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 with traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 6/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the different species would require different fields of search using different search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/18/26.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-11,13-15 and 18-20 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.
Claims 1 and 18 both disclose that “the pupil area and the iris area have different patterns and colors according to different simulated animals” which is unclearly worded and seems incomplete since it is unknown if the claim is requiring the pupil and iris to be formed using different patterns and colors for simulating a desired animal eye or if the pupil area and iris area are each configured such that patterns and colors displayed by the areas can be varied to simulate the eyes of different animals and as such the scope of the claim is unascertainable. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as each of the pupil area and iris area capable of displaying colors and patterns to simulate a desired animal eye.
Claim 6 discloses that the filling unit comprises “ a second through hole” which is unclear since no other through holes are disclosed making what is actually required by the claim unascertainable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN113478504A) and Schleipman (6391057). Chen discloses a realistic eyeball (122) that can be positioned in a head portion of a robot (Fig. 2), wherein the eyeball includes a first lens unit (1222) with an inner concave surface (Fig. 8), a spherical display unit having a display surface (1223) with a curvature radius that is substantially equal to a curvature radius of the inner concave surface of the lens unit for disposing the display surface on the inner concave surface and a filling unit (1221-3) attached to a back surface (1221-2) opposite the display surface of the spherical display unit (Fig. 8). The spherical display unit is configured such that the display surface defines a pupil area with an iris area surrounding the pupil area and the back surface defines a sclera portion surrounding the iris area for simulating an eye having an effective display area (Figs. 7-8, specific implementation examples paragraph 16). A sensing unit (1224) in the form of a camera is disposed on the spherical unit between the back surface and a through hole of the filling unit such that the sensing unit has a top surface positioned to correspond with a position of a penetration region defined by the pupil area (Fig. 7 & 8). The robot head portion is further configured to include an artificial eyelid (121) configured such that the eyelid covers an edge of the effective display area of the spherical display unit during rotation of the eyeball (Fig. 2). Chen discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the pupil area, iris area and sclera portion having patterns and colors for simulating a desired eye using pixels. Schleipman discloses a simulated eye with a display unit having a display surface that is colored and patterned to define a pupil area, an iris area and a sclera portion (abstract, Figs. 1 & 5). The display surface is formed as a display substrate film (14) having a plurality of pixels (34), wherein the pupil area (36a-d) includes a penetration region formed as a clear or transparent area that includes the plurality of pixels (column 3 lines 10-50). A sensing unit in the form of a visible-light sensor or detector (20) is positioned to correspond with the penetration region such that a control unit (16) electrically connected with the sensing and display units enables light to pass through the penetration region to the light sensor to output a sensing signal that causes a dimension of the pupil and iris areas to change based on the signal (column 4 lines 30-46). Since both Chen and Schleipman disclose simulated eyes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the display surface and sensing unit as taught by Schleipman for the predictable result of configuring the eye to have a more realistic and dynamic appearance that enhances the simulation.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Schleipman as applied for claim 1 above. The references disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the display substrate being stretchable, flexible or bendable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the display substrate film of Chen and Schleipman stretchable, flexible or bendable since using known materials suitable for the intended use has been held to be an obvious modification. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Schleipman as applied for claim 1 above and further in view of Budman (6576013). Chen and Schleipman disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of including a control circuit with a database for storing a plurality of patterns and colors for the pupil and iris area. Budman discloses a simulated eye having a control circuit board (13) electrically connected to a display unit (12) and a sensing unit (14), wherein the control circuit board is configured with a database having a plurality of colors and patterns for simulating an iris and pupil area of an eye on the display unit (column 3 line 60 – column 4 line 28 & column 4 lines 49-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen and Schleipman to include a control circuit board as taught by Budman for the predictable result of providing enhanced functionality and utility by enabling versatility in the features of the depicted eye.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Schleipman as applied for claim 18 above and further in view of Heibron (10360859). Chen and Schleipman disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the display unit controlled to flash or display a code based on a scenario. Heibron discloses a device that includes a simulated eye that can be configured to flash based on a scenario (column 10 lines 11-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen and Schleipman to enable flashing of an eye display unit based on a scenario for the predictable result of enabling more dynamic and interesting expressions to be created.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights