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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to the reply filed on 10/24/2024. The reply cancelled claim 4.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 of this title, 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 1,2,3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0071121 A1, hereinafter D4, in view of CN 107772917, hereinafter D1.
As to claim 1.
D4 discloses an interactive playpen (crib of the present disclosure has numerous benefits over the prior art, wherein one of the benefits is that children placed within the crib may not feel like they are trapped within a cage. In general, the crib disclosed has screens on all four sides of the crib, abstract) comprising:
a support frame comprising a plurality of elongated support elements (fig. 1);
a bottom panel (base 6) and four side panels (side panels as in fig. 1) extending vertically from said bottom panel (base 6) and supported by said support frame (as in fig. 1);
a screen mounted on one of said side panels ([0032] Turning now to FIG. 1 which shows an embodiment of the crib 1, wherein the crib 1 comprises screens 2 on each of the four sides), the screen being one of a plurality of screens ([0032]), each screen being mounted on a corresponding one of said side panels such that said plurality of screens surrounds an interior space defined by said four side panels ([0032] Turning now to FIG. 1 which shows an embodiment of the crib 1, wherein the crib 1 comprises screens 2 on each of the four sides).
and a control assembly comprising a microprocessor (20 in fig. 9) and operatively connected to said screen ([0039]).
D4 does not disclose the screens are a touch screen mounted on one of said side panels and configured to display information and images and permit manual interaction by a child in the interactive playpen, the touch screen being one of a plurality of touch screens, each touch screen being mounted on a corresponding one of said side panels such that said plurality of touch screens surrounds an interior space defined by said four side panels.
D1 discloses an interactive playpen comprising:
a support frame (left end plate 2, right end plate 7 and pair of guard bar 4, translation page 3, fig. 1) comprising a plurality of elongated support elements (6);
a bottom panel (bed body 5, fig. 1) and four side panels (pair of guard bar 4, translation page 3) extending vertically from said bottom panel (bed body 5, fig. 1) and supported by said support frame (figures);
a touch screen (touch screen 9) mounted on one of said side panels (touch screen 9 mounted on left end plate in fig. 2) and configured to display information and images and permit manual interaction by a child in the interactive playpen (note the phrase “configured to” is typically used to connect structure to a function, similar to the word “for.” “Configured to” (for) usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. The claimed function is an inherent characteristic of the prior art touchscreen because a touchscreen enables the user to interact directly with what is displayed).
But it would have been obvious to modify D4 to use interactive screens in view of D1. D1 also teaches a playpen having an interactive screen. See D1 at fig. 2 (touch screen 9 mounted on left end plate in fig. 2).
It is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar device to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) teach a comparable device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C).
In this case, D4 teaches an interactive crib including a screen on each side and a controller connected to each screen. Reference D1 teaches a comparable crib having an interactive screen. It would have been predictable to use the interactive screen of D1 in the interactive crib of D4 because both references deal with cribs having at least one screen. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify D4 to include the interactive screen of D1.
As to claim 2.
D4 as modified teaches the interactive playpen of claim 1 (see explanation for claim 1), and further discloses further comprising an audio unit (speaker 14 in fig. 8; [0038]) mounted on one of said side panels (fig. 8) and operatively connected to said microprocessor for control of said audio unit (fig. 9), wherein said audio unit comprises at least one speaker configured to output audio ([0038]).
As to claim 3.
D4 as modified teaches the interactive playpen of claim 1 (see explanation for claim 1), further comprising a camera mounted on one of said side panels ([0030] , a camera is connected to each front face of the screens)and operatively connected to said microprocessor for control of said camera, wherein said camera is disposed to receive images of an interior of the interactive playpen ([0030]).
As to claim 6.
D4 as modified does not explicitly disclose: wherein said touch screen (touch screen 9) is approximately the same size as its corresponding side panel. However, at the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the touchscreen with the claimed dimensions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a touchscreen having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the touchscreen of D1 to have the claimed dimensions, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
As to claim 7.
D4 as modified teaches the interactive playpen of claim 1 (see explanation for claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose: wherein said microprocessor comprises a memory and an operating program to control the operation of each said touch screen according to at least one of: pre-programmed data and data input by manual interaction by a child in the interactive playpen.
D1 teaches wherein a microprocessor (fig. 4) comprises a memory (storage 420) and an operating program (ROM 430) to control the operation of said touch screen (touch screen 9) according to at least one of: pre-programmed data (stored on ROM) and data input by manual interaction by a child in the interactive playpen.
It is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar device to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) teach a comparable device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C).
In this case, D4 teaches an interactive crib including a screen on each side and a controller connected to each screen. Reference D1 teaches a comparable crib having an interactive screen and a microprocessor (fig. 4) comprises a memory (storage 420) and an operating program (ROM 430) to control the operation of said touch screen (touch screen 9) according to at least one of: pre-programmed data (stored on ROM). It would have been predictable to use the microprocessor controlled interactive screen of D1 in the interactive crib of D4 because both references deal with cribs having at least one screen. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify D4 to include the microprocessor controlled screen of D1.
As to claim 8.
D4 as modified teaches the interactive playpen of claim 1 (see explanation for claim 1), and further discloses wherein said control assembly comprises an input interface (21 in fig. 9) to permit input of information and control commands by a user (operation described at [0039]).
As to claims 9-10.
D4 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 9-10.
It is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar device to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) teach a comparable device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C). In this case, D4 teaches an interactive crib including a screen on each side and a controller connected to each screen.
Reference D1 teaches a comparable crib having an interactive screen with an interface (fig. 4) and teaches [claim 9] said input interface (control box 10) comprises a manual input unit (control box includes button, translation page 3) mounted on one of said side panels (control box is mounted on 2 in fig. 2) and operatively connected to said microprocessor (see explanation for claim 1); and [claim 10] wherein said input interface (fig. 4) comprises an input program (ROM 470; various media per [0101]) storable on an electronic device (client device 402; [0101]) and a transceiver (communication chipset 480) operatively connected (fig. 4 and [0036]) to said microprocessor (processor 450) and configured to receive input of information and control commands from a user wirelessly (as evidenced by arrow between 401 and 402; note the phrase “configured to” is typically used to connect structure to a function, similar to the word “for.” “Configured to” (for) usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. The claimed function is an explicit characteristic of the prior art structure as in fig. 4 which is configured to receive input of information and control commands from a user wirelessly. MPEP 707.07(f) If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
It would have been predictable to use the microprocessor controlled interactive screen of D1 in the interactive crib of D4 because both references deal with cribs having at least one screen. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify D4 to include the microprocessor controlled screen of D1.
Claims 5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0071121 A1, hereinafter D4, in view of CN 107772917, hereinafter D1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 2014/0015760, hereinafter D3.
As to claim 5.
D4 as modified does not explicitly disclose: wherein said touch screen (touch screen 9) comprises a flexible touch screen.
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D3 is in a related field of audiovisual infant stimulation and teaches, fig. 1, a crib including a screen and that the screen is flexible ([0036] and [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 to modify the touchscreen of D1 to include a flexible touch screen, for the purpose of providing a safe screen i.e. one without hard edges. An invention created through combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious.
As to claim 11.
D4 as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein said input interface comprises a USB port to permit wired connection with an electronic device.
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D3 is in a related field of audiovisual infant stimulation and teaches, fig. 1, a crib including a screen and that the screen is flexible ([0036]) and updateable via a USB connection ([0036] The development environment of the invention comprises inter alia a soft, possibly flexible screen such as an OLED screen, in conjunction with an audio system. The device is provided in some embodiments with USB or other connectivity (such as wireless connectivity) for update of content in accordance with the child's development).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 to modify D4 to include a USB interface, for the purpose of providing a means to update screen content in accordance with the child's development. An invention created through combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious.
As to claim 12.
D4 in view of D1 and further in view of D3, as provided above with respect to claims 1,2,3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, provide an interactive playpen comprising:
D4 discloses an interactive playpen (crib of the present disclosure has numerous benefits over the prior art, wherein one of the benefits is that children placed within the crib may not feel like they are trapped within a cage. In general, the crib disclosed has screens on all four sides of the crib, abstract) comprising:
a support frame comprising a plurality of elongated support elements (fig. 1);
a bottom panel (base 6) and four side panels (side panels as in fig. 1) extending vertically from said bottom panel (base 6) and supported by said support frame (as in fig. 1);
a screen mounted on one of said side panels ([0032] Turning now to FIG. 1 which shows an embodiment of the crib 1, wherein the crib 1 comprises screens 2 on each of the four sides), the screen being one of a plurality of screens ([0032]), each screen being mounted on a corresponding one of said side panels such that said plurality of screens surrounds an interior space defined by said four side panels ([0032] Turning now to FIG. 1 which shows an embodiment of the crib 1, wherein the crib 1 comprises screens 2 on each of the four sides).
and a control assembly comprising a microprocessor (20 in fig. 9) and operatively connected to said screen ([0039]).
D4 does not disclose the screens are a touch screen mounted on one of said side panels and configured to display information and images and permit manual interaction by a child in the interactive playpen, the touch screen being one of a plurality of touch screens, each touch screen being mounted on a corresponding one of said side panels such that said plurality of touch screens surrounds an interior space defined by said four side panels.
D1 discloses an interactive playpen comprising:
a support frame (left end plate 2, right end plate 7 and pair of guard bar 4, translation page 3, fig. 1) comprising a plurality of elongated support elements (6);
a bottom panel (bed body 5, fig. 1) and four side panels (pair of guard bar 4, translation page 3) extending vertically from said bottom panel (bed body 5, fig. 1) and supported by said support frame (figures);
a touch screen (touch screen 9) mounted on one of said side panels (touch screen 9 mounted on left end plate in fig. 2) and configured to display information and images and permit manual interaction by a child in the interactive playpen (note the phrase “configured to” is typically used to connect structure to a function, similar to the word “for.” “Configured to” (for) usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. The claimed function is an inherent characteristic of the prior art touchscreen because a touchscreen enables the user to interact directly with what is displayed).
But it would have been obvious to modify D4 to use interactive screens in view of D1. D1 also teaches a playpen having an interactive screen. See D1 at fig. 2 (touch screen 9 mounted on left end plate in fig. 2).
It is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar device to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) teach a comparable device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C).
In this case, D4 teaches an interactive crib including a screen on each side and a controller connected to each screen. Reference D1 teaches a comparable crib having an interactive screen. It would have been predictable to use the interactive screen of D1 in the interactive crib of D4 because both references deal with cribs having at least one screen. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify D4 to include the interactive screen of D1.
said touch screen comprises a flexible touch screen (see explanation for claim 5), said touch screen is approximately the same size as its corresponding side panel (see explanation for claim 6);
and a control assembly comprising a microprocessor (20 in fig. 9) and operatively connected to said screen ([0039]),
wherein: said microprocessor comprises a memory (see explanation for claim 7) and an operating program (see explanation for claim 7) to control the operation of said touch screen (touch screen 9) according to at least one of: pre-programmed data (data stored on ROM) and data input by manual interaction by a child in the interactive playpen, said control assembly (control box 10) comprises an input interface to permit input of information and control commands by a user (i.e. the touchscreen and/or a hidden button and/or a wireless Bluetooth device that connects to a mobile phone),
wherein: said input interface (i.e. the touchscreen and/or a hidden button and/or a wireless Bluetooth device that connects to a mobile phone) comprises a manual input unit (control box includes button, translation page 3) mounted on one of said side panels (control box is mounted on 2 in fig. 2) and operatively connected to said microprocessor (see explanation for claim 1), said input interface (fig. 4) comprises an input program (ROM 470; various media per [0101]) storable on an electronic device (client device 402; [0101]) and a transceiver ((communication chipset 480) operatively connected (fig. 4 and [0036]) to said microprocessor (processor 450) and configured to receive input of information and control commands from a user wirelessly (as evidenced by arrow between 401 and 402; note the phrase “configured to” is typically used to connect structure to a function, similar to the word “for.” “Configured to” (for) usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. The claimed function is an explicit characteristic of the prior art structure as in fig. 4 which is configured to receive input of information and control commands from a user wirelessly. MPEP 707.07(f) If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim), said input interface comprises a USB port to permit wired connection with an electronic device (see explanation for claim 11);
an audio unit mounted on one of said side panels and operatively connected to said microprocessor for control of said audio unit (see explanation for claim 2), wherein said audio unit comprises at least one speaker configured to output audio (see explanation for claim 2);
a camera (see explanation for claim 3) mounted on one of said side panels (fig. 2) and operatively connected to said microprocessor for control of said camera (see explanation for claim 3), wherein said camera is disposed to receive images of an interior of the interactive playpen (see explanation for claim 3); and
said housing (‘box’ of control box 10) is mounted at a top portion of one of said side panels (fig. 2), wherein said housing houses said camera (camera 8, translation page 3), said manual input unit (a hidden button, translation page 3), said transceiver (the surface of the control box (10) is provided with … wireless Bluetooth receiving device is one-to-one wireless connection with external mobile phone client).
D4 does not explicitly disclose: said housing houses said audio unit, said USB port, and a battery to supply power.
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D3 is in a related field of audiovisual infant stimulation and teaches, fig. 1, a crib including a screen and that the screen is flexible ([0036]) and updateable via a USB connection ([0036] The development environment of the invention comprises inter alia a soft, possibly flexible screen such as an OLED screen, in conjunction with an audio system. The device is provided in some embodiments with USB or other connectivity (such as wireless connectivity) for update of content in accordance with the child's development). The invention of D3, 102 in fig. 1, is installed on a crib 101 ([0070] and provides a screen, an audio system, a USB port and a battery ([0036]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 to modify the invention of D4 to provide a screen, an audio system, a USB port and a battery, all in a common housing for the purpose of providing a compact and portable arrangement. An invention created through combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious.
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.
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached on (571) 272-8525. 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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 Thu 29-Jan-26