim 17;
“compilation processing module” in claim 17;
“error analysis module” in claim 17;
“error display module” in claim 17;
“control code transmission module” in claim 17;
“coding target specifying module” in claim 18;
“identification information display module” in claim 18;
“identification information selection module” in claim 18; and
“identification information designation module” in claim 18.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any clear and definite structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 5, 8, 10, and 13, the claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on their corresponding claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites an improper dependency upon preceding claims 1-12. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shackelford [US6443796B1].
Regarding claim 1, Shackelford discloses:
A smart block (Shackelford, col 3, lines 51-53, “…the invention is realized in any standard child's construction set by incorporating therewith … special (“smart”) play pieces.”), comprising:
a function block that is supplied with electric power and implements various functions (Shackelford, col 3, lines 65-67, “…smart play pieces also incorporate peripheral devices, electrically actuated devices which the controller is able to actuate in accordance with action…”); and
a power block that has a battery for storing electric power and is coupled to a side surface of the function block to supply electric power to the function block (Shackelford, Fig 9 and col 12, lines 27-29, “A battery 39 is received in a battery compartment within the block to Supply power for driving the motor.”).
Regarding claim 2, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 1,
wherein the function block is formed to be able to be coupled to each other on the side surfaces (Shackelford, col 12, lines 16-22, “Play piece 54 is one of the smart blocks, containing a motor driven propeller and is illustrated to larger scale in FIG. 9 to which reference is made. The base 30 of the figure is square in shape. On the underside, that base includes the coupling grips, not visible, which, engage the 2×2 array of studs when installed on the base (or on another block)…”), and
is configured to transmit electric power supplied from one side surface thereof to another function block on the other side surface thereof (Shackelford, col 12, lines 22-25, “…and, like the dragon figure and troll figure, includes a centrally located male electrical connector of the type previously described in connection with another play piece.”).
Regarding claim 3, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 2,
wherein the power block is stacked in an upward and downward direction, thereby transmitting electric power (Shackelford, Fig. 9 as cited above.).
Regarding claim 4, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 3, comprising:
a main body formed with a certain internal space to form a certain volume of a block (Shackelford, Fig 9 displays a transparent drawing of the smart block with a main body and internal spacing.);
an upper plate coupled to an upper side of the main body and having a protrusion to be coupled to an upper smart block (Shackelford, Figs 1, 3, 5A, 6A, 7, 8A, 11, and 12 display various embodiments of a smart block with an upper plate coupled to an upper side of the main body alongside a protrusion to be coupled to an upper smart block.); and
a lower plate coupled to a lower side of the main body and having a coupling groove where the protrusion is inserted in order to be coupled to a lower smart block (Shackelford, Figs 4B, 5B, 6B, and 8B display a lower plate coupled to a lower side of the main body alongside a connector allowing a lower smart block to connect to the lower plate. Shackelford, Fig 8A displays an upper smart block (the troll figure) connecting with a lower smart block via a connector (C1).),
wherein the lower plate includes a horizontal power line that allows electric power to be transmitted to another smart block on the side surface thereof (Shackelford, Power line orientation in a horizontal position can be seen via Figs 5B, 9, and 12).
Regarding claim 5, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 4,
wherein the power block further comprises a vertical power line that transmits electric power stored in a battery in an upward and downward direction, wherein the vertical power line is formed to pass through the main body, the upper plate, and the lower plate (Shackelford, Power line orientation in a vertical position can be seen via Fig 9.).
Regarding claim 6, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 1, further comprising a beacon block that wirelessly transmits a reference position information through a beacon module (Shackelford, col 20, lines 19-24, “And those connections, whether they are hard wired into something that is the equivalent of the electrical connections in the base in the specific embodiment illustrated or are wireless as we illustrate with IR or RF, enable the controller, the “brain”, to know where each of the play pieces and characters are located within the construction set.”),
wherein the function block is coupled to a side surface of the beacon block and receive the reference position information of the beacon block (As cited directly above and within the prior claims, each smart block as disclosed by Shackelford is capable of (a) coupling to a side surface of another smart block and (b) transmitting position information of itself; therefore, Shackelford discloses a beacon block as claimed within the instant application.).
Regarding claim 7, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 6, wherein the function block is configured to be able to be coupled to another function block at side surfaces thereof and is configured to transmit a position information received from one side thereof to the other function block on the other side thereof (See citations and comments within claim 6 above.).
Regarding claim 8, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 7, wherein the beacon block is coupled to another beacon block or the power block in an upward and downward direction and is configured to transmit the position information (See citations and comments within claim 6 above.).
Regarding claim 9, the claim shares similar limitations to claim 4. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 10, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 9, wherein the beacon block further comprises
a vertical communication line that transmits the reference position information in an upward and downward direction (Shackelford, Figs 4A-B, connector 8), and
the vertical communication line is configured to pass through the main body, the upper plate, and the lower plate (Shackelford, Fig 9 illustrates a connector 32 that extends a communication line vertically through the base 30 into the propeller block 54.).
Regarding claim 11, the claim shares similar limitations to claims 4 and 5. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 4-5 and comments of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 12, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block of claim 1, wherein the function block comprises:
an input block that generates and transmits various input signals (Shackelford, col 4, lines 3-7 (emphasis added), “In a more specific aspect, the controller operates an electrical device, such as lamp or a motor, contained in one play piece when the player supplies an input in another play piece, such as operating a switch.”);
an output block that displays various output signals (Shackelford, col 4, lines 3-7 (emphasis added), “In a more specific aspect, the controller operates an electrical device, such as lamp or a motor, contained in one play piece when the player supplies an input in another play piece, such as operating a switch.”); and
a logic block that generates and transmits a control signal necessary for various logic operations (Shackelford, Fig 12, Controller 77).
Regarding claim 13, Shackelford discloses:
A smart block control system (Shackelford, col 3, lines 51-53, “…the invention is realized in any standard child's construction set by incorporating therewith … special (“smart”) play pieces.”), comprising:
a smart block configured in a form of a play block implementing various functions by being coupled to each other (Shackelford, col 12, lines 16-22, “Play piece 54 is one of the smart blocks, containing a motor driven propeller and is illustrated to larger scale in FIG. 9 to which reference is made. The base 30 of the figure is square in shape. On the underside, that base includes the coupling grips, not visible, which, engage the 2×2 array of studs when installed on the base (or on another block)…”);
a control block that communicates with the smart block and transmits control information on the smart block (Shackelford, Fig 12, Controller 77); and
a user terminal (Shackelford, col 13, lines 55-56, “Display block. Returning to FIG. 1, display block 53 contains a liquid crystal display (“LCD”).” and Shackelford, Fig 2, personal computer 66) that communicates with the control block and sets and controls various operations of the smart block, wherein the smart block is any one of claims 1 to 12 (Shackelford, col 8, lines 5-7, “The inputs for driving LCD display 53, another smart block, is supplied through a display output of the controller via cable 59.”).
Regarding claim 14, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block control system of claim 13, wherein a function block of the smart block has an identification information, and comprises:
an ID module that transmits the identification information and position information to the control block along with supplying power to the function block (Shackelford, col 20, lines 19-24, “And those connections, whether they are hard wired into something that is the equivalent of the electrical connections in the base in the specific embodiment illustrated or are wireless as we illustrate with IR or RF, enable the controller, the “brain”, to know where each of the play pieces and characters are located within the construction set.”);
a pairing module utilized for pairing and connecting function blocks together (Shackelford, Fig 1, Connectors, C1-C3); and
a function module capable of setting or modifying a specific function (Shackelford, col 15, lines 20-23, “By pressing the switch, the value of resistance inputted to the controller is changed, say, to the operate position, and the controller recognizes that LED lamp 36 of the lamp block is to be illuminated.”).
Regarding claim 15, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block control system of claim 14, wherein the user terminal comprises:
a pairing control module that transmits a control signal related to the pairing module of the function blocks to be paired and connected together (Shackelford, col 17, lines 16-19, “When the vehicle is to be controlled by controller 17 of the construction set, power switch 74, accessible to the player, is operated enabling the receiver and control circuits to receive battery current and power-up.”);
a function control module that sets or modifies a specific function for the function module of a specific function block (Shackelford, col 15, lines 20-23, “By pressing the switch, the value of resistance inputted to the controller is changed, say, to the operate position, and the controller recognizes that LED lamp 36 of the lamp block is to be illuminated.”); and
a sequence control module that sets a sequence related to conditions, operation order, and repetition for operations of function blocks when a plurality of function blocks are operated for learning or playing (Shackelford, Fig 2, Controller 17. This is standard processor operations. See Shackelford’s “sleep mode” as an example.).
Regarding claim 16, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block control system of claim 14, wherein the user terminal further comprises:
an interface unit that provides a work screen for coding a control command for a control target (Shackelford, Fig 2 displays a Personal Computer (66) as directly connected to Shackelford’s disclosure, the standard method for coding.), and
a coding processing unit that compiles a content coded on the work screen of the interface unit and specifies the control target of a compiled control code (Shackelford, col 7, lines 39-45, “Some externally supplied data and program material as may be used by the controller, described later herein, is stored in non-volatile memory, EPROM, that may be “plugged” into the controller or in a Flashcard with data downloaded from a PC or web-site of the Internet. The controller is programmed to perform the various tasks and functions such as further described herein.”).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shackelford and Mimlitch [US20180285084A1].
Regarding claim 17, Shackelford discloses the smart block control system of claim 16, as cited above, but Shackelford does not explicitly disclose the user interface available to the user when programming the disclosed invention.
Mimlitch, however, discloses:
An interface unit (Mimlitch, Fig 1, Block Programming Environment 10) comprises:
a first area for displaying a plurality of command entries selectable on the work screen (Mimlitch, Fig 1, left toolbar 14); and
a second area where an entry selected in the first area (Mimlitch, Fig 1, working area 16) is displayed in a drag and drop manner (Mimlitch, [0195], “Dropping Blocks in a Code Block: FIGS. 15A through 15D, there is illustrated a function provided by an embodiment of the invention that permits the user to drag Graphical Blocks into an existing Code Block and when released/dropped/added in the invention automatically converts the Graphical Block to text and inserts the text in the position that the user desired/cursor position.”), and
the coding processing unit comprises:
a conversion processing module for converting an everyday term into a programming language for compilation when the entry of the first area is displayed in everyday terms (Mimlitch, [0029], “The set of instructions for the peek mode is configured to convert the selected graphical programming block into a standard textual programming language, and display within the graphical coding environment the standard textual programming language in a display window adjacent to the graphical programming block.”);
a compilation processing module for compiling a plurality of entries disposed in the second area according to an arrangement order of a plurality of entries disposed in the second area (Mimlitch, [0100], “The graphical program, e.g., these data structures and/or program instructions, may be compiled or interpreted to produce machine language that accomplishes the desired method or process as shown in the graphical program.”);
an error analysis module for analyzing an error in the control code compiled by the compilation processing module (Mimlitch, [0037], “The set of instructions to identify errors being configured to check an user defined standard textual coding language within the coding programming block to determine if the output program can properly execute to control either the virtual object or a physical object in accordance with the user defined functionality.”);
an error display module for displaying errors on the work screen when an error exists in the control code as a result of the analysis of the error analysis module (Mimlitch, [0037], “In addition, the set of instructions to identify errors automatically change the color of the user defined standard textual coding language when the output program fails to properly execute.”); and
a control code transmission module for transmitting the control code of compiled entries to the control target when no error exists in the control code as a result of the analysis of the error analysis module (Mimlitch, [0122], “…the deployed graphical program may take the form of compiled code generated from either the graphical program or from text code that in turn was generated from the graphical program.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the programmable smart block control system of Shackelford the simplified, drag and drop, programming user interface as taught by Mimlitch since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Furthermore, Shackelford would’ve been motivated to include in the smart block control system the simplified, drag and drop, programming user interface as taught by Mimlitch as Shackelford’s intended audience is children, which customarily do not have advanced computer programming skills. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would’ve recognized the advantages of this system, such as attracting a younger audience desirous of a customizable system. All this would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Shackelford discloses:
The smart block control system of claim 16, wherein the coding processing unit comprises a coding target specifying module that specifies a coding target according to a selection of the identification information transmitted by the ID module (Shackelford, col 20, lines 7-8, “The controller is programmed to perform the various tasks and functions such as further described herein.” and Shackelford, col 20, lines 13-18, “Irrespective of the specific configuration the invention provides a means by which an input and an output can be sent to and from a microprocessor/controller that is part of the construction set or from a PC to which the construction set is cabled or with which it interfaces wirelessly, and from various play pieces and characters in the construction set.”),
wherein the coding target specifying module comprises:
an identification information display module that displays the identification information transmitted by the ID module on the work screen (Shackelford, col 5, lines 64-66, “…identifies and responds to player inputs and reacts to those inputs as may include actuating another of the smart blocks that contains an electrical device…”);
an identification information selection module that allows the identification information displayed by the identification information display module to be selected as an object item of an entry or allows the corresponding identification information to be selected as a target of coding (Shackelford, claim 24, “…each said smart block including a computer readable identification marker identifying the respective block and an electrical coupler to provide computer access to said identification marker by a computer external to said block;”); and
an identification information designation module that designates the selected identification information as the coding target for an entry (Shackelford, claim 24, “…said programmed controller further including a plurality of control outputs coupled to respective ones of said hot spots for applying a control current to a peripheral device block selected by said program…”).
Shackelford displays the smart block control system as cited above, but Shackelford does not explicitly disclose the drag and drop user interface available to the user when programming the disclosed invention.
Mimlitch, however, discloses a drag and drop user interface (see claim 17 for further details).
Please see claim 17 above for rationale on combination of references for obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715