DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares (US 2018/0197433) in view of Baym et al. (US 2014/0322682).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, and 9, Tavares discloses a learning system comprising removable elements (e.g. braille tiles) with signal transmitters, a housing with a signal receiver for receiving the element, and a speaker for performing tasks, i.e. conveying information audible to a user (e.g. the speaker playing the tiled word, presents requests, etc.). See paragraphs 0045, 0055, and 0057-0058. Tavares discloses an installed electronics unit with a processor for processing tile information and performing actions etc. (pertains also to claim 7). See paragraph 0051.
Tavares does not disclose a user identification device, independent of the main device, which communicates with the main device via transmitters and receivers, and provides information on a learning path of a user including level information, provides a task(s) to the user, and then updates the level information if the user completes a task(s) successfully. However, this concept is established, as is disclosed by the system of Baym in paragraphs 0047, 0057, (the computer controls the user training aspects of the training device, the computing device can be a cellphone, and the training device is controlled based upon use performance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Tavares system, in order to provide various educational scenarios to users.
Regarding claim 4, Tavares discloses various modes (e.g. figs. 3-6, phoneme mode, word/syllable mode, etc.). However, a mode button on the main device is not disclosed. The installed unit is just interpreted as the electronic portions of the housing. Baym discloses a training system comprising mode selection with a button as described in paragraph 0084. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Tavares system, in order to have a convenient control scheme for mode selection.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Tavares discloses an ethernet connection in paragraphs 0058-0059, through which the user may provide updates.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares (US 2018/0197433) in view of Baym et al. (US 2014/0322682) and Hanlon (US 2015/0050630).
Regarding claim 2, Tavares does not disclose NFC technology. However, this use of such for communication is well-established, as is disclosed by the training system of Hanlon in paragraph 0148. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider such with the Tavares system, in order to provide effective communication.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares (US 2018/0197433) in view of Baym et al. (US 2014/0322682) and Hasser et al. (US 5,736,978).
Regarding claims 5-6, Tavares broadly discloses several interface concepts in paragraph 0050, but does not disclose wherein the receiving housing is a rail with a sensor at one end. However, this concept is established, as is discussed with regard to the training system of Hasser in col. 3: 53-62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants filing to consider this with the Tavares system, in order to have effective communication and user interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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 S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715