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 .
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.
Specification
The use of the terms “Wrebbit”, “PUZZ-3D”, “Hasbro”, “Wrebbit3D”, “MoCA” each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 ends with a comma instead of a period.
Claim 21 misspells “Parkinson’s disease”.
Dependent claims 11-21 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-35 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the limitation “or a dedicated touchscreen processing unit in signal communication with the processing unit” recited in lines 18-19 of the page 35 further limits the claim. In particular, this limitation is isolated from the rest of the limitation recited in lines 16-18 by the comma that precedes it causing it to be unclear what this limitation is an alternative to. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is construed without the comma preceding it such that it is clear that it is an alternative to “the touchscreen is in signal communication ·with the processing unit”. Dependent claims 2-5 and 28-35 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-35 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a means to store energy in each electronic device, such as a battery or supercapacitor” in each of claims 1 and 6 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while the “such as” limitation recites sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase “such as” are part of the claimed invention as identified in the rejection above. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-35 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the connected electronic devices" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one electronic device" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other electronic device" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 25 contains the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth” and the misspelled trademark/trade name “Wi-Fi”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless communication and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Dependent claims 26 and 27 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites “wherein the external device is operated by a medical professional, therapist, or educators to configure the puzzle in a way that serves a medical, therapy, or educational goal.” This amounts to claiming an apparatus and the method step of using the apparatus which is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) because it is creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) – Product and Process in the Same Claim. Dependent claim 27 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 5, 17-21, 26, 27, and 33 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.
Regarding claims 5, 17-21, 26, 27, 33, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the external device is operated by a medical professional, therapist, or educators to configure the puzzle in a way that serves a medical, therapy, or educational goal” in claims 5 and 26, “wherein the assembly record is analyzed and compared with a metric of cognitive functioning acquired using at least one independent cognitive test” in claim 17, “wherein the comparison of the assembly metric with cognitive tests is repeated with a number of persons exhibiting a range of cognitive test scores according to at least one independent cognitive test, resulting in a correlation of the assembly metric with the cognitive functioning of a person assembling the puzzle” in claim 18, “wherein a person with unknown cognitive abilities assembles the puzzle, and a puzzle-derived metric of cognitive functioning is derived from the puzzle assembly alone” in claim 19, “wherein various follow-up treatment options including but not limited to, cognitive therapy, medication, exercise, or dietary changes are recommended based on the puzzle-derived metric” in claim 20, “wherein the at least one cognitive test the assembly record is compared is known, within clinical practice, to represent an indication of at least one neurodegenerative disease or neurological disorder including but not limited to Alzheimer's, other dementias, Parkinsons's disease, or any other disorder” in claim 21, “wherein the puzzle is configured by therapists or special education professionals to engage with specific interests of individuals with autism spectrum disorder” in claim 27, and “wherein the interaction record is analyzed for purposes of cognitive testing, other therapy or clinical applications, educational testing” in claim 33 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. For instance, regarding dementia and autism spectrum disorder, para. 129 only recites “the reconfigurable puzzle 100 is used for users with cognitive challenges, from ageing community (those at risk of dementia) to the very young (e.g., pediatric autism).” Para. 132 of the specification recites that Fig. 22-25 illustrate various cognitive testing including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. But, these figures do not illustrate such testing. For instance, Fig. 22 illustrates puzzle pieces that when put together illustrate the perimeter of an analog clock (without the hands). However, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment includes a clock drawing task which is distinctly different as it is necessary for the subject to physically draw the clock and the drawing itself is assessed. The disclosure is silent regarding correlating such a clock puzzle to the clock drawing task in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. This is exemplary of the disclosure as a whole as it silent regarding any meaningful description of analyzing puzzle assembly to produce some cognitive testing result. Similarly, the only mention of therapy is in para. 6 that “puzzles are also proven and recognized to play a role in therapies stimulating cognitive functions in individuals developing brain disorders such as dementia or Alzheimer. Similarly, puzzles are also used in many therapeutical settings for certain populations with special needs or learning disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder and other disorders, as well as other medical conditions.” In short, the disclosure merely recites intended uses but does not describe how the claimed invention performs such functions or configured to be used for those intentions. Dependent claims 18-21 and 27 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 22, 23, 25, and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Assa (US 2013/0244784).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Assa teaches a reconfigurable puzzle for providing education, therapy, cognitive diagnostics, or entertainment, the puzzle comprising:
a plurality of electronic devices each operating as individual puzzle pieces (Assa, Fig. 1A, terminals 104a-104d acting as a player's personal playing zone with playing pieces spanning the terminals 104 and game board 102; para. 78, Each of the main board 102 and terminals 104a-104d runs a piece of software, indicated as QS, that enables execution and orchestration of various games, as selected by the users”; para. 143 describes a terminal 104; at least para. 232 discloses using these elements are part of a jigsaw puzzle game.), each of the plurality of electronic devices comprising:
a processing unit having at least one wired interface including at least two wires, the processing unit configured to transmit and receive data via the at least one wired interface (Assa, Fig. 3, CPU and GPU 314, Serial Communication Unit 330; Fig. 8, CPU and GPU 814, Wired Communication Unit 830);
a means to store energy in each electronic device, such as a battery or supercapacitor (Assa, Fig. 3, Batter 322; Fig. 8, Battery 822);
at least one electronic display screen on one side of the electronic device and in signal communication with the processing unit, the first display screen being reconfigurable to display various parts of a composite image (Assa, Fig. 3, LCD Panel 302; Fig. 8, Display Screen 802);
(claim 1 only) a touchscreen overlaid, or integrated with, at least one of said electronic display screens in at least one electronic device from among the puzzle, wherein the touchscreen is in signal communication with the processing unit, or a dedicated touchscreen processing unit in signal communication with the processing unit (Assa, Fig. 3, Touch Panel 304, Touch Panel Controller 310; Fig. 8, Touch Panel 804, Touch Panel Controller 810); and
at least one mechanical connector disposed on at least one of a plurality of sides of the electronic device (Assa, Fig. 3, Connector/Socket 328; Fig. 8, Connector 828), the at least one mechanical connector configured to connect to a corresponding mechanical connector of another of the plurality of electronic devices (Assa, at least Fig. 4-7C illustrate this);
the plurality of electronic devices interconnecting to align the corresponding first display screens in a plurality of patterns including a correct pattern in which the various parts of the composite image are arranged to display the composite image (Assa, at least Fig. 7B illustrates this).
Regarding claim 2, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 1, further comprising a haptics unit in signal communication with the processing unit corresponding to at least one of the plurality of electronic devices, the haptics unit comprising at least one actuator integrated with a surface of at least one electronic device from among the puzzle, wherein said haptics unit can generate at least one different touch sensation in a human extremity that is touching said surface, the haptics unit being in signal communication with the display screen and configured to generate a touch sensation corresponding to the part of the composite image displayed on the display screen (Assa, para. 133, “a vibrator for associating haptic feedback with the touch panel 304, etc.”; para. 143, “a vibrator for associating haptic feedback with the touch panel 804”).
Regarding claim 3, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 1, wherein:
at least one connector disposed on at least one electronic device connecting to a corresponding another connector of another electronic device includes at least two conductors configured to form at least two electrical connections between the corresponding electronic device and another electronic device when the connector and the another connector connect (Assa, Fig. 5, sockets 430, magnetic connectors 528a-b, pin arrays 530. The pin arrays are illustrated to include at least two conductors. Para. 136, “one or more sockets 430 located on the side(s) of the rectangular housing are used to connect the game board 102 to corresponding game terminals 104 (not shown) using specific cables.”);
the at least two wires in the wired data interface in each of the plurality of electronic devices are connected to the at least two conductors, such that the conductors in the connectors form a wired data connection that facilitates the exchange of digitally encoded information between the processing units of any connected electronic devices (Assa, para. 136, “The connecting cables may also serve as communication link for transferring game-related information between the game board 102 and the terminals 104.”);
any subset of the electronic devices of the puzzle can be connected together facilitated by more than one connector disposed on the electronic device (Assa, para. 85-88 describe this. For example, in para. 85, “Each one of the game modules, i.e., main board 102 and personal terminals 104, communicates with the other modules using either wireless or wired communication or shared memory interface to exchange game related information, timing information, and control information.”); and
the subset forms a wired peer data network facilitating the exchange of data among connected electronic devices (Assa, para. 85-88 describe this. For example, in para. 85, “Each one of the game modules, i.e., main board 102 and personal terminals 104, communicates with the other modules using either wireless or wired communication or shared memory interface to exchange game related information, timing information, and control information.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 25, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 3 and the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6, wherein at least one of the plurality of electronic devices is connected to at least one external device through a wireless communication network including but not limited to, Bluetooth Low Energy, WiFi, or any other wireless network based on electromagnetic waves, wherein the external device is used to configure each of the at least one display screens of each individual puzzle piece to display parts of a composite image (Assa, Fig. 1A, external work station 106; para. 85, “Each one of the game modules, i.e., main board 102 and personal terminals 104, communicates with the other modules using either wireless or wired communication or shared memory interface to exchange game related information, timing information, and control information.” Para. 207, “wireless personal area network (WPAN) is a PAN carried over wireless network technologies such as IrDA, Wireless USB, Bluetooth, Z-Wave, ZigBee, or Body Area Network. The reach of a WPAN varies from a few centimeters to a few meters. A PAN may also be carried over wired computer buses such as USB and Fire Wire. In the example of a Bluetooth, a Service discovery protocol (SDP) is used to allow devices to discover what services each other support, and what parameters to use to connect to them. For example, when connecting a mobile phone to a Social Game Hotspot, SDP will be used to determine which Bluetooth profiles are supported by the Social Game Hotspot and the protocol multiplexer settings needed to connect to each of them. Each service is identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID).”).
Regarding claim 7, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6, wherein two connectors on different electronic devices are configured to form an attachment that exerts an attractive force such as friction or magnetism once the corresponding connectors are mated and an attempt is made to pull them apart with a force below a separation threshold (Assa, para. 133, “one or more magnetic and/or mechanical connectors/sockets 328 (to couple one board unit with other similar units, and to connect game terminals 104)”; para. 137, “Magnetic connectors 428a-b are designed for firm attachment with another similar unit 402.” Para. 139, “The magnetic connectors 528a-b facilitate in establishing reliable contact between pin arrays 530 of two game board display units by securing proper alignment and firm attachment.”).
Regarding claim 8, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6, wherein the connected electronic devices are configured to transfer stored electric energy from the one electronic device to the other electronic device (Assa, para. 88, “Two personal units are used in this example, unit 104a being a dedicated hardware-here attached to the main board 102a so as to receive power for charging its batteries”).
Regarding claim 9, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6, wherein at least one connector disposed on at least one electronic device connecting to a corresponding another connector of another electronic device includes at least two conductors configured to form two electrical connections between the corresponding electronic device and another electronic device when the connector and the another connector connect (Assa, Fig. 5, sockets 430, magnetic connectors 528a-b, pin arrays 530. The pin arrays are illustrated to include at least two conductors. Para. 136, “one or more sockets 430 located on the side(s) of the rectangular housing are used to connect the game board 102 to corresponding game terminals 104 (not shown) using specific cables.”).
Regarding claim 10, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 9, wherein the at least two wires in the wired data interface in a each of the plurality of electronic devices are connected to the at least two conductors in the connector disposed on each of the corresponding electronic device, wherein the conductors in the connectors are configured to form a wired data connection that facilitates the exchange of digitally encoded information between the processing units of a pair of connected electronic devices (Assa, para. 136, “The connecting cables may also serve as communication link for transferring game-related information between the game board 102 and the terminals 104.”).
Regarding claim 11, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 10, wherein each of the electronic devices from among a selected subset of the plurality of electronic devices is assigned a unique identifier within the reconfigurable puzzle, wherein the unique identifiers of two connected electronic devices are exchanged through the wired data connection (Assa, para. 85-88 describe this. For example, in para. 85, “Each one of the game modules, i.e., main board 102 and personal terminals 104, communicates with the other modules using either wireless or wired communication or shared memory interface to exchange game related information, timing information, and control information.”).
Regarding claim 12, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 11, wherein data are exchanged through wired data connections among a grouping among the subset of the plurality of electronic devices, wherein the electronic devices within said grouping are all connected together to form a wired peer network, allowing for data to be exchanged directly between two electronic devices connected directly through a wired data connection, or indirectly, relayed through any number of other electronic devices (Assa, para. 85-88 describe this. For example, in para. 85, “Each one of the game modules, i.e., main board 102 and personal terminals 104, communicates with the other modules using either wireless or wired communication or shared memory interface to exchange game related information, timing information, and control information.”).
Regarding claim 13, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 12, wherein data exchanged among the grouping forming a wired peer network may be accompanied by a source address that may correspond to the unique identifier corresponding to the electronic device associated with one of: origination of the data; and a destination address corresponding to another unique identifier corresponding to the electronic device indicating the final destination of the data (Assa, para. 85, “Each one of the game modules, i.e., main board 102 and personal terminals 104, communicates with the other modules using either wireless or wired communication or shared memory interface to exchange game related information, timing information, and control information.” Para. 129, “A portion of the distributed software engine, called a terminal server 244, resides on each terminal 104, and helps associate individual players to corresponding terminals 104.” Thus, Assa teaches both unique identifiers corresponding to origination of the data and final destination of the data.).
Regarding claim 14, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 13, wherein the exchanged data include visual data for output on an electronic display screen of a specific electronic device, data processed or generated within a specific electronic device, or any other data (Assa, para. 232-244 teach this.).
Regarding claim 15, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 11, wherein a person attempts to assemble the puzzle by connecting electronic devices, wherein connections between any two electronic devices are analyzed, using their unique identifiers, whether they comprise part of a correct pattern (Assa, as seen in Fig. 15, the player terminals 104 are connected to main game board 102 and the jig saw puzzle is attempted by placing the various pieces in an arrangement to attempt to complete the visual picture puzzle wherein the virtual puzzle pieces are a part of a resulting composite image when assembled together in a correct order. See also para. 232-244 which discuss a multi-player jigsaw puzzle game.).
Regarding claim 16, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 15, wherein the assembly timing is tracked, wherein the time stamps of correct connections and of incorrect connections are tracked and recorded as an assembly record in a storage unit in signal communication with one or more of the plurality of electronic devices (Assa, para. 233, “as shown in FIG. 16, when the game is played using timing, a clock can be displayed to indicate time left for next move.” Para. 234, “The user's mobile device may also display a clock and a scoring status.” Para. 252, “Speed games require real time recognition of the first player that complete a game action like pattern recognition while preserving the players social responses to the action.”).
Regarding claim 22, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6, wherein at least one among the electronic display screens is configured to display a series of images in rapid succession, such as a movie (Assa, para. 98, “playing a video clip”).
Regarding claim 23, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6, wherein more than one pattern in which the various parts of the composite images are aligned represents a correct pattern (Assa, para. 232-244 discuss a jigsaw puzzle game. Para. 233, “In one section, indicated as 1605, all the available and unused puzzle pieces are displayed. In another section, indicated as 1610, the currently constructed puzzle picture is displayed. In another section, indicated as 1615, the current scoring is displayed.” Para. 239, “The goal of a jigsaw puzzle is to assemble the picture 1900 from many pieces 1901.”).
Regarding claim 28, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor disposed on at least one of the plurality of electronic devices, wherein the at least one sensor is connected to the processing unit or another processing unit specialized on analyzing sensor data, within the corresponding electronic device (Assa, para. 81-83 discuss touch and motion detection and analysis. Also, para. 143, “an accelerometer to enable player input by movement detection”).
Regarding claim 29, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 28, wherein the at least one sensor is actuated to result in the generation of instructions to display a modified image segment on any one electronic display screen of the same electronic device the sensor is integrated in or display another modified image segment on any one electronic display screen of at least one among any other electronic device from among the puzzle (Assa, para. 112, “In Master-Dumb mode, both the master and dumb touch panels or key pads (or alternative tracking mechanisms) are connected to the main board CPU which identifies the input source and translates its position in reference with the entire displayed area.” Para. 133, “A touch panel 304 may cover all or most of the display screen 302's surface, providing input means to the players.” Para. 143, “A touch panel 804 may cover all or most of the display screen 802's surface, providing input means to the players.” para. 165, “Physical buttons or keypads, mouse, virtual keyboards, joysticks, trackballs, touch pads, etc. may be used instead of a touch screen to interact with graphical objects on a display screen.”).
Regarding claim 30, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 28, wherein the at least one sensor is one or more audio sensors connected to the processing unit or another processing unit configured to encode audio signals (Assa, para. 133, “Other optional/additional components not specifically shown in Fig. 3 may include a microphone (for voice recognition interface)”; para. 143, “Other optional/additional components not specifically shown in Fig. 8 may include a microphone (for voice recognition interface)”).
Regarding claim 31, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 28, wherein the at least one sensor is at least one touchscreen integrated with, or laid over, at least one electronic display screen corresponding to the at least one electronic device, wherein the at least one touchscreen is connected to the processing unit or at least one touchscreen processing unit configured to encode tactile sensor signals (Assa, para. 133, “A touch panel 304 may cover all or most of the display screen 302's surface, providing input means to the players.” Para. 143, “A touch panel 804 may cover all or most of the display screen 802's surface, providing input means to the players.”).
Regarding claim 32, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 31, wherein interactions of a person with the puzzle, including connection events between any electronic devices, and interactions with any touchscreen on any electronic devices, are detected by the at least one sensor and tracked and recorded as an interaction record in a storage unit connected to all electronic devices (Assa, para. 27, “The simulated moves can be saved in the memory, e.g., RAM”; para. 118, “saving game status for restoring session in future,” para. 133, “A touch panel 304 may cover all or most of the display screen 302's surface, providing input means to the players.” Para. 143, “A touch panel 804 may cover all or most of the display screen 802's surface, providing input means to the players.”).
Regarding claim 33, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 32, wherein the interaction record is analyzed for purposes of cognitive testing, other therapy or clinical applications, educational testing, or competition in a game (Assa, para. 233, “In another section, indicated as 1615, the current scoring is displayed.” Para. 235, “two or more players can compete to see who can connect more puzzle pieces”).
Regarding claim 34, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6, wherein at least one of the plurality of electronic device further comprises a haptics unit in signal communication with the processing unit, the haptics unit comprising at least one actuator integrated into each display screen that can generate at least one different touch sensation in a human extremity that is touching the display screen (Assa, para. 110-112 discuss interacting with system including touchscreen use involving haptic feedback. para. 133, “a vibrator for associating haptic feedback with the touch panel 304”; para. 143, “a vibrator for associating haptic feedback with the touch panel 804”).
Regarding claim 35, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 34, wherein the haptics unit is configured for assembly of a composite puzzle by persons with visual impairment (Assa, para. 133, “a vibrator for associating haptic feedback with the touch panel 304”; para. 143, “a vibrator for associating haptic feedback with the touch panel 804”; para. 157-165 disclose multiple physical touch interactions that incorporate haptic feedback which one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand to be used by persons with visual impairment.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 17-19, 21, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assa as applied to claims 4, 6, 16, and 25 above, in view of Lee (US 2012/0285436).
Regarding claims 5, 26, and 27, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 4 and the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 25.
Assa does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one external device is operated by a medical professional, therapist, or educators to configure the puzzle in a way that serves a medical, therapy, or educational goal in claims 5 and 26; and
wherein the puzzle is configured by therapists or special education professionals to engage with specific interests of individuals with autism spectrum disorder in claim 27.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches wherein the at least one external device is operated by a medical professional, therapist, or educators to configure the puzzle in a way that serves a medical, therapy, or educational goal (Lee, para. 82, “SIG-Blocks can function as a technology platform that can be used for a wide range of games for entertainment and educational purposes.” Para. 83, “SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games are useful in multidisciplinary research activities related to early childhood education, child development, special education, rehabilitation for the elderly and people with disabilities, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education for young children, etc. SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games may also be used for game playing, including online, multi-player online, massively online, and other gaming.” Para. 169, “SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games can be configured for use in screening, diagnosis, and treatment. In particular, SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games can provide reprogrammable augmented sensory feedback that enhances visual and auditory feedback to a user during play that allows observation of the individual and collective effect of augmented sensory feedback in behavior and performance.”.
wherein the puzzle is configured by therapists or special education professionals to engage with specific interests of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (Lee, para. 169, “SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games may be configured to perform fully automated play assessment of behavior and performance with augmented sensory feedback to effectively distinguish children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) from non-ASD children.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of the system in Assa by medical professionals, therapists, or educators to configure the puzzle in a way that serves a medical, therapy, or educational goal as taught by Lee because the “blocks can provide useful performance data and advanced instrumentation for researchers and educators in various areas related to mental health, child development, rehabilitation, psychology, and elderly care by enabling a programmable technical platform” and “have a positive impact by catalyzing and advancing the fields of play-based assessment for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.” See Lee at para. 145.
Regarding claims 17-19, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 16.
Assa does not explicitly teach wherein the assembly record is analyzed and compared with a metric of cognitive functioning acquired using at least one independent cognitive test in claim 17;
wherein the comparison of the assembly metric with cognitive tests is repeated with a number of persons exhibiting a range of cognitive test scores according to at least one independent cognitive test, resulting in a correlation of the assembly metric with the cognitive functioning of a person assembling the puzzle in claim 18; and
wherein a person with unknown cognitive abilities assembles the puzzle, and a puzzle-derived metric of cognitive functioning is derived from the puzzle assembly alone in claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches wherein the assembly record is analyzed and compared with a metric of cognitive functioning acquired using at least one independent cognitive test (Lee, para. 6-7, “Assessment of the cognitive and fine motor skills is important for neuroscientists who often need to monitor or diagnose mentally injured individuals. Block Design and Object Assembly tests are a part of the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) and WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale). SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games provide low-cost, effective screening/diagnostic tools for detecting behavioral disorders and developmental delays through non-invasive, play-based assessment.” para. 144, “Preschooler related performance data can facilitate making comparisons between well documented standardized measures, (e.g., Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of intelligence-III (WPPSI-III) and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool version-2nd edition (CELF-P-2)) and SIG-Blocks/TAG-Games.” Para. 172, “Assessor data can be converted and scaled into multiple (e.g., two) scores, performance and processing speed, for comparison with other measures, such as WPPSI-III (a full-scale IQ for children).”).
wherein the comparison of the assembly metric with cognitive tests is repeated with a number of persons exhibiting a range of cognitive test scores according to at least one independent cognitive test, resulting in a correlation of the assembly metric with the cognitive functioning of a person assembling the puzzle (Lee, para. 144, “Preschooler related performance data can facilitate making comparisons between well documented standardized measures, (e.g., Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of intelligence-III (WPPSI-III) and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool version-2nd edition (CELF-P-2)) and SIG-Blocks/TAG-Games.” Para. 172, “Assessor data can be converted and scaled into multiple (e.g., two) scores, performance and processing speed, for comparison with other measures, such as WPPSI-III (a full-scale IQ for children).” Para. 177, “The results of the statistical and correlation analyses with respect to gender and department group were presented with general regression analyses to determine the interaction of gender within each of the department groups. MANOVA was then conducted to compare multivariate means of gender and department groups. To examine the design validity of the TAG-Game as a novel alternative assessment game for WAIS-III, a correlation test was performed.”).
wherein a person with unknown cognitive abilities assembles the puzzle, and a puzzle-derived metric of cognitive functioning is derived from the puzzle assembly alone (Lee, at least para. 152 “Table 11 lists associated cognitive skills, raw performance data, and an exemplary scoring method for different types of TAG-Games.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use puzzle assembly performance for measuring cognitive functioning because “[a]ssessment of the cognitive and fine motor skills is important for neuroscientists who often need to monitor or diagnose mentally injured individuals” and “Block Design and Object Assembly tests are a part of the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) and WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale).” See Lee at para. 6.
Regarding claim 21, Assa in view of Lee teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 17.
Assa does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one cognitive test the assembly record is compared is known, within clinical practice, to represent an indication of at least one neurodegenerative disease or neurological disorder including but not limited to Alzheimer's, other dementias, Parkinsons's disease, or any other disorder.
However, Lee teaches wherein the at least one cognitive test the assembly record is compared is known, within clinical practice, to represent an indication of at least one neurodegenerative disease or neurological disorder including but not limited to Alzheimer's, other dementias, Parkinsons's disease, or any other disorder (Lee, para. 6-7, “Assessment of the cognitive and fine motor skills is important for neuroscientists who often need to monitor or diagnose mentally injured individuals. Block Design and Object Assembly tests are a part of the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) and WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale). SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games provide low-cost, effective screening/diagnostic tools for detecting behavioral disorders and developmental delays through non-invasive, play-based assessment.” Para. 104, “SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games may function as an automated, continuous assessment tool for users, such as, for example, children with developmental disorders, that can identify the effect of different sensory inputs on a user's behavior and cognitive problem-solving.” Para. 169, “SIG-Blocks and TAG-Games may be configured to perform fully automated play assessment of behavior and performance with augmented sensory feedback to effectively distinguish children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) from non-ASD children.” Lee’s claim 19, “designed to diagnose symptoms associated with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD), Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), dementia, and other health problems related to physical or cognitive impairments”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use puzzle assembly performance for measuring cognitive functioning because “[a]ssessment of the cognitive and fine motor skills is important for neuroscientists who often need to monitor or diagnose mentally injured individuals”, “Block Design and Object Assembly tests are a part of the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) and WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) (Lee, para. 6)”, and “play-based assessments can provide more detailed information about these children, better identify weaknesses, and lead to earlier diagnoses and intervention targeted at strengthening social, emotional and cognitive functioning (Lee, para. 5).”
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assa in view of Lee (US 2012/0285436) as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0378424, hereinafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 20, Assa in view of Lee teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 19.
Assa in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein various follow-up treatment options including but not limited to, cognitive therapy, medication, exercise, or dietary changes are recommended based on the puzzle-derived metric in claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Chen teaches wherein various follow-up treatment options including but not limited to, cognitive therapy, medication, exercise, or dietary changes are recommended based on the puzzle-derived metric (Chen, Fig. 5, Present a list of treatment options based on the diagnosed disorder 560).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the treatment recommendation step of Chen with the cognitive testing of Assa in view of Lee because not only is treating the disorder the logical next step following diagnosis, but such an embodiment was contemplated in Lee in at least para. 150 which recites that the “benefits and uses of SIG-Blocks/TAG-Games are not limited to assessment, but other embodiments include interventional and therapeutic tools for children, the disabled, and the elderly.”
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assa.
Regarding claim 24, Assa teaches the reconfigurable puzzle of claim 6.
Assa does not explicitly teach wherein the puzzle is configured to display images corresponding to educational, learning, or therapy goals of specific individuals.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Assa to include wherein the puzzle is configured to display images corresponding to educational, learning, or therapy goals of specific individuals since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPZ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of image does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. images corresponding to educational, learning, or therapy goals and the claimed physical product which is required for patentability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stout (US 2005/0093232) discloses an embodiment that includes many of the same claimed features for an electronic puzzle piece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715