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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims disclose that the distal free ends of the fiber optic rods define spatial positions of image pixels of an original image that are movable to perturbed positions thereby altering positions of the image pixels to modify a geometry of the displayed image but the specification as originally filed fails to disclose these features since no disclosure is provided denoting pixels or geometry of the image or what those features would be considered to encompass to show possession of these features.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chernick (2006/0034096). Chernick discloses an illumination display toy device having a rotatable base (20) secured to a rotating center of a hand-held rotatable fan element with blades (Fig. 4), a motor (16) for spinning the fan element, a controller in the form of a programmable circuit board (38) connected to a power supply (40), a light source in the form of a LED board (30) connected to the circuit board (Fig. 2) and a fiberoptic holder formed by a front surface of the base which includes a plurality of flexible fiber optic rods (26) attached to the holder at a proximal end for optically coupling to the LED board and extending to a distal free end for emitting light, wherein the fiber optic rods define a substantially straight stable initial position (Figs. 1-3). The circuit board includes instructions for illuminating the distal ends of the fiber optic rods when the base is rotated to create an illumination effect structured in the form of a circular image (paragraphs 9-10) created by the spatial positioning of the distal free ends of the fiber optic rods defining image pixels when in the initial stable position (Fig. 3) that floats above the base and the flexibility of the fiber optic rods allows a perturbance such as an external physical force to interfere with the stable positions causing the spatial positions of the image pixels to move to perturbed positions altering a geometry of the displayed image until the perturbance is removed allowing the image to return to an original form (paragraphs 21-22 & 25-26). The flexible fiber optic rods can all have the same height or they can have variable lengths such that some rods are longer than others to create a profile shape that impacts the illumination effect image (paragraphs 20 & 24).
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) 2, 11-14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick as applied above and further in view of Kulis II (2007/0049159). Chernick discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the fiber optic rods further positioned over a fan blade of the fan. Kulis II discloses a rotatable illumination device with blades for creating persistence of vision images, wherein illumination devices (24) are positioned over the blades (Figs. 1-2 & 4A-D, paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Kulis II to further place the fiber optic rods of Chernick on the fan blades, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts which has been held to be obvious unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick as applied for claim 5 above and further in view of Asamizu (CN111724691A). Chernick discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the profile shape being tapered or curved from one end to the other. Asamizu discloses an illuminated display using fiber optic rods that can taper from one end to the other (Fig. 10, page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Asamizu to taper the fiber optic rods of Chernick for the predictable result of enhancing the visual appeal of the device over different viewing angles (page 10). In regard to the profile being curved, the examiner notes that such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the rods and changes in shape have been held to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick as applied for claim 1 above and further in view of Canobbio (2014/0357333). Chernick discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the device including a touch sensor with the circuit board for detecting contact with the rods. Canobbio discloses an illumination toy device with a touch sensor (108) that can detect contact with the device responsive to instructions in a circuit ( paragraphs 27-28, 31-32, 38 & 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Canobbio to modify Chernick with a touch sensor and to configure the circuit board to detect contact with the device using the touch sensor for the predictable result of providing enhanced play value by creating a more interactive toy device that is responsive to contact in a visually interesting manner.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick and Kulis II as applied for claim 14 above and further in view of Asamizu (CN111724691A). Chernick and Kulis II disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the profile shape being tapered or curved from one end to the other. Asamizu discloses an illuminated display using fiber optic rods that can taper from one end to the other (Fig. 10, page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Asamizu to taper the fiber optic rods of Chernick and Kulis II for the predictable result of enhancing the visual appeal of the device over different viewing angles (page 10). In regard to the profile being curved, the examiner notes that such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the rods and changes in shape have been held to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick and Kulis II as applied for claim 11 above and further in view of Canobbio (2014/0357333). Chernick and Kulis II disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the device including a touch sensor with the circuit board for detecting contact with the rods. Canobbio discloses an illumination toy device with a touch sensor (108) that can detect contact with the device responsive to instructions in a circuit ( paragraphs 27-28, 31-32, 38 & 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Canobbio to modify Chernick and Kulis II with a touch sensor and to configure the circuit board to detect contact with the device using the touch sensor for the predictable result of providing enhanced play value by creating a more interactive toy device that is responsive to contact in a visually interesting manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/26 with regard to Chernick have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the Chernick fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (that the ends of the fiber optic rods define pixels that are set at predefined non-movable initial spatial positions to define a structured image with an original geometry that are only movable when a physical perturbance is applied and then return to an original geometry when the perturbance is removed such that the fiber optic rods are not capable of incidental movements), are not disclosed by the claims, since it only broadly requires the ends of the fiber optic rods define image pixel positions that can be moved to perturbed positions in the event of a perturbance and this interpretation is also not described in the specification in a manner to show that this is what is intended by the limitations. Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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