DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 16 July 2026 with respect to the specification and drawings have been fully considered and are deemed to overcome the previous objections.
Applicant’s amendments filed 16 July 2026 with respect to the claims, specification, and drawings have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 16 July 2026 challenging the previous invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the limitations previously considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) each include a generical placeholder (“part”, “component”, “unit”, “module”) in combination with functional language. Furthermore, for each of these limitations, there is no claimed associated structure. Accordingly, these limitations are considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 16 July 2026 stating “The claim language is clear: the "first" and "second" display components are distinct components, and Liao does not disclose two distinct display components per grid. This is clear from the Office Action itself, which equates Liao's light emitting elements 232 with all of the display module, the first display component, and the second display component. Moreover, Liao discloses only a single type of opening (hollowed-out areas 220a) on its magnetic absorbing element 22. These openings are structurally identical and serve the same function: merely allowing light from the single underlying light-emitting element to pass through. See Liao, col. 7, 11. 10-36. Claim 1, however, requires two distinct light-transmitting parts: a "first light-transmitting part" for the first display component and a "second light-transmitting part" for the second display component. Liao's disclosure of identical openings does not teach or suggest two distinct light-transmitting parts for first and second display components, respectively” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that Liao discloses different light-transmitting parts (see below mapping/identifications in the below prior art rejection(s)) that are aligned with a respective light-emitting element 232 since (1) each hollowed-out region 220a comprises a hollowed-out area 220b and hollowed-out areas 220c aligned with a respective light-emitting element 232, and/or (2) multiple hollowed-out areas 212b are aligned with a respective light-emitting element 232.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 16 July 2026 stating “These distinctions are meaningful. Liao's arrangement (single RGB LED & identical openings) is designed to display color-coded status information (e.g., red for danger, green for safe positions) to assist in chess gameplay. The present application's dual-display system (two independent display components + two distinct light-transmitting parts) is designed to allow a single display unit to present two fundamentally different types of information simultaneously or selectively - for example, marking a grid with both a "position selected" indicator (circular light) and a "move direction" indicator (cross-shaped light). The structures are different, the functions are different, and the problems solved are different” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully deems that Liao anticipates (see below prior art rejection(s)) the structures and functions of amended claim 1 (at least) and, thus, any difference in problems solved is immaterial.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 16 July 2026 stating “In the telephone interview, the Examiner proposed an interpretation of Liao in which, e.g., the R LED is a first light-emitting component as recited in claim 1 and the G LED is a second light-emitting component. This, however, is not consistent with the other recitations of amended claim 1, requiring a display module that comprises a plurality of display units, each display unit corresponding to one of the plurality of chess grids and comprising the first light emitting component, the second emitting component, and the light processing component. There is no "display unit" in Liao that corresponds with one of a plurality of chess grids, such that a plurality of the display units comprise a display module. Again, the only way to reach such an argument is to impermissibly reconstruct Liao” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully refers to the below prior art rejection(s).
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 16 July 2026 stating “Liao does not disclose any light-transmitting part having a circular or a cross shape” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that each hollowed-out area 220b (which is part of each hollowed-out region 220a) of Liao is circular.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 16 July 2026 stating “Second, even if Liao and Socorregut were combined, neither reference discloses the specific "full-light state" and "half-light state" control features recited in claim 7. These brightness-state control features are structural and operational limitations that are not taught or suggested by either Liao or Socorregut. The combination of Liao and Socorregut does not render these features obvious, even if such a combination had been considered or attempted (which Applicant does not concede would have been obvious in the first place)” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that claim 7 does not recite limitations directed towards “full-light state” and “half-light state” - rather, such limitations are recited in claim 8.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, --portion of-- should be added before “light-shielding plate” (page 4, fourth line from bottom, first instance)(to accurately describe the invention, in light of the instant limitation being contained within the antecedent limitation “each display unit comprises:” - see e.g. Applicant’s Figures 2, 3, and 6 showing light-shielding plate 130 as a single component, not plural as required by the current language, that extends across the entire footprint of the chessboard and includes peripheral wall 137)(note: also refer to the Examiner’s Comment section below).
In claim 8, line 2, “an” (before “on”) should be changed to --the-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see claim 7).
In claim 8, line 5, “an” (before “off”) should be changed to --the-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see line 3).
In claim 8, line 5, “an” (before “on”) should be changed to --the-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “chess piece information input module” (claim 1), “display module” (claim 1), “control module” (claim 1), “display units” (claim 1), “a first display component” (claim 1), “a first light-emitting component” (claim 1), “a second display component” (claim 1), “a second light-emitting component” (claim 1), “a first light-transmitting part” (claim 1), “a second light-transmitting part” (claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “judge a trigger of the intermediate progress state” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear (1) what is meant by “judg[ing] a trigger” (note: merriam-webster.com defines the verb “judge” as “to form an estimate or evaluation of”), and/or (2) how the instant “judg[ing]” is carried out - e.g., what criterion/criteria are used in the instant “judging”. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 8-11.
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 1-3, 6, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liao (US 12,151,176; previously cited).
In reference to claim 1
Liao discloses:
An intelligent chess device, comprising:
a control module (24);
a chessboard (213) divided into a plurality of chess grids (“The chess squares 210c is arranged on the cover plate 213” - col.2:ll.47-48), each chess grid corresponding to a chess piece position information;
a chess piece information input module (i.e., Hall elements 231 and the associated circuitry extending therefrom to control module 24) arranged relative to the chessboard to receive at least a chess piece position information input (i.e., the input/information resulting from signals produced by the Hall elements 231) by a user and communicatively coupled (“It may be understood that the control module 24 may record the chessboard information by receiving the detected signals of the plurality of Hall elements 231, that is, record the location information of each chess piece 30 on the intelligent chessboard 20, and record the location change and kill information of each chess piece 30 in each game process” - col.8:ll.52-58) with the control module (24); and
a display module (i.e., the elements mapping to plurality of display units and the corresponding circuitry extending therefrom to the control module 24) comprising a plurality of display units (see below mapping of elements after wherein each display unit comprises), each display unit corresponding to one of the plurality of chess grids, the display module communicatively coupled (via circuitry) with and controlled (see Figure 7) by the control module to present (“The control module 24 is arranged in the housing 21, and is electrically connected to the light emitting elements 232 and the Hall elements 231. The control module 24 is further configured to control on and off of the light emitting elements 232 according to the detected signal” - col.7:ll.24-28; “For example, when one of the chess pieces 30 is picked up, the control module determines, according to the identity information of the chess piece 30 and the chess rule information corresponding to the identity information, the chess squares 210c where the chess piece 30 can walk in, and controls the light emitting elements 232 corresponding to the chess squares 210c that can be walked in by the chess piece 30 to emit light. Specifically, light emitted by the light emitting elements 232 corresponding to the chess squares 210c that can be walked in by the chess piece in the current chess square 210c may be in different colors. For example, red color represents a danger area, the chess piece 30 may be killed if walking in the danger area, thus being less recommended; and a green color represents a security area, thus being strongly recommended” - col.9:ll.6-21) corresponding display information on the chessboard in response to the chess piece position information input by the user, wherein each display unit comprises:
a first display component (i.e., a light-producing diode R, G, or B - see Figure 6) comprising a first light-emitting component (i.e., the light-producing component of the corresponding light-producing diode)(note: a light-producing diode inherently includes a light-producing component and various other components) and configured to provide a first display information (i.e., red, green, or blue light);
a second display component (i.e., a light-producing diode R, G, or B, separate/apart from the identified first display component - see Figure 6) comprising a second light-emitting component (i.e., the light-producing component of the corresponding light-producing diode)(note: a light-producing diode inherently includes a light-producing component and various other components) and configured to provide a second display information (i.e., red, green, or blue light) different from the first display information; and
a light processing component (i.e., the assembly of elements 21, 22, and 27) arranged to allow processing of light emitted by the first and second light-emitting components to display the first and second display information on the board respectively, wherein the light processing component comprises a light-shielding plate (i.e., either (1) a square of the grid formed by element 22, each such square comprising (at the least) one hollowed-out area 220b and four hollowed-out areas 220c and being aligned with a respective light-emitting element 232 and/or a respective chessboard square, or (2) a square of the grid formed by element 21, each such square comprising (at the least) one support 212c and four hollowed-out areas 212b and being aligned with a respective light-emitting element 232 and/or a respective chessboard square), wherein the light-shielding plate is provided with a first light-transmitting part (i.e., (1) for light-shielding plate being element 22, hollowed-out area 220b; (2) for light-shielding plate being element 21, one of supports 212c) and a second light-transmitting part (i.e., (1) for light-shielding plate being element 22, one of hollowed-out areas 220c; (2) for light-shielding plate being element 21, one of hollowed-out areas 212b), wherein the first light-transmitting part is configured to transmit light emitted by the first light-emitting component (notes: (1) each hollowed-out region 220a has a hollowed-out area 220b, and each hollowed-out region 220a is in alignment with a light-emitting element 232 - accordingly, each hollowed-out area 220b transmits light from all R, G, B light-producing diodes of the respective light-emitting element 232; (2) supports 212c are in alignment with each light-emitting element 232 - accordingly, each support 212c transmits light from all R, G, B, light-producing diodes of the respective light-emitting element 232) to form the first display information, and wherein the second light-transmitting part is configured to transmit light emitted by the second light-emitting component (notes: (1) each hollowed-out region 220a has hollowed-out areas 220c, and each hollowed-out region 220a is in alignment with a light-emitting element 232 - accordingly, each hollowed-out area 220c transmits light from all R, G, B diodes of the respective light-emitting element 232; (2) multiple hollowed-out areas 212b are in alignment with each light-emitting element 232 - accordingly, each hollowed-out area 212b transmits light from all R, G, B, light-producing diodes of the respective light-emitting element 232) to form the second display information.
In reference to claim 2
Liao discloses:
The intelligent chess device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the first light-emitting component is aligned (see above rejection of claim 1) with the first light-transmitting part; or
the second light-emitting component is aligned (see above rejection of claim 1) with the second light-transmitting part.
In reference to claim 3
Liao discloses:
The intelligent chess device according to claim 2, wherein at least one of:
the first light-transmitting part (i.e., hollowed-out area 220b or support 212c) is circular; or
the second light-transmitting part is cross-shaped.
In reference to claim 6
Liao discloses:
The intelligent chess device according to claim 1, wherein in a first game mode of the intelligent chess device, the control module is configured (see e.g. col.7:ll.24-28 and col.9:ll.6-21) to control either the first display component (232) or the second display component (232) of the corresponding display unit to be turned on, wherein the first display information indicates a first chess piece identity (i.e., red, blue, and green correspond to different statuses - see col.9:ll.6-21) and the second display information indicates a second chess piece identity (i.e., red, blue, and green correspond to different statuses - see col.9:ll.6-21),
wherein the first game mode is a chess game mode, and the intelligent chess device is configured to alternately perform chess arranging operations by the first party and the second party in the game, and
wherein the chess arranging operation is
inputting chess position information (i.e., signals from Hall elements 231) by a user (note: Hall elements 231 are activated by placement of chess pieces 30 by the players) who is one of the first party and the second party; or
controlling (see e.g. col.9:ll.6-21) the display module by the control module as one of the first party and the second party to display the first display information or the second display information on the corresponding chess grid of the plurality of chess grids.
In reference to claim 22
Liao discloses:
The intelligent chess device according to claim 1, wherein the intelligent chess device is a tic-tac-toe or a memory flash game (note: specifying the type of game is not structurally limiting).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Socorregut (US 11,369,862; previously cited).
In reference to claim 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Liao discloses:
The intelligent chess device according to claim 6, wherein the control module (24) is configured to judge (see col.9:ll.6-21, insofar as to judge a trigger is clear and definite - see corresponding indefiniteness rejection) a trigger of an intermediate progress state during the game, and to control (see col.9:ll.6-21) the operation of a corresponding display unit of the display units in an on state in response to each subsequent chess arranging operation after judging the trigger of the intermediate progress state and before the end state of the game.
Liao does not disclose:
the control module is configured to judge an end state of the game.
Socorregut discloses:
an intelligent chess device comprising a control module that is configured to determine the end state of the game based on positions of tokens and/or pieces (see col.13:ll.20-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liao to include configuring the control module to determine the end state of the game, as disclosed by Socorregut, for the purpose of allowing recording of the final result.
Examiner’s Comment / Allowable Subject Matter
In regards to claim 1, the limitation recited as “the light-shielding plate is provided with a first light-transmitting part and a second light-transmitting part” is broad and/or ambiguous as to the relationship between “light-shielding plate” and “first light-transmitting part” and the relationship between “light-shielding plate” and “second light-transmitting part”, thereby permitting the above prior art rejection over Liao. Looking to Applicant’s disclosure, each first light-transmitting part 131 and second light-transmitting part 132 are disposed within a respective aperture of the light-shielding plate (note: parts 131 and 132 are not disclosed as coupled to and/or integral with shielding plate 130 - see e.g. coil 310 as disposed between respective parts 131,132 of the respective shielding plate 130). Accordingly, to overcome the prior art rejection over Liao, the Office suggests changing the instant limitation to --a first light-transmitting part and a second light-transmitting part are disposed within an aperture of the respective portion of the light-shielding plate-- (note: refer to the above objection to claim 1 describing the recommendation for use of the instant --portion--).
Although claims 8-11 are not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues described above.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights