DETAILED ACTION
America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 USC §119(a)-(d) and 35 USC §371, which papers have been placed of record in the file:
This application, filed on 10-April 2024, is a national stage entry of WIPO/PCT application PCT/JP2022/029993, filed 4-August-2022.
This application also claims priority from Japanese application JP2021-168234, filed 13-October-2021
This application, therefore, will be accorded a prima facie effective filing date of 13-October-2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement IDS#1, submitted on 24-April-2024 (9 references) has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 USC §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because:
Consider claim 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, and in particular a mental process without significantly more.
The claim, broadly interpreted recites communication between first and second parties, and remembering whether communication did not occur, occurred by only the first party, occurred by only the second party, and occurred by both parties, and that the remembering was forgotten after a period of time.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to recite a particular application, use or improvement based on the idea, and fails to recite additional elements, beyond the most generic (communication device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A broad interpretation of the claim for example, would include two persons who greeted one another, or waved at one another, on a morning walk, and remember each day whether the other party was present, and responded.
Consider claims 2-4: These claims, depending from claim 1, fail to add any elements that would amount to more than an abstract idea or mental process, and further fail to indicate a particular use or improved function of the recited invention
Consider claims 5 and 6: These claims incorporate the use, position and/or general shape of arms to the recited invention, but these are generic, and would include, for example, the person’s arms in the performance of a greeting, and as such do not amount to significantly more. These claims also fail to provide any particular function, purpose or improvement.
Claim Objections
Objection is made to claim 1 to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part, “…. for the first time,” [line 9, 14] with respect to performance of an operator operation, and receipt of an input signal, where these are more correctly “for a first time” to clarify antecedent basis and distinguish the different times.
Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC §102 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 USC §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Mori et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP 2004/080653 A), hereinafter Mori, in view of Pai et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0104402 A1), hereinafter Pai.
Consider claim 1: A two-way communication device system, Mori discloses a communication system for performing communication between users [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0001, 0004-0008, 0010]; comprising:
a first two-way communication device; an embodiment comprising a first terminal device (E14) (first two-way communication device) comprising a terminal (400) connected to a mobile telephone (300) [Fig. 22; Para. 0099]; and
a second two-way communication device installed at a different location from a location of the first two-way communication device and configured to communicate with the first two-way communication device, a second terminal device (F15) (second two-way communication device) comprising a terminal and mobile telephone, and which communicates with the first device via the internet (500) [Fig. 22; Para. 0099-0100];
wherein the two-way communication device system
creates an operator input operation history when the two-way communication device system receives an input operation from an operator operating the first two-way communication device for the first time, when an operator squeezes the first terminal unit (operator input) and the unit monitors temperature increase (step 260), and when the temperature is determined to exceed a threshold (step 262) a timer is started and the (red) LED indicator is illuminated (broadly historical elements), notification data is transmitted from the terminal to the connected mobile telephone [Fig. 22-24; Para. 0102-0105];
transmits an input signal to the second two-way communication device when the two-way communication device system creates the operator input operation history, whereupon the mobile telephone communicates the data, which is received by the second mobile phone and terminal (step 290) which causes a timer to begin in the second unit and causes the (red) indicator to illuminate (second unit historical elements) when the second station operator [Fig. 24-25; Para. 0106, 0108];
creates an other-device input operation history when the two-way communication device system receives an input signal from the second two-way communication device for the first time, the second unit, transmits a response, and if received by the first unit, within a first time, the terminal turns off the red LED and illuminates the blue (B64) LED [Fig. 22, 24-25; Para. 0107];
maintains a first state when both the operator input operation history and the other-device input operation history do not exist, in summary, no indicators are illuminated prior to any operator squeezing his terminal unit long enough for temperature to rise above a threshold level (a first state, before communication) [Fig. 22-26, Para. 0109-0117];
maintains a second state when only one of the operator input operation history and the other-device input operation history exists, wherein after the first terminal transmits a message it’s red indicator illuminates, and when the second terminal receives the message, it’s red indicator illuminates (a second state, in which only one terminal has communicated) [Fig. 22-26, Para. 0109-0117];
maintains a third state when both the operator input operation history and the other-device input operation history exist, wherein, if the second operator squeezes the second terminal such that the temperature exceeds the threshold within a predetermined time after the first communication is received from the first terminal, the red indicator is turned off, and the blue indicator is turned on, and a communication is made to the first terminal. When the first terminal receives this message within the allotted time, it also turns off its red indicator and turns on the blue indicator (a third state with blue indicators at both terminals [Fig. 22-26, Para. 0109-0117]; and
deletes both the operator input operation history and the other-device input operation history at a specific cycle date and time; wherein, if a first message is sent (second state) and a reply is not received by a timer expiration, the red indicators are turned off, and the system returns to the first state, and wherein turning off an indicator is equivalent to deleting an operation history [Para. 0107].
Mori does not specifically disclose a timer or time period for resetting from a second state (bi-directional communication completed) to the first state, or reset based on a particular time or date. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, however, and for example:
Pai discloses systems and methods for managing access to group communication history [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0001-0002; Claim 1], and in which communication history between two or more participants is collected and stored, and wherein the history is deleted after a predetermined time period, or at a predetermined time [Claim 12-14].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to delete (reset) a communication history at particular times, and/or after a particular period of time, as taught by Pai, applied to a communication system for performing communication between users as taught by Mori, in order to free storage space for new communication data, and/or to preserve operator privacy.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The two-way communication device system according to Claim 1, wherein each of the first and second two-way communication devices is configured to receive a single action performed by the operator as the input operation. Mori discloses an operator action as a single squeeze to initiate a communication [Fig. 22-24; Para. 0102-0105].
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1: The two-way communication device system according to Claim 1, wherein each of the first and second two-way communication devices includes an operator input operation specification unit whose state changes between when the operator input operation history exists and when the operator input operation history does not exist. Mori discloses red and blue indicators which act which illuminate based on particular operator input actions, as such, they broadly represent both a history (indicating whether or not an input has occurred) and a specification unit (indicating a current state based on operation history) and an indication of state change, when the indicators are activated or deactivated [Fig. 22-24; Para. 0102-0105].
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1: The two-way communication device system according to Claim 1, wherein each of the first and second two-way communication devices is configured to maintain an action that specifies that the first and second two-way communication devices are in a same state as each other in any of the first state, the second state, and the third state. Mori discloses that indicators for both communication devices are off if on communication is made (first state), that a red indicator is illuminated for both the originating and receiving communication devices when on initial communication is made (second state), and that blue indicators are illuminated at both communication devices when a response message is transmitted and received [Fig. 22-25; Para. 0102-0117].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Mori et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP 2004/080653 A), hereinafter Mori, and Pai et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0104402 A1), hereinafter Pai, further in view of Leung (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2008/0162648 A1).
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 4: The two-way communication device system according to Claim 4, wherein each of the first and second two-way communication devices includes two arms including a first arm and a second arm, and is configured such that
in the first state, the two arms are lowered,
in the second state, the first arm is raised and the second arm is lowered, and
in the third state, the two arms are raised.
Mori discloses the use of red and blue LEDs to indicate communication history and state, and does not disclose the use of arms or mechanical indications. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Leung discloses a device and method of expressing information contained in a communication message sent through a network [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 3, 4; Para. 0001, 0004, 0010-0011, 0027] and particularly that a toy figure with moveable arms and legs may be used to indicate a particular status or state, such as by raising an arm of the toy [Fig. 1, 3, 4a-c; Para. 0031, 0038, 0039, 0045-0050].
Leung discloses that an arm movement may be associated with a received message (first state) but does not specifically disclose specific movements of the first and second arms associated with the claimed states. These are simple variations in operation of a limited number of combinations of such movements, and which may be programmed by a user [Para. 0046] and as such, would have been obvious to an artisan.
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to use mechanical arm movements of a toy to indicate message status as taught by Leung and applied to a communication system for performing communication between users as taught by Mori, and modified by Pai, where the particular combination of arm positions may be assigned to indicated particular message states, such as those claimed, by the user.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 5: The two-way communication device system according to Claim 5, wherein each of the first and second arms has a shape drawing an arc.
Leung discloses the use of a toy comprising two arms to indicate a communication status, and wherein the arms (530) are mechanically driven to rotate such the end (hand portion) is raised or lowered. Such rotation causes the end to move in a circular arc motion [Fig. 1; Para. 0031-0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
538
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Scafaldi et al. (U.S. Patent # US 7,195,490 B1) disclosing a behavior modification system.
Morriss et al. (U.S. Patent # US 5,694,555 A) disclosing a method and apparatus for exchanging data, status, and commands over a hierarchical serial bus assembly using communication packets.
Barton et al. (U.S. Patent # US 5,343,461 A) disclosing a full duplex digital transmission facility loop-back test, diagnostics and maintenance system.
Halbur et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2008/0290177 A1) disclosing a mechanically convertible transaction product.
Vacquie (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2003/0071847 A1) disclosing notification of messages to a terminal by means of vector image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685