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, 8-11, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillen (US 6,066,105) in view of Dunn et al. (US 5,755,576) and also Goldfarb et al. (US 3,961,794).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Guillen discloses a board for testing manual dexterity, comprising a front panel with top and side surfaces. See col. 6: 12-17 and figure 2. Guillen discloses a timer used with interactive components to complete a task on the front panel face (with predetermined time intervals as per claim 10). See col. 6: 55-64 and note the electronics, e.g. sensors, LED’s, etc., that are contained within or on the board. Although it seems likely that the device of figure 2 contains a back and bottom surfaces to create an interior space with electronics therein, it is not explicitly clear. However, Dunn discloses a dexterity testing device of such a configuration. See col. 4: 1-5 and also col. 5: 57-60, and note electrical connectors 32 are shown in fig. 1 as connecting to the internal portion box structure 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such a scheme with the Guillen system, in order to provide a convenient and clean interface. Guillen also does not disclose wherein the timer is on top. However, such a configuration is established with regard to testing systems, as is disclosed by the dexterity training system of Goldfarb in col. 3: 8-10 and fig. 1 label 26 (if layed flat as shown in the figure, the timer dial 26 would be on the top surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this configuration with the Guillen system, so as to provide a convenient timing interface. Note the timer is a dial as per claim 9.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Guillen does not disclose self-moving interactive components. However, Dunn discloses hinged doors (claim 11) in col. 4: 8-13. The use of such a component would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider with the Guillen system, in order to provide a variety of user scenarios.
Regarding claim 18, Guillen discloses wherein the system can be sized as needed for particular applications in col. 6: 12-24.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillen (US 6,066,105) in view of Dunn et al. (US 5,755,576) and also Goldfarb et al. (US 3,961,794) and also Anderson et al. (US 2020/0128951).
Regarding claim 2, Guillen discloses wherein the system can be mounted and raised from the floor in col. 6: 17-21. However, there is no teaching of legs mounted to the side panels with feet protruding forward, as well as back with an inward curve. However, this configuration for mounting panels is established, as is disclosed by the dek system of Anderson in fig. 9. Note the various configurations of the feet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this concept with the Guillen system, in order to provide a convenient mounting for the panel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillen (US 6,066,105) in view of Dunn et al. (US 5,755,576) and also Goldfarb et al. (US 3,961,794) and also Beno (US 7,901,213).
Regarding claim 3, Guillen discloses wherein the system can be mounted and raised from the floor in col. 6: 17-21. However, there is no teaching of mounting the panel to a wall with two brackets on the back panel. However, this configuration for mounting panels is established, as is disclosed by the display system of Beno in col. 3: 45-54. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this concept with the Guillen system, in order to provide a convenient mounting for the panel.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillen (US 6,066,105) in view of Dunn et al. (US 5,755,576) and also Goldfarb et al. (US 3,961,794) and also Utter II (US 2014/0127649).
Regarding claims 4-7, Guillen does not disclose a power supply comprising batteries rechargeable by USB to a rear panel of the board. However, this is a common configuration, as is disclosed by the display system of Utter in paragraph 0039. 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 Guillen system so as to maintain effective power for the device.
Claim 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillen (US 6,066,105) in view of Dunn et al. (US 5,755,576) and also Goldfarb et al. (US 3,961,794) and also Bandar (US 4,342,557).
Regarding claims 12-13, Guillen does not disclose a task comprising shoelaces which are not attached to an electronic assembly. However, this dexterity task is established, as is disclosed by the training system of Bandar in col. 4: 1-10. 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 Guillen system, so as to provide a variety of task scenarios.
Regarding claims 14-15, Guillen discloses wherein the timer can be set as desired for each task. See col. 6: 55-64.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter including the various claimed interactive components.
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