DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This CIP application first discloses the terms “smoke cartridge” in the current application. As all independent claims 1, 10, and 16 claims this limitation, all of the claims receive the priority date as of the filing of this CIP - 3/14/23.
Specification
Please enter the specification amendment received 8/20/25.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the second end of the air channel is curved” of claim 16 must have proper antecedent basis in the specification. Restated, the term “curved” is not in the written specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 16 now claims that “a smoke cartridge secured within the housing within a compartment that is isolated from the bubble producing engine” (emphasis added). The term “isolated” is new matter. That is, the word is not used in the specification.
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 16-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 now claims that “a smoke cartridge secured within the housing within a compartment that is isolated from the bubble producing engine” (emphasis added). As the Examiner understands it, air created by the bubble producing engine passes through the cartridge within the compartment (see applicant’s spec, par. [0025]). As such, it is unclear how the compartment is “isolated” from the bubble producing engine. That is, it is unclear what “isolated” is suppose to mean within the context of the specification and thus the claims.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (herein “Kelly”; US Pub. No. 2021/0379503 A1) in view of Yoon (KR Pub. No. 10-21-0148786) and in further view of Suh (US Pub. No. 2015/0072586 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a bubble producing toy (abstract) comprising: a shaft with a first and second end (Fig. 1, item 30); a bubble producing solution reservoir connectable to the first end of the shaft (Fig. 1, item 20 and par. [0029]); a housing connected to the second end of the shaft (Fig. 1, item 50); a bubble producing engine secured within the housing (par. [0022]; noting this obvious, see Fig. 4); a speaker within the device (par. [0030]); wherein activation of the smoke-filled bubbles occurs in synchronization with a sound when the sound is played through the speaker (par. [0031]; noting “bubble production” and “playing predefined audio stored in memory of the device” can occur simultaneously upon receipt of the “unique beacon”; the Examiner construing simultaneously as reading on “synchronization”); an air blower secured within the housing and connected to a first end of an air duct (par. [0035] and Fig. 6; noting this is also obvious); a bubble discharge nozzle secured to a second end of the air duct (Fig.7), wherein the nozzle comprises a bubble film producing assembly and a discharge orifice (Fig. 7 and par. [0038]); and a channel comprising a tubular structure with two ends, wherein a first end is submerged within the solution reservoir and a second end is connected to the film producing assembly (pars. [0024]) a switch secured within the shaft (Fig. 2, item 40), wherein the switch activates a first and second mode of the toy; wherein bubble production is automatically activated when the toy is in the first mode and activatable when in the second mode (pars. [0029]-[0031]; noting this appears to be obvious as the “switch can also incorporate activation through embedded instructions” (i.e. automatic activation), but also “control the speed at which the bubbles are produced” (i.e. activatable by the switch)). It is noted that Kelly does not specifically disclose that the speaker is mounted in the shaft. However, Kelly discloses the use of a speaker (par. [0030]) and only two portions to the device: the shaft and the housing (par. [0022]). The Examiner also noted that using the speaker in the shaft may be a relocation of parts under In re Japiske. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kelly to use the speaker in the shaft because doing so would be obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified predictable results (using the speaker in the shaft or housing) with reasonable expectation of success (using the speaker in one of two options: the shaft or the housing), or alternatively, a mere relocation of parts. It is also noted that Kelly does not specifically disclose a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy, a smoke cartridge secured within the housing and connected to the air blower via an air channel, which channel flows through the air cartridge and joins with the air duct, and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle, and a button secured within the shaft, wherein the button activates the smoke cartridge to continuously produce smoke independent of bubble production when the toy is in the second mode. However, Yoon discloses a very similar bubble toy which is in fact a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy (par. [0014] of machine translation), a smoke cartridge secured within the housing and connected to the air blower via an air channel (pars. [0014], and [0033] of machine translation, and annotated Fig. 11a below), which channel flows through the air cartridge and joins with the air duct, and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle (Figs. 7 and 11a, and pars. [0014], [0016] and [0035] of machine translation), and a button secured within the housing (noting locating the button into the “shaft” is a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device), wherein the button activates the smoke cartridge to continuously produce smoke independent of bubble production (Fig. 18, item 140 and par. [0026], [0014] and [0044]; noting an “auxiliary switch” to independently turn on the smoke generator; noting “switch” makes obvious “button”; noting the Examiner takes the broadest reasonable interpretation of this language; noting the smoke may be turned on and off via the button/switch independent of the bubble production, i.e. the on/off of the smoke operates independent within the bubble production, and noting when it is on, it is “continuous’). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kelly to make the toy a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy with a smoke cartridge secured within the housing and connected to the air blower via an air channel, which channel flows through the air cartridge and joins with the air duct, a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle, and a button secured within the shaft, wherein the button activates the smoke cartridge to continuously produce smoke independent of bubble production when the toy is in the second mode as taught and suggested by Yoon because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a structure within a bubble producing toy to insert smoke into the bubbles, the smoke cartridge having its own activation switch or button) to improve a similar product (a bubble producing toy) in the same way (using a structure within a bubble producing toy to insert smoke into the bubbles, the smoke cartridge having its own activation switch or button, and the toy allowing for various gases to be included in the bubbles to improve child enjoyment – see Yoon: pars. [0001] and [0006]). Finally, it is noted that the combined Kelly and Yoon does not specifically disclose a slide switch. However, Kelly appears to show a switch that allows for multiple modes of operation (pars. [0029]-[0031]). In addition Suh discloses a toy wherein a slide switch is used for modes of operation of the toy (par. [0051]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kelly and Yoon to use a slide switch as taught by Suh because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a slide switch) for another (a switch) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to use a switch that dictates the mode of operation; the switch being a slide switch).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh disclose that LEDs secured within the housing (Kelly: pars. [0029], [0058], and Fig. 1, item 48).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh disclose that the bubble engine comprises a motor and a pump (Kelly: par. [0035]), which are electrically connected the slide switch (Kelly: pars. [0029]-[0031]; noting electrical connection to a switch is obvious; and Suh: par. [0051] making obvious a “slide” switch).
Regarding claim 4, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh disclose that a power source secured within the shaft to which the slide switch is electrically connected (Kelly: pars. [0029]-[0031] and Fig. 1, item 40; and Suh: par. [0051] making obvious a “slide” switch).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh disclose that the housing further comprises a cartridge battery, which is electrically connected to the button (Yoon: pars. [0018] and [0028] of machine translation disclosing a “auxiliary switch and power” and see specifically Fig. 18, item 130 being the cartridge, item 140 being the switch or button, both of which are specifically connected to item 110, the power source; noting it can be considered the “housing” because it is the upper portion of the toy; and Kelly: par. [0029] making obvious that the power source may be “batteries”). In the alternative, regarding placing the cartridge battery in the “housing”, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts is not patentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact location of the cartridge battery would not modify the operation of the device: that is, the cartridge would continue to have its own power source, regardless of that power source location.
Regarding claim 6, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh disclose a recirculation channel comprising a tubular structure with two ends, wherein one end is connected to the bubble film producing assembly and the other end is submerged within the solution reservoir (Kelly: pars. [0028] and Fig. 9, items 29 and see Kelly: pars. [0005] and [0024]; noting it is obvious that recirculation channel could have the first end “submerged within the solution” much like the supply channel).
Regarding claim 9, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh disclose that the bubble film producing assembly comprises a trough surrounding an inner edge of the nozzle (Kelly: Fig. 7, item 76 and par. [0028]), wherein the trough includes two open semicircle portions with a wiper centrally located therein (Kelly: Fig. 8 and par. [0038]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (herein “Kelly”; US Pub. No. 2021/0379503 A1) in view of Yoon (KR Pub. No. 10-21-0148786) in view of Suh (US Pub. No. 2015/0072586 A1) and in further view of Galbiati et al. (herein “Galbiati”; US Pub. No. 2007/0259594 A1).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh do not specifically disclose a microphone secured with the shaft. However, Kelly discloses a generally elongated toy that lights up and makes sound (Fig. 1 and [0029]-[0030]). In addition, Galbiati discloses a generally elongated toy (Figs. 1-A and 5) wherein a microphone is secured with the shaft of the toy (par. [0037], Fig. 5, item 24). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Suh to use a microphone in the shaft as taught by Galbiati because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a microphone that detects a sound to simultaneously activate a visual output) to improve a similar product (a toy that has visual output int the form of bubbles) in the same way (using a microphone that detects a sound to simultaneously activate a visual output, the visual output being bubble production).
Claims 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (herein “Kelly”; US Pub. No. 2021/0379503 A1) in view of Yoon (KR Pub. No. 10-21-0148786).
Regarding claim 16, Kelly discloses a bubble producing toy (abstract) comprising: a shaft with a first and second end (Fig. 1, item 30); a bubble producing solution reservoir connectable to the first end of the shaft (Fig. 1, item 20 and par. [0029]); a housing connected to the second end of the shaft (Fig. 1, item 50); a bubble producing engine secured within the housing (par. [0022]; noting this obvious, see Fig. 4); an air duct comprising a first and second end, wherein the first end encloses the air blower (Fig. 5; roughly item 68); control circuitry secured within the shaft and electrically connected to a speaker and light emitting diodes (par. [0030] disclosing a speaker, par. [0029] disclosing LEDs, and par. [0030] making obvious “control circuitry”; and noting use of the “control circuitry within the “shaft” as opposed to the “housing” as shown in Fig. 4, item 37, would be a mere rearrangement of parts under In re Japiske); wherein the circuitry includes a receiver and a proximately detection device (par. [0030]); a bubble discharge nozzle secured to a second end of the air duct (Fig.7), wherein the nozzle comprises a bubble film producing assembly and a discharge orifice (Fig. 7 and par. [0038]); and a channel comprising a tubular structure with two ends, wherein a first end is submerged within the solution reservoir and a second end is connected to the film producing assembly (pars. [0024]). It is noted that Kelly does not specifically disclose a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy, a tubular air channel positioned outside of the air duct within the housing and comprising a first and second end, wherein the first end connects through a surface of the air duct and the second end connects through the surface of the air duct adjacent to the bubble and smoke discharge nozzle, a smoke cartridge secured within the housing within a compartment that is isolated from the bubble producing engine, wherein the air channel passes through the cartridge wherein a section of the air channel between the air cartridge and the second end of the air channel is curved, and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle, wherein smoke and smoke-filled bubbles are simultaneously produced through the nozzle. However, Yoon discloses very similar bubble toy wherein smoke is produced by a smoke-filled bubble producing toy (par. [0014] of machine translation), an air channel positioned outside the air duct within the housing an comprising a first and second end (Fig. 11a, reproduced above), wherein the first end connects through a surface of the air duct and the second end connects through a surface of the air duct adjacent to the bubble and smoke discharge nozzle (Fig. 11a above), a smoke cartridge secured within the housing within a compartment that is isolated from the bubble producing engine (Fig. 11a above; noting, it is completely unclear what the term “isolated” means, but the Examiner construing that there is a wall in between the two structures), wherein the air channel passes through the cartridge wherein a section of the air channel between the air cartridge and the second end of the air channel is slanted (Fig. 11a above), and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle (Fig. 1, item 400, see also Fig. 11a above), wherein smoke and smoke-filled bubbles are simultaneously produced through the nozzle (par. [0014]; the Examiner believing that “When the liquid filled in the cartridge is vaporized and smoke generated, the smoke is filled in the inner space of the soap bubble while being discharged to the outlet through the gas flow path” make this obvious because this never states that all of the smoke is encased with bubbles; or alternative, at least functionally possible given the structure; emphasis added). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kelly to make the a smoke-filled bubble producing toy with a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy, an air channel positioned outside of the air duct within the housing and comprising a first and second end, wherein the first end connects through a surface of the air duct and the second end connects through the surface of the air duct adjacent to the bubble and smoke discharge nozzle, a smoke cartridge secured within the housing within a compartment that is isolated from the bubble producing engine, wherein the air channel passes through the cartridge wherein a section of the air channel between the air cartridge and the second end of the air channel is straight, and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle, wherein smoke and smoke-filled bubbles are simultaneously produced through the nozzle as taught by Yoon because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a structure within a bubble producing toy to insert smoke into the bubbles) to improve a similar product (a bubble producing toy) in the same way (using a structure within a bubble producing toy to insert smoke into the bubbles, the toy allowing for various gases to be included in the bubbles to improve child enjoyment – see Yoon: pars. [0001] and [0006]). Finally, regarding using a tubular air channel and a section that is curved, it has been held that, absent a convincing argument otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art could use numerous configuration in shape or form to accomplish the same purpose. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact shape of the air channel and the section of the air channel adjacent the second end would not be significant: that is, the smoke would enter into the bubble regardless of the exact shape of the air channel and the portion of the air channel adjacent the second end.
Regarding claim 18, the combined Kelly and Yoon disclose that the bubble film producing assembly comprises a trough surrounding an inner edge of the nozzle (Kelly: Fig. 7, item 76 and par. [0028]), wherein the trough includes two open semicircle portions with a wiper centrally located therein (Kelly: Fig. 8 and par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined Kelly and Yoon disclose a recirculation channel comprising a tubular structure with two ends, wherein one end is connected to the bubble film producing assembly and the other end is submerged within the solution reservoir (Kelly: pars. [0028] and Fig. 9, items 29 and see Kelly: pars. [0005] and [0024]; noting it is obvious that recirculation channel could have the first end “submerged within the solution” much like the supply channel).
Regarding claim 20, the combined Kelly and Yoon disclose that the bubble engine comprises a motor and a pump (Kelly: par. [0035]), which are electrically connected the slide switch (Kelly: pars. [0029]-[0031]; noting electrical connection to a switch is obvious; and Suh: par. [0051] making obvious a “slide” switch).
Claim 10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (herein “Kelly”; US Pub. No. 2021/0379503 A1) in view of Yoon (KR Pub. No. 10-21-0148786) and in further view of Galbiati et al. (herein “Galbiati”; US Pub. No. 2007/0259594 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kelly discloses a bubble producing toy (abstract) comprising: a shaft with a first and second end (Fig. 1, item 30); a bubble producing solution reservoir connectable to the first end of the shaft (Fig. 1, item 20 and par. [0029]); a housing connected to the second end of the shaft (Fig. 1, item 50); a bubble producing engine secured within the housing (par. [0022]; noting this obvious, see Fig. 4); control circuitry secured within the shaft and electrically connected to a speaker and light emitting diodes (par. [0030] disclosing a speaker, par. [0029] disclosing LEDs, and par. [0030] making obvious “control circuitry”; and noting use of the “control circuitry within the “shaft” as opposed to the “housing” as shown in Fig. 4, item 37, would be a mere rearrangement of parts under In re Japiske); wherein the control circuity is configured to automatically activate the bubble producing engine and smoke cartridge (pars. [0030]-[0031]; noting this is functionally possible given the disclosure, i.e. “configured to” denotes functional language that is possible given the structure); an air blower secured within the housing and connected to a first end of an air duct (par. [0035] and Fig. 6; noting this is also obvious); a bubble discharge nozzle secured to a second end of the air duct (Fig.7), wherein the nozzle comprises a bubble film producing assembly and a discharge orifice (Fig. 7 and par. [0038]); and a channel comprising a tubular structure with two ends, wherein a first end is submerged within the solution reservoir and a second end is connected to the film producing assembly (pars. [0024]). It is noted that Kelly does not specifically disclose a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy, a smoke cartridge secured within the housing and connected to the air blower via an air channel, which channel flows through the air cartridge and joins with the air duct, and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle. However, Yoon discloses a very similar bubble toy which is in fact a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy (par. [0014] of machine translation), a smoke cartridge secured within the housing and connected to the air blower via an air channel (pars. [0014], and [0033] of machine translation, and see Fig. 11 annotated above), which channel flows through the air cartridge and joins with the air duct, and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle (Figs. 7 and 11a, and pars. [0014], [0016] and [0035] of machine translation). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kelly to make the toy a smoke, and smoke-filled bubble producing toy with a smoke cartridge secured within the housing and connected to the air blower via an air channel, which channel flows through the air cartridge and joins with the air duct, and a bubble and smoke discharge nozzle as taught by Yoon because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a structure within a bubble producing toy to insert smoke into the bubbles) to improve a similar product (a bubble producing toy) in the same way (using a structure within a bubble producing toy to insert smoke into the bubbles, the toy allowing for various gases to be included in the bubbles to improve child enjoyment – see Yoon: pars. [0001] and [0006]). Finally, it is noted that the combined Kelly and Yoon do not specifically disclose that the shaft contains a microphone, activation of the bubble producing engine and smoke cartridge is activated in synchronization with ambient sound when detected by the microphone. However, Galbiati discloses a generally elongated toy (Fig. 1A and 5), a microphone is secured with the shaft of the toy (par. [0037], Fig. 5, item 24), wherein visual output is activated in synchronization with ambient sound when detected by the microphone (pars. [0043] and [0054]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kelly and Yoon to make the shaft have a microphone, wherein production of the smoke-filled bubbles is activated in synchronization with ambient sound when detected by the microphone as taught by Galbiati because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a microphone that detects a sound to simultaneously activate a visual output) to improve a similar product (a toy that has visual output int the form of bubbles) in the same way (using a microphone that detects a sound to simultaneously activate a visual output, the visual output being bubble production).
Regarding claim 12, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Galbiati disclose that the bubble film producing assembly comprises a trough surrounding an inner edge of the nozzle (Kelly: Fig. 7, item 76 and par. [0028]), wherein the trough includes two open semicircle portions with a wiper centrally located therein (Kelly: Fig. 8 and par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Galbiati disclose a recirculation channel comprising a tubular structure with two ends, wherein one end is connected to the bubble film producing assembly and the other end is submerged within the solution reservoir (Kelly: pars. [0028] and Fig. 9, items 29 and see Kelly: pars. [0005] and [0024]; noting it is obvious that recirculation channel could have the first end “submerged within the solution” much like the supply channel).
Regarding claim 14, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Galbiati disclose that the bubble engine comprises a motor and a pump (Kelly: par. [0035]), which are electrically connected to a power source (Kelly: par. [0035] and [0029]; noting electrical connection is obvious).
Regarding claim 15, the combined Kelly, Yoon, and Galbiati disclose that the shaft comprises a switch, which is electrically connected to the power source (Kelly: par. [0029] and Fig. 1, item 40).
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that the combined Kelly and Yoon do not specifically disclose a microphone secured with the shaft and electrically connected to the control circuitry. However, Kelly discloses a generally elongated toy that lights up and makes sound (Fig. 1 and [0029]-[0030]). In addition, Galbiati discloses a generally elongated toy (Figs. 1-A and 5) wherein a microphone is secured with the shaft of the toy (par. [0037], Fig. 5, item 24) and electrically connected to the control circuitry (Fig. 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kelly and Yoon to use a microphone in the shaft as taught by Galbiati because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a microphone that detects a sound to simultaneously activate a visual output) to improve a similar product (a toy that has visual output int the form of bubbles) in the same way (using a microphone that detects a sound to simultaneously activate a visual output, the visual output being bubble production).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not generally persuasive.
At the onset, it is noted that applicant has not provided any specific support from the specification and/or drawings for the claim amendments. As such, the Examiner believes that at least some new matter has been added by way of the amendments. Applicant is kindly reminded in the future to show support for any and all claim amendments.
103 Rejection
With regards to claim 1, applicant argues that “Furhter [sic], a separate button is included that activates only the smoke cartridge in the second mode” (see Remarks, received 8/20/25, page 15; emphasis original). However, what is actually claimed is “a button secured within the shaft, wherein the button activates the smoke cartridge to continuously produce smoke independent of the bubble production when the toy is in the second mode”. Restated the word “only” is nowhere in the claim 1. So why is applicant arguing it and emphasizing it? Rather, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the Examiner believes that Yoon discloses the limitation. That is, Yoon discloses the ability to turn the switch (i.e. button) on and off and independent of bubbles being produced (Fig. 18, item 140 and par. [0026], [0014] and [0044]). Also, when the button is pressed for “on”, the smoke production is continuous when bubbles are produced. In summary and while the Examiner understands applicant’s intent, the Examiner believes that applicant needs to amend this language to be more specific in order to overcome the Yoon reference.
On page 15, applicant goes on to argue the Yoon reference. Applicant argues that “Yoon creates bubbles independent of smoke and smoke-filled bubbles, but its not capable of creating smoke independent of bubbles”. The question, as alluded to above, it what does “independent” mean? The Examiner’s position is that “independent” can mean that at least the smoke can be independently turned on and off during bubble production. Applicant appears to import into the limitations that the claims means either bubbles are produced from the toy, or smoke is produced from the toy (emphasis added). Respectfully submitted, the Examiner does not import any limitations into what the claim language means (based on arguments), but instead gives it the broadest reasonable interpretation as required by law.
Again, on page 16 of the Remarks, applicant argues and emphasizes the word “only”. However, as noted above, the term “only” is never claimed in claim 1. Applicant goes on to argue Yoon on page 16. Again, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, applicant’s understanding of the Yoon reference can be correct, and Yoon can still broadly read on the amended claim 1 language.
On page 17 (and apparently with respect to claim 10), applicant argues the Examiner’s use of the Galbiati reference. Apparently, applicant believes that “ambient sound” does not include a “user spoken command”. Respectfully submitted, “ambient” means “of the surrounding area or environment” (as defined by dictionary.com; see also merriam-webster.com defining “ambient” as “environment”). “Sound” as defined by dictionary.com is “vibrations that travel through the air”. As such, by definition, “ambient sound” is vibrations from the surrounding environment that travel through the air. A user spoken word is “ambient sound” if the user is in the surrounding area or environment. Applicant argues that “A user spoken command and ambient sound are not equivalent and contradictory” (see Remarks, page 19). The Examiner fails to see how this is possible and does not take applicant’s Wikipedia citation as a plain meaning of the word. That is, applicant cites to “Wikipedia” for the definition as “any sound other than the sound being monitored”. Respectfully submitted, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is a website that is constantly edited by users with constantly changing definitions. As such, reliance on this website to teach a definition is inappropriate. Furthermore, the Examiner looked up the definition as given on Wikipedia. The definition supplied by applicant is for “background noise” or “ambient noise”; and not “ambient sound” as specifically claimed (emphasis added). Furthermore, if applicant intended the phrase “ambient sound” to have some special meaning, they should have included this in the specification. However, under the plain meaning of the word and as explained above, ambient sound can be any sound created by the surrounding environment including a human voice or command (emphasis added).
On page 20, applicant goes on to argue Galbiti and a “teaching away”. Again, this assumes that applicant’s definition given by Wikipedia is correct. The Examiner does not believe that it is based on the above discussion. On page 20, applicant also argues Galbiati and “automatic activation”. Respectfully submitted, Kelly already discloses “automatic activation” (see citation above). Galbiati teaches that activation can occur my microphone. Restated, applicant is arguing the references in isolation instead of what Galbiati would teach one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the amendments to claim 16, the Examiner still believes that Yoon makes obvious the claimed limitations (in view of changes in shape case law). Applicant argues that “modifying Yoon in an effort to attain the claimed invention would render Yoon ‘inoperable for its intended purpose” (see Remarks, page 22). The Examiner does not agree with this argument whatsoever based on annotated Fig. 11a above. Applicant argues “the smoke cartridge is located within a compartment that is isolated from the bubble producing engine”. The Examiner fails to see support for this “isolation” limitation, especially since air from the bubble producing engine enters the compartment making them at least “joined” via air flow. In summary, the Examiner does not find the arguments with regards to claim 16 and its amendments in any way compelling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on (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.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
10/21/25
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711