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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 15, “user’s…” should be “a user’s…”. Also, in claim 2, it appears that “tactical” should be “tactile”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
The claims contain several instances of indefinite language, including the following:
In claim 1, “buttons/knobs” is indefinite because it is not clear whether these elements are intended to be operable as buttons and knobs, or whether it is intended to recite elements which are buttons or knobs.
In claim 1, “the fidget” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 1, “those two buttons” lacks proper antecedent basis, because the claim previously recites “buttons/knobs”.
In claim 3, it is not clear whether “buttons” is a new limitation, or if it is intended to refer to the previously recited “buttons/knobs” (in which case it lacks proper antecedent basis).
In claim 4, it is not clear whether “button action” is a new structural limitation, or if it is intended to refer to the previously recited “buttons/knobs” (in which case it lacks proper antecedent basis).
In claim 5, the phrases “may be”, “any other”, “may have” and “other elements” are all indefinite.
In claim 6, the phrases “may be”, “any other”, “may have” and “other elements” are all indefinite.
In claim 7, “the shaft” lacks proper antecedent basis, because claim 1 recites “a shaft or a mechanism”.
In claim 7, the phrase “may or may not have” is indefinite.
In claim 8, “the buttons” and “the shaft” lack proper antecedent basis because claim 1 recites “buttons/knobs” and “a shaft or a mechanism”.
In claim 8, the phrase “any other elements” is indefinite.
In claim 9, “the shaft” lacks proper antecedent basis, because claim 1 recites “a shaft or a mechanism”.
In claim 9, the phrase “can be” is indefinite.
In claim 10, “one button” and “the shaft lacks proper antecedent basis, because claim 1 recites “buttons/knobs” and “a shaft or a mechanism”.
In claim 11, the phrases “any electronics” and “for any other purpose” are indefinite.
In claim 12, the phrase “any electronics” is indefinite.
In claim 13, the phrases “any electronics”. “any other device” and “such as” are indefinite.
In claim 14, the phrase “any batteries” is indefinite.
In claim 15, the phrase “any gears” is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeStefano. As best shown in Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs [0037-40], DeStefano discloses a fidget device comprising two button/knob elements 10 and 20 attached to each other via a shaft element 70, such that elements 10 and 20 are rotatable.
With respect to claim 2, rotation of the elements inherently provides sensory/tactile feedback to the user’s fingers. With respect to claim 3, the button/knob elements of DeStefano are capable of being pressed or pushed. With respect to claim 4, actions taken with the button/knob elements of DeStefano inherently provide sensory/tactile feedback to the user’s fingers. With respect to claim 6, button/knob elements of DeStefano are shown in Figs. 1-3 as having different shapes. DeStefano also shows that various shapes can be provided (see Figs. 25-27), where various grooves, patterns or other elements may be provided. With respect to claim 9, the shaft of DeStefano is shown in the Figures as being smaller than the button/knob elements.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeStefano. The provision of button/knob elements having the same shape is considered to be an obvious change in shape having no new or unexpected results under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 7, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeStefano in view of Baumann. DeStefano discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the variable resistor or tension element as recited in the claims. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Baumann at Figs. 7-8 (see elastic band 150), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing some resistance to rotation of the button/knob elements. With respect to claim 15, the elastic band of Baumann is a weight that accumulates energy during rotation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeStefano in view of Madl. DeStefano discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the buttons overlapping each other as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Madl at Fig. 2, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing a desired appearance to the device.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeStefano in view of Brous. DeStefano discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of electronic elements to count a device performance. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Brous at Fig. 25 and paragraph [0050], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing an indication to the user relating to a motion of the device during use.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeStefano in view of Schiraga. DeStefano discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of electronic elements to wirelessly connect to another device. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Schiraga at paragraph [0063], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing a communication element to the device for tracking and displaying information related to use of the device. With respect to claim 14, Schiraga also discloses a battery at paragraph [0063]. With respect to claim 16, the device of Schiraga is configured to wirelessly connect to a mobile device or computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
January 21, 2026