DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 24-26, 10-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugama et al. (US 20170031341) in view of Hellam et al. (US 20200360808).
Re claim 1 Sugama et al. teaches:
System for linking digital content with physical books (Abstract+), said system comprising:
a. a plurality of ID tags, each of the ID tags of said plurality of ID tags comprising a
unique identifier associated with the ID tag, said ID tag being configured to be
scannable by a scanner to identify the unique identifier associated with the ID tag, at
least some ID tags from said plurality of ID tags being physically attached to a plurality
of physical books (tags 43/44), (but it silent to and at least some ID tags of said plurality of ID tags not being physically attached to physical books),
b. a network connected service (service = server per paragraph [0104]), said service comprising
i. a database which comprises data representing a plurality of content links between unique identifiers of ID tags of said plurality of ID tags and files comprising digital content (paragraph [0104] teaches the cloud system on a network stores the data, and while silent to a database, a database for storage is an obvious expedient);
c. said system being arranged to allow a plurality of digital devices to interact with the
system (FIG. 1+ wherein different books can be used and plural projection devices 10 and processing devices 20 can be used), each of said digital devices comprising
i. a speaker and/or a display to play and/or display digital audio content and/or digital visual content respectively (paragraph [0039]+ 10/20),
ii. a Communication unit to allow the digital device to communicate with the network connected service (I/F 103 and I/F 107),
iii. a Scanner arranged to scan an ID tag of said plurality of ID tags and identify the unique identifier associated with the scanned ID tag (paragraphs [0058]+ and [0049]+), and
iv. a microprocessor arranged to access the network connected service via the communication unit (a microprocessor is implicit in the processing devices),
d. said network connected service being configured to execute a content retrieving
procedure, said content retrieving procedure facilitating, at least in part, the steps of a digital device contacting the network connected service, the digital device uploading a unique identifier to the network connected service and the digital device retrieving a file comprising digital content which is linked with the uploaded unique identifier via the data representing the plurality of content links in the database (content is downloaded and played, per FIG. 1+).
Sugama et al. is sient to tags not attached to books.
Hellam et al. teaches an RFID, tag, or identifier affied to a figure or stuffed animal can be detected (paragraph [0040]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for physical interactions with the book.
To clarify, the tags are interpreted as having unique identifiers as the pages have different content compared to different pages and thus to provide the content to a specific page is interpreted as having a unique identifier.
Re claim 2, audio and display have been discussed above.
Re claim 3, tags have been taught by Sugama et al. is silent to a sticker with foil wafer. The Examiner notes that foil wafer stickers are known in the art and are an obvious expedient for ease of use.
Re claims 5-6, a content link procedure is interpreted as being taught by the creation of the where it would have been obvious that its triggered by devices in order to execute, to provide the linking to content for the book.
Re claim 8, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious for the tags to indicate to the system how to be handled so that audio and/ or video can be output.
Re claim 9, action links are interpreted as implicit in linking the tags to actions that are performed.
Re claim 24, include wit claim 4 rejection, the Examiner notes that personalized tags/ identifiers have been discussed above, wherein a parent can customize. As an “action” and “content” link has not been specifically defined, the Examiner notes that customizing obviates changing, and therefore based on desires of the user, an action link such as performing an action such as a parent customizing to make an instruction, could instead be a parent or other user providing content such as speaking for example.
Re claim 25, the limitations appear to be drawn to receiving data of a user ID from a digital device and adding credit to the account for purchasing content as defined in a procedure. Such limitations are interpreted to read on crediting an account, which is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for funding purposes. The limitations are not tied to the system as they are defining a procedure. Purchasing digital content using an account is routine and conventional in the art such as for streaming services, application stores, etc.
Re claim 26, as discussed above re Hellam et al., the Examiner notes that brining a stuffed animal to the book reads on such limtaitons.
Re claim 10, FIG. 4 shows a sample database table, wherein it would have been obvious that plurality books have such similar formatted records. Book identification information is provided at 321, wherein it would have been obvious to include the title/version./ edition for identification purposes. FIG. 6 includes tag information. Therefore it would have been obvious to have the links to the tags and information of the book as part of a record in order to control the proper book being provided the proper information from the proper tags in order to control proper output of video/ audio.
Re claim 11, paragraph [0058]+ teaches RF tags embedded, [0049]+ teaches barcodes, and claim 1 as discussed above teaches stuffed animals/ figures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that different types of tags are supported. One would have been motivated to use different tags for different surfaces/ objects/ functions.
Re claims 12-13, though silent to RF tags being embedded and stuck on a surface, the examiner nots that both types of RFID tags are known in the art and obvious based on costs, uses, system constraints, etc. Alternatively, re claim 12, a dual purpose RFID/ barcode scanner is also known in the art for convenience.
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1 and attaching to objects/ toys.
Re claim 15, though silent to plastic figures, as toys (figures and stuffed animals) have bene discussed above, plastic figures are an obvious expedient for a particular type of known toy.
Re claim 16, paragraph [0058]+ teaches RF tags embedded, [0049]+ teaches barcodes, and claim 1 as discussed above teaches stuffed animals/ figures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that different types of tags are supported. One would have been motivated to use different tags for different surfaces/ objects/ functions.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugama et al./ Hellam eta l., as discussed above, in view of Rajasekharan et al. (US 20030089777).
The teachings of Sugama et al./ Hellam et al. have been discussed above but are silent to non-linked tags. However, the broad recitation of "non-linked" ID tags, whether to store ID tags, i.e. book ID tags, that are or are not linked to content is a non-technical administrative decision with no further technical effect and is therefore does not provide unexpected results. One would have been motivated to have non-linked tags for customization purposes.
Nonetheless, Rajasekharan et al. teaches creating custom content by a user applying stickers to pages and then linking to audio (paragraph [0046]+.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to allow for personalization by a user, wherein linking to the database would have been obvious to link the content.
Re claims 5-6 a content link procedure is interpreted as being taught by the creation of the custom content where it would have been obvious that its triggered by devices in order to execute.
Re claim 17-23, the Examiner notes that the prior art teachings obviate placeholder content as part of the customized content that can be attached to books. Though silent to the specific intended uses such as per claims 19-23, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious that the prior art structure is capable and that such modifications is intended use that is not patentably distinguishing as the prior art is capable of such use, such as when it is desired to be sold/ packaged. The formation of a kit, would have been obvious in order to allow customized content to be provided, as such labels/ stickers would not be attached to the book until the user customizes as needed.
Claim(s) 7 and 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugama et al./ Hellam et al., as discussed above, in view of Slomkowski et al. (US 20050096938).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Sugama et al./ Hellam et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the database having account links between identifiers associated with tags and user accounts.
Slomkowski et al. (see paragraph [0028]+) teaches tracking and recording authorized user's preferences and activities and thus it would have been obvious to link data and tags for record keeping purposes.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for organizing and controlling the data of various books/ accounts.
Re claim 27, the teachings of Sugama et al./ Hellam et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a registering device, a book identifying unit, a communication device, and microprocessor as recited.
Slomkowski et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0056]+ wherein the book is registered by inputting the data into a book identifying unit which is communicated over a network and which implicitly has a microprocessor to send the data to the server. Though silent to a scanner, as the code is manually input, the Examiner notes that a scanner / barcode reader/ OCR reader is an obvious expedient for efficiency purposes.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this to have updated book information/ content.
Re claim 28, the Examiner note that intended use limitations are not patentably distinguishing. The registering device of the prior art is interpreted as portable and devices are understood to include fastening mechanisms such as adhesives, screws, clasps, couplings, etc.
Re claims 29-30, paragraph [0059]+ of Sugama et al. teaches capturing an image of a front cover to get the tag information, thus obviating the limitations such as for matching content, as paragraph [0104]+ teaches that the information can be stored on a server/ remotely.
Re claim 31, Slomkowski et al. teaches the storage of ISBN, indexes, titles, and thus obviates uploading of book information for organization and security purposes (see paragraph [0029], [0078], and [0084]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugama et al./ Hellam et al., as discussed above, in view of Yang et al. (US 20210124883).
The teachings of Sugama et al./ Hellam et al. have been discussed above.
Re claims 12-13, though silent to both tags being both types of RFID tags, , Yang et al. teaches the use of RFID tags that can be embedded or on the surface (paragraph [0021]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this for the benefits of RFID, such as data storage, distances, ease of programming, security, automated reading, etc.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipsky et al. (US 20130254322) in view of Hellam et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 1 Lipsky teaches:
System for linking digital content with physical books (Abstract), said system comprising:
a. a plurality of ID tags, each of the ID tags of said plurality of ID tags comprising a
unique identifier associated with the ID tag, said ID tag being configured to be
scannable by a scanner to identify the unique identifier associated with the ID tag, at
least some ID tags from said plurality of ID tags being physically attached to a plurality
of physical books (stickers 301/ 302), but is silent to at least some ID tags of said plurality of ID tags not being physically attached to physical books
b. a network connected service (service = server per FIG. 7), said service comprising
i. a database which comprises data representing a plurality of content links between unique identifiers of ID tags of said plurality of ID tags and files comprising digital content (server 73 stores the content linked to the tags and content, and while silent to a database, a database for storage is an obvious expedient);
c. said system being arranged to allow a plurality of digital devices to interact with the
system (FIG. 1+), each of said digital devices comprising
i. a speaker and/or a display to play and/or display digital audio content and/or digital visual content respectively (audio content see FIG. 2 with a speaker),
ii. a Communication unit to allow the digital device to communicate with the network connected service (21 at FIG. 2 and paragraph [0024]+ and local computer 70),
iii. a Scanner arranged to scan an ID tag of said plurality of ID tags and identify the unique identifier associated with the scanned ID tag (paragraphs [0032]+), and
iv. a microprocessor arranged to access the network connected service via the communication unit (a microprocessor is implicit),
d. said network connected service being configured to execute a content retrieving
procedure, said content retrieving procedure facilitating, at least in part, the steps of a digital device contacting the network connected service, the digital device uploading a unique identifier to the network connected service and the digital device retrieving a file comprising digital content which is linked with the uploaded unique identifier via the data representing the plurality of content links in the database (content is downloaded and played, per FIG. 1+).
Lipsky et al. is silent to tags not attached to books.
Hellam et al. teaches an RFID, tag, or identifier affied to a figured or stuffed animal can be detected (paragraph [0040]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for physical interactions with the book.
To clarify, the tags are interpreted as having unique identifiers as the pages have different content compared to different pages and thus to provide the content to a specific page is interpreted as having a unique identifier.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slomkowski et al./ Hellam et al., as discussed above, in view of Rines et al. (US 20060124742).
Re claim 1 Slomkowski et al. teaches:
System for linking digital content with physical books (Abstract), said system comprising:
a. a plurality of ID tags, each of the ID tags of said plurality of ID tags comprising a
unique identifier associated with the ID tag, said ID tag being configured to be
scannable by a scanner to identify the unique identifier associated with the ID tag, at
least some ID tags from said plurality of ID tags being physically attached to a plurality
of physical books and at least some ID tags of said plurality of ID tags not being
physically attached to physical books (paragraph [0056]+ and paragraph [0084]+),
b. a network connected service (service =server per paragraph [0030]+ and paragraph [0032]+), said service comprising
i. a database which comprises data representing a plurality of content links between unique identifiers of ID tags of said plurality of ID tags and files comprising digital content (paragraphs [0033]+, [0053], and [0056-0057]+);
c. said system being arranged to allow a plurality of digital devices to interact with the
system (paragraphs [0035]+ and [0062]+), each of said digital devices comprising
i. a speaker and/or a display to play and/or display digital audio content and/or digital visual content respectively (multimedia content has digital/ audio content implicitly),
ii. a Communication unit to allow the digital device to communicate with the network connected service (network per FIG. 1+),
iv. a microprocessor arranged to access the network connected service via the communication unit (paragraph [0035]+ wherein a microprocessor is implicitly disclosed in the personal computer),
d. said network connected service being configured to execute a content retrieving
procedure, said content retrieving procedure facilitating, at least in part, the steps of a digital device contacting the network connected service, the digital device uploading a unique identifier to the network connected service and the digital device retrieving a file comprising digital content which is linked with the uploaded unique identifier via the data representing the plurality of content links in the database (paragraphs [0029]+, [0056-0057], and [0082]).
Slomkowski et al. is silent to the scanner.
Rines et al. teaches such limitations (abstract+ and paragraph [0030]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for machine reading convenience/ accuracy.
Re claim 2, Slomkowski et al. teaches the limitations at paragraphs [0082] and [0097 at lines 14-17].
Re claim 3, though silent to the limitations that the ID tags are stickers, the Examiner notes that stickers as ID tags are well Known in the art. It would have been obvious to use stickers are tags for ease of use, cost, acceptance, and ease of application for expected results of linking.
Re claims 5-6, specifying a procedure for creating a link between an ID tag and a digital content is obvious (see paragraphs [0042]+ and [0059]+) to provide updated content.
Re claim 7, limitations specifying that the database comprises data about plurality of user accounts, the Examiner notes that Slomkowski et al. (see paragraph [0028]+) teaches tracking and recording authorized user's preferences and activities and thus it would have been obvious to link data and tags for record keeping purposes.
Re claim 8, the limitations specifies a type of tag and/or tag status, Slomkowski et al. teaches (paragraph [0082]+) on-line contents of different types including text, audio, video, etc., which obviate to provide information how to treat, i.e. display/play, the referenced content, so that the content is provided.
Re claim 9, Slomkowski et al. teaches the limitations at paragraph [0056]+ wherein a URL is interpreted as an action link.).
Re claim 10, Slomkowski et al. teaches the limitations at paragraphs [0035]+ and [0077]+.
Claim(s) 4 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slomkowski et al./ Hellam et al./ Rines et al, as discussed above, in view of Rajasekharan et al., as discussed above.
The teachings of Slomkowski et al./ Hellam et al./ Rines et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the non-linked tags.
Re claim 4, and the broad recitation of "non-linked" ID tags, whether to store ID tags, i.e. book ID tags, that are or are not linked to content is a non-technical administrative decision with no further technical effect and is therefore does not provide unexpected results. One would have been motivated to have non-linked tags for customization purposes.
Nonetheless, Rajasekharan et al. teaches creating custom content by a user applying stickers to pages and then linking to audio (paragraph [0046]+.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to allow for personalization by a user, wherein linking to the database would have been obvious to link the content.
Claim 17 broadly defines multiple physical books that link to the same digital content. Slomkowski teaches at paragraph [0077] the temporal versioning of the same content/ book and therefore obviates the recited limitations. Further, the type of data is merely an issue of non-functional descriptive material as a matter of design variation. Given the personalization teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to link to the same content such as user recorded content. Further, the type of data is merely an issue of non-functional descriptive material as a matter of design variation.
Re claim 18, as discussed above reclaim 4, non-linked or custom labels can be applied to pages of the book, such as for customization/ personalization.
Re claim 19, the prior art structurally reads on such limitations. The intended use of the structures is not patentability distinguishing. Nonetheless, they are operable to be sold.
Re claims 20-23, as discussed above, custom labeling is provided. Though silent to the labels being in packaging, it would have been obvious to be in packaging for ease and security of transporting and holding. Re claim 22, labels between 1 and 10 are an obvious matter of design variation based on consumer needs. Re claim 23, a kit of parts though not explicitly taught, the structural components have been taught above. The forming of a kit or organizing into a kit is an obvious matter of design variation, as claims 20-23 are drawn to an intended use of the structure and are not patentably distinguishing. Generally organizing elements of a system for sale is also within the ordinary skill in the art. Such limitations are not structure limitations of the system, but are drawn to intended use or design variation elements, which are not patentably distinguishing and/ or are obvious.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slomkowski et al./ Hellam et al./ Rines et al., as discussed above, in view of Yang et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 11, the limitations recite two types of ID tags, e.g., embedded in the book and in the form of a sticker. Slomkowski et al. teaches at paragraph [0056], an embedded book ID tag. Implementing said tag in the form of a sticker is a well-known alternative/ in addition, as one of a plurality of known ways to provide expected results of linking content on a substrate/ page/ document.
Nonetheless, Yang et al. teaches the use of RFID tags that can be embedded or on the surface (paragraph [0021]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this for the benefits of RFID, such as data storage, distances, ease of programming, security, automated reading, etc.
Re claims 12-16, the limitations are drawn to further details related to the implementation of the ID tags in terms of RFID tags attached either to the book/to another object closely located to the book/ embedded therein. These implementation details are common place features in the field of RFID tags. Nonetheless, re claims 12-13, Yang et al. teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Re claims 14-16, and 1the embedding of the tags in figures/ other than books, Hellam et al. (US 20200360808) teaches such limitations in paragraph [0040]+), as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Re the Applicants argument that Sugama does not teach each of the ID tags comprise a unique identifier “associated with the ID tag”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0054]+ and FIG. 6 teach that there is tag information for each page and corresponding control information, wherein tag information embedded in pages of the book are stored so that different contents are output for pages based on the control information corresponding ot the tag information. This is interpreted to read on each tag having a unique identifier associated with the tag in that there is corresponding control information, namely page 1 tag information is different than page 2 tag information which is different than page 3 tag information… which is different than page n tag information. The tag information for each page is interpreted as a unique identifier associated with the ID tag as it is used to identify each unique page and corresponding control information specific to that page.
While the Applicant argues that there is no provision or teaching which would prompt an ordinary person skilled in the art to provide different copies of the same book with tags with unique identifiers, the Examiner notes that such limitations are not recited, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The pages are understood to have different tag information so as to provide different content on each pages, which reads on the claimed “unique” and does not require uniqueness when compared to different copies of the same book, for example, unless claim amendments specifying what level of uniqueness is required (globally unique versus locally unique), as one data is unique in a whole set and one is unique in a subset that can be repeated in the whole set (identifiers are unique in a book when compared to the book itself, similar to how names and numbers and addresses in a telephone book maybe unique in the book, but other copies of the telephone book can have the same names and numbers and addresses, for example).
Lipsky et al. teaches serial numbers 301/302 linked to content and is interpreted as unique identifiers with tags.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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 I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876