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.
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) 1-4, 6, 9, & 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al 8,062,087 in view of Summers 2016/0158112, Silber 6,109,196, Fogarty 8,376,807, Lui 6,511,359, and Sutton et al 2019/0022538 (newly cited).
Davis shows a stuffed toy that may be a "remembrance item", with a torso, face, and arms, which includes a stuffing, with an outer shell of weather-resistant material, and which may include a coating of polyurethane, including fluorescent pigment (column 4, line 29 to column 5, line 19).
Davis notes that any water-resistant material is preferred for the outer shell (column 5, lines 1-3). Although Davis does not indicate here that vinyl, elastane, or neoprene are used for the outer cover, Davis does indicate that these are known water-resistant materials (column 4, lines 15-28). Selection of vinyl, elastane, or neoprene would be an obvious choice for durability or cost.
It is not clear if there is any message or phrase on the toy. A phrase would increase the display value of the toy. For example, Summers discloses that a stuffed toy may include a message, stitched into the outer shell, or on a patch or plaque sewn onto the outer shell (paragraph 0016). This message would be an obvious addition to the toy shown by Davis. It is not clear if the message is of waterproof material, but since Davis discloses that the shell of the toy is waterproof, extension of the waterproof material to an added phrase would be considered an obvious addition.
Davis notes several possible filler materials, but it is not clear if beads may be used. Silber discloses that a stuffed toy with beads is known to be soft and resilient (column 1, lines 18-23). A soft and resilient toy may increase the play value, so these beads would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
Davis does not show a heart-shaped LED display attached to the arms. An LED display would be useful to increase the play value. For example, Fogarty shows that a stuffed toy may include arms with an attached heart-shaped LED display. This display would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
It is not clear if the LED display of Fogarty may have uniform illumination or a flashing pattern. Different display patterns would increase the play value. For example, Sutton discloses that a toy may include a LED display with a steady light or flashing light (note the Abstract). This uniform illumination or flashing pattern would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis and Fogarty.
Davis does not show a slot for a photograph on the face. A slot for a photograph would be useful to customize the appearance of the toy. For example, Lui shows that a toy may include a head with a face, and a slot for a photograph on the face; this slot includes a transparent layer 40 so is "laminated". This image slot would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al 8,062,087 in view of Fong 6,997,772, Silber 6,109,196, Fogarty 8,376,807, Lui 6,511,359, and Sutton et al 2019/0022538.
Davis shows a stuffed toy that may be a "remembrance item", with a torso, face, and arms, which includes a stuffing, with an outer shell of weather-resistant material, and which may include a coating of polyurethane, including fluorescent pigment (column 4, line 29 to column 5, line 19).
Davis notes that any water-resistant material is preferred for the outer shell (column 5, lines 1-3). Although Davis does not indicate here that vinyl, elastane, or neoprene are used for the outer cover, Davis does indicate that these are known water-resistant materials (column 4, lines 15-28). Selection of vinyl, elastane, or neoprene would be an obvious choice for durability or cost.
It is not clear if there is any message or phrase on the toy. A phrase would increase the display value of the toy. For example, Fong discloses that a stuffed toy may include a message, which is an LED display (column 3, lines 4-28). This message would be an obvious addition to the toy shown by Davis. It is not clear if the message is of waterproof material, but since Davis discloses that the shell of the toy is waterproof, extension of the waterproof material to an added phrase would be considered an obvious addition. It is not clear what language is the phrase, but the exact phrase would be an arbitrary design consideration; printed matter is not effective to distinguish prior art; See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).
Davis notes several possible filler materials, but it is not clear if beads may be used. Silber discloses that a stuffed toy with beads is known to be soft and resilient (column 1, lines 18-23). A soft and resilient toy may increase the play value, so these beads would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
Davis does not show a heart-shaped LED display attached to the arms. An LED display would be useful to increase the play value. For example, Fogarty shows that a stuffed toy may include arms with an attached heart-shaped LED display. This display would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
It is not clear if the LED display of Fogarty may have uniform illumination or a flashing pattern. Different display patterns would increase the play value. For example, Sutton discloses that a toy may include a LED display with a steady light or flashing light (note the Abstract). This uniform illumination or flashing pattern would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis and Fogarty.
Davis does not show a slot for a photograph on the face. A slot for a photograph would be useful to customize the appearance of the toy. For example, Lui shows that a toy may include a head with a face, and a slot for a photograph on the face; this slot includes a transparent layer 40 so is "laminated". This image slot would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al 8,062,087 in view of Fong 6,997,772, Silber 6,109,196, Fogarty 8,376,807, Lui 6,511,359, and Sutton et al 2019/0022538 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kaplan 6,030,274.
The toy of Davis does not appear to include an outer cover. A cover would help the toy to remain clean and not damaged. For example, Kaplan shows that a stuffed toy, may be stored in a transparent cover (column 2, lines 1-23). This cover would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
Claim(s) 18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al 8,062,087 in view of Summers 2016/0158112, Fogarty 8,376,807, Lui 6,511,359, Cherk et al 3,748,779, and Sutton et al 2019/0022538.
Davis shows a stuffed toy that may be a "remembrance item", with a torso, face, and arms, which includes a stuffing, with an outer shell of weather-resistant material, and which may include a coating of polyurethane, including fluorescent pigment (column 4, line 29 to column 5, line 19). Whether the toy resembles a "robot" would be an arbitrary design consideration.
Davis notes that any water-resistant material is preferred for the outer shell (column 5, lines 1-3). Although Davis does not indicate here that vinyl, elastane, or neoprene are used for the outer cover, Davis does indicate that these are known water-resistant materials (column 4, lines 15-28). Selection of vinyl, elastane, or neoprene would be an obvious choice for durability or cost.
It is not clear if there is any message or phrase on the toy. A phrase would increase the play value of the toy. For example, Summers discloses that a stuffed toy may include a message, stitched into the outer shell, or on a patch or plaque sewn onto the outer shell (paragraph 0016). This message would be an obvious addition to the toy shown by Davis. It is not clear if the message is of waterproof material, but since Davis discloses that the shell of the toy is waterproof, extension of the waterproof material to an added phrase would be considered an obvious addition.
Davis notes several possible filler materials, but it is not clear if grains may be used. Cherk discloses that a stuffed toy with grains is known to be safe, versatile, and durable (column 1, lines 19-38). A safe, versatile, and durable toy may increase the play value, so these grains would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
Davis does not show a heart-shaped LED display attached to the arms. An LED display would be useful to increase the play value. For example, Fogarty shows that a stuffed toy may include arms with an attached heart-shaped LED display. This display would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
It is not clear if the LED display of Fogarty may have uniform illumination or a flashing pattern. Different display patterns would increase the play value. For example, Sutton discloses that a toy may include a LED display with a steady light or flashing light (note the Abstract). This uniform illumination or flashing pattern would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis and Fogarty.
Davis does not show a slot for a photograph on the face. A slot for a photograph would be useful to customize the appearance of the toy. For example, Lui shows that a toy may include a head with a face, and a slot for a photograph on the face; this slot includes a transparent layer 40 so is "laminated". This image slot would be an obvious addition to the toy of Davis.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive. Response to the arguments has been incorporated into the rejection
above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A RICCI whose telephone number is (571)272-4429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri.
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, Nicholas Weiss, can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/JOHN A RICCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711