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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-VIII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It is noted that claims 11 and 12 recites a toy device, which is shown in Fig. 8 of non-elected Species VI. Accordingly, claims 11 and 12 are further with drawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on June 6, 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because cancelled claims 19 and 20 are not listed as “Cancelled”.
Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because blocks 105, 106, 205 (Fig. 1) should be provided with descriptive text labels (see MPEP 608.02(b)(II) FP 6.22).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both an electronic device terminal (paragraph 0023, line 3) and a remote control unit (paragraph 0023, line 7) and reference character “106” has been used to designate two different blocks (Fig. 1).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" (Fig. 1) and "200" (paragraph 0023, line 3) have both been used to designate an electronic device terminal.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:”33” (paragraph 0039, line 2).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first circuit board (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: wireless transmitting module (claim 1), wireless receiving module (claim 1), switching device (claim 2).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations, “wireless transmitting module (claim 1), wireless receiving module (claim 1), switching device (claim 2).” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There are no corresponding structure for the modules and device that are discussed or shown. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner interprets the wireless transmitting/receiving modules to be hardware/software wireless transmitters/receivers and the switching device to be switch.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, claims 1-10 fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1-10 do recite an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim s 1-10 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Cai et al. (CN 109410545) in view of Yunusov et al. (US 2025/0167922) and Chen (DE 102008013562) (YYY).
Regarding claim 1, Cai et al. discloses a remote-controlled electronic device (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising:
an electronic device terminal (200), the electronic device terminal comprising an execution unit (unit of 200 for performing operations, page 5, paragraph 3, lines 6-7), a processor (210), and a wireless signal receiving module (210), and the execution unit (unit for performing operations, page 5, paragraph 3, lines 6-7) and the wireless signal receiving module (210) being connected to the processor (Fig. 1) (since the processor 210 via 210 controls performing operations, page 5, paragraph 3, lines 5-7);
a remote control unit (100), wherein the remote control unit comprises a pressure sensor (112) and a wireless signal transmitting module (130), and the pressure sensor (112) is coupled to the wireless signal transmitting module (130) (Fig. 1);
the wireless signal transmitting module (103) is in signal communication with the wireless signal receiving module (220; page 5, paragraph 3), and the wireless signal transmitting module (103) is configured for transmitting control signals (control signals, page 5, paragraph 3, lines 1-3) via pressure information (page 5, paragraph 2, lines 1-2) detected in real time by the pressure sensor (110) to the wireless signal receiving module (220, page 5, paragraph 3), so as to adjust power of the execution unit (control to perform operations, page 5, paragraph 5, lines 6-7).
It is noted that adjusting a real-time operating frequency is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Cai et al. does not disclose expressly disclose the pressure sensor (112) is connected to the wireless signal transmitting module (130) (Fig. 1).
Yunusov et al. discloses that it is known to include a processor in a transmitter wireless communication device (paragraph 0008, lines 5-6) for controlling transmission by the transmitter wireless communication device (paragraph 0008, lines 6-23). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to connect the pressure sensor (112) to the wireless signal transmitting module (130), since it would have been obvious to include a processor within the wireless signal transmitting module (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cai et al. with connecting a pressure sensor to the wireless signal transmitting module as suggested by Yunusov et al. for the purpose of controlling transmission by the transmitter wireless communication device.
Cai et al. does not disclose transmitting pressure information detected in real time by the pressure sensor.
Chen discloses transmitting pressure information detected in real time by the pressure sensor (Title; Abstract) for controlling an electronic device (Tile; Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cai et al. with transmitting pressure information detected in real time by the pressure sensor as suggested by Chen for the purpose of controlling an electronic device.
Regarding claim 2, Cai et al. discloses transmitting (via 15) the command signal to the wireless signal receiving module (page 5, paragraph 3).
Cai et al. does not disclose a switching device, the switching device is configured for issuing a start or a stop command signal and transmitting the command signal, so as to control startup and shutdown of the execution unit.
Chen discloses a switching device (12), the switching device is configured for issuing a start (via 141) or a stop command signal (via 142) and transmitting (via 15) the command signal (pressure command, Abstract), so as to control startup and shutdown of the execution unit (execution unit of electronic device, Title).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cai et al. with a switching device as suggested by Chen for the purpose of controlling control startup and shutdown of the execution unit of the electronic device.
.
Regarding claim 3, Cai et al. discloses the remote control unit (100) comprises a housing (housing of 100), the pressure sensor (110/112), and the wireless signal transmitting module (130) are arranged inside the housing (Fig. 1), and the housing is at least provided with a deformable elastic portion (pressing tough 170 is made of leather but I not limited to leather, page 7, paragraph 2, lines 3-5) positioned opposite the pressure sensor (Fig. 2), so as to trigger the pressure sensor upon deformation (page 7, paragraph 2, lines 1-3; Fig. 2).
Cai et al. does not disclose a switching device inside a housing of remote control for sending start/shutdown commands.
Chen discloses a switching device (12) inside a housing of remote control (1) (Fig. 1) for controlling start/shutdown command (Abstract, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cai et al. with a switching device as suggested by Chen for the purpose of controlling control startup and shutdown of the execution unit of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 5, Cai et al. discloses the electronic device terminal (200) comprises the processor (210) and the wireless signal receiving module (220) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 of Cai et al. does not disclose the processor (210) and the wireless signal receiving module (220) are integrated on the first circuit board, and the execution unit is connected to the first circuit board.
Fig. 2 of Cai et al. discloses that a processor (120) and a wireless module (130) can be arranged on a circuit board (140). Since Cai discloses the processor (210) and the wireless signal receiving module (220) are connected to the execution unit (unit performing operations), as discussed above, it would have been obvious to connect the execution unit is connected to a circuit board.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cai et al. with a processor and a wireless signal receiving module integrated on a circuit board for the purpose of performing operations of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 6, Cai et al. discloses the remote control unit (100) comprises a second circuit board (140), the pressure sensor (110/112), and the wireless signal transmitting module (130) are integrated in remote control unit (100) (Fig. 2).
Cai et al. does not disclose switching device integrated in the remote control unit.
Chen discloses a remote control unit (1) comprises a switching device (12), the pressure sensor (11), and the wireless signal transmitting module (15) are integrated in the remote control unit (1).
It would have been obvious to integrate the switching device, the pressure sensor, and the wireless signal transmitting module on the second circuit board, since it has been held that rearranging of parts involves only routine skill in the art for performing operations of an electronic device. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cai et al. with integration of a switching device, a pressure sensor, and a wireless signal transmitting module on a circuit board
for the purpose of performing operations of the electronic device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Cai et al. in view of Yunusov et al. and Chen as applied to claim 1-3 above, and further in view of KR 200400329.
Regarding claim 4, Cai et al. as modified by Yunusov et al. and Chen discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the housing is made of silicone.
KR ‘329 disclose a remote housing is made of silicone for significantly reducing damage (page 5, paragraph 4, lines 5-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cai et al. as modified with as suggested by Chen for the purpose of controlling control startup and shutdown of the execution unit of the electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a remote-controlled electronic device, comprising an execution unit control circuit and a frequency/power regulation circuit are integrated on the first circuit board (claim 7) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights