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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dann et al. (U.S. No. 6,949,067 B1; hereinafter known as “Dann”), in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0263697 A1; hereinafter known as “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Dann discloses an adult device (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising a first contact surface portion that is formed from a thermoplastic elastomer material (col. 6, lines 14-18). Dann fails to disclose that the material is silver impregnated, though Dann does teach that another suitable material is silicone. Liu teaches a similar adult device (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising a first contact surface portion that is formed from a silver impregnated silicone material in order to provide an antibacterial effect ([0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dann so that the TPE material is silver impregnated, as taught by Liu, in order to provide an antibacterial effect.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Dann and Liu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses second and third contact surface portions that are formed from the silver impregnated thermoplastic elastomer material (e.g., the portions are arbitrary; a single contact surface may be divided up into numerous different portions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dann and Liu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Dann further discloses that an entirety of the adult device is formed from the silver impregnated thermoplastic elastomer material (col. 6, lines 27-30; unitary construction of a single material).
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0099858 A1), in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Hernandez discloses an adult device (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising a first contact surface portion 202 that is formed from a thermoplastic elastomer material ([0023]). Hernandez fails to disclose that the material is silver impregnated, though Hernandez does teach that another suitable material is silicone. Liu teaches an adult device (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising a first contact surface portion that is formed from a silver impregnated silicone material in order to provide an antibacterial effect ([0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hernandez so that the TPE material is silver impregnated, as taught by Liu, in order to provide an antibacterial effect.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hernandez and Liu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses a second contact surface portion that is formed from the silver impregnated thermoplastic elastomer material (e.g., the portions are arbitrary; a single contact surface may be divided up into numerous different portions).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hernandez and Liu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Hernandez further discloses that the adult device is a sex doll (Abstract; [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hernandez and Liu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Hernandez further discloses that a remainder 212 of the adult device is formed from a material other than the silver impregnated thermoplastic elastomer material ([0022]; [0026]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dann and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR 2023/0060704 A; hereinafter known as “Kwon”). The combination of Dann and Liu discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the silver impregnated thermoplastic elastomer material comprises a silver powder and a thermoplastic material that are mixed together (Dann: col. 6, lines 14-18; Liu: [0023]). The combination of Dann and Liu fails to disclose that the silver powder is a silver nanopowder. Kwon discloses manufacturing TPE and adding an antibacterial silver nanopowder to enhance the antibacterial effect by evenly dispersing in the TPE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dann and Liu so that the powder is a nanopowder, as taught by Kwon, in order to enhance the antibacterial effect by evenly dispersing the silver in the TPE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. More (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0107431 A1) and Shubin, Sr. (U.S. 5,466,235) both teach a sex doll that can be formed from a TPE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791