DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final rejection on the merits. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended, Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 13 have been canceled, and Claims 4, 6-8, 12, and 14-17 remain as previously presented.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 14 have been amended, Claims 2-3, 5, 10-11, and 13 have been canceled, and Claims 7-8, 12, 15-17 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed on 01/02/2025.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 09/07/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon Yarbrough (US 20040102133 A1) as set forth in the last Office action because: It refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. As such the declaration does not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
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, 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, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarbrough (US 20040102133 A1) in view of Williams (US 4601670 A), Guttmann (US 2729024 A), and Biasuzzi et al. (US 4300307 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yarbrough teaches a pet toy (200; Fig. 2 shows a second embodiment of pet toy 100 having the same interior features as shown in Fig. 1.), comprising:
An exterior surface (110);
An interior surface (150) comprised of a fabric (stated in ¶22 and Claim 18) opposite the exterior surface (Fig. 1 shows that glove 150 forms an interior surface opposite to the exterior surface 110.), wherein the interior surface surrounds an interior cavity within an abdomen and limbs of the pet toy (Fig. 1 shows that the interior surface of glove 150 surrounds an interior cavity. Fig. 2 shows that this interior cavity would be located within an abdomen and limbs of the pet toy 200.);
A padding protective layer (120) positioned between and throughout the exterior and interior surfaces (Fig. 1 shows that padding layer 120 is positioned between and throughout the exterior surface 110 and the interior surface 150.);
An arm sleeve (Claim 1 states that pet toy 100 comprises a sleeve portion.) having an opening that leads to the interior cavity (Figs. 1-2 show that the sleeve portion has an opening that leads to the interior cavity of glove 150.); and
A head of the pet toy (Fig. 2 shows that pet toy 200 includes a head.) that is accessible from the interior cavity and which enables user manipulation of the head (Figs. 1-2 and ¶26 show that a user can manipulate the head of the pet toy 200 by moving its upper jaw 252 and lower jaw 251. Therefore, the head of the pet toy 200 is accessible from the interior cavity and enables user manipulation of the head.).
The system of Yarbrough teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the exterior surface at least partially comprises a plush material and that the exterior surface is a largest layer, the interior surface is a smallest layer, and the padding protective layer is a size in between the exterior and interior surface sizes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the exterior surface of the system of Yarbrough at least partially comprise a plush material to provide a gentle material for pets to play with, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the exterior surface be a largest layer, the interior surface be a smallest layer, and the padding protective layer be a size in between the exterior and interior surface sizes to protect against wear and tear as well as protect the user’s hand during play, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
The system of Yarbrough further teaches that the head includes a pocket that holds a squeaky toy (170) that squeaks responsive to external downward pressure (¶25 states that pet toy 200 can include a squeaky toy 170. Fig. 1 shows that the squeaky toy 170 is located in a pocket and that squeaky toy 170 is capable of squeaking when external downward pressure is applied.). However, the system of Yarbrough fails to explicitly state that the pocket is included in a chin of the head between the exterior surface and the interior surface so that the squeaky toy squeaks responsive to external downward pressure from the pet toy's chin against its chest. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the pocket of the system of Yarborough be included in a chin of the head between the exterior surface and the interior surface so that the squeaky toy squeaks responsive to external downward pressure from the pet toy's chin against its chest to provide interactive amusement for the pet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
The system of Yarbrough fails to explicitly state that the pet toy comprises a hand section, wherein the interior cavity is sealed between the pet toy's arm and hand section to prevent a user from inserting a finger into the pet toy's hand while providing a protective surface for the pet to chew and play.
Williams teaches a pet toy (11; Figs. 1-5 show that the hand puppet 11 may be used to play with a pet.) comprising a hand section (49’, 51’), wherein an interior cavity (55) is sealed between the pet toy's arm (49,51) and hand section (49’, 51’) to prevent a user from inserting a finger into the pet toy's hand while providing a protective surface (57) for the pet to chew and play (Fig. 5 shows that an interior cavity 55 of the toy 11 is sealed between the toy’s arms 49,51 and hand section 49’,51’ so that user is prevented from inserting a finger 46a,46c into the toy’s hand 49’, 51’ while providing a protective surface 57 that a pet may chew and play with.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough to include a hand section wherein the interior cavity is sealed between the pet toy's arm and hand section to prevent a user from inserting a finger into the pet toy's hand while providing a protective surface for the pet to chew and play as taught by Williams with reasonable expectation of success to protect the fingers of the user during play (Williams, Abstract).
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams fails to explicitly state that the hand section of the pet toy is layered and harder.
Guttmann teaches a toy (10) comprising a hand section (12) and that the hand section (12) of the pet toy is layered and harder (Fig. 1 shows that hand section 12 comprises layers, such as rubber pad 26, wall portion 24, and stuffing material 28. The rubber pad 26 would make the arm section 12 of the toy 10 harder relative to the rest of the toy 10.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams to have the hand section of the pet toy be layered and harder as taught by Guttmann with reasonable expectation of success to protect the fingers of the user during play.
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams and Guttmann further teaches that the hand section of the pet toy is layered and harder relative to the pet toy's at least partially plush material exterior surface (Due to the modification by Guttmann, the pet toy 200 would comprise hand sections 12 of Guttman with rubber pad 26 and wall portion 24 as layers. Rubber pad 26 would make the hand section 12 harder relative to the pet toy’s at least partially plush material exterior surface.), in which places where a user inserts his or her hand inside the interior cavity have a softer exterior surface relative to the hand section of the pet toy (Looking at Fig. 2 of Yarbrough and Fig. 1 of Guttmann, the places where a user inserts his or her hand inside the pet toy’s 200 interior cavity would have a softer exterior surface 100 relative to the rubber pad 16 of the arm sections 12 from the Guttmann modification.).
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams and Guttmann fails to explicitly state that the hand section includes a pocket inside which one or more items are stored.
Biasuzzi teaches an animated toy (shown in Fig. 1) comprising hand sections (14,15) that include a pocket (18,19) inside which one or more items are stored (Items, such as treats, may be stored inside pockets 18 and 19.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams and Guttmann to have the hand section include a pocket inside which one or more items are stored as taught by Biasuzzi with reasonable expectation of success to provide more sources of stimulation for the pet.
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams, Guttmann, and Biasuzzi further teaches that the pocket is inaccessible to the user’s finger since the hand section is sealed from the pet toy’s arm (As shown in Fig. 5 of Williams, the hand sections 49’, 51’ are sealed from the pet toy’s arms 49, 51. Due to the modification by Biasuzzi, a pocket 18,19 would be placed in the hand sections 49’,51’ and would therefore be inaccessible to the user’s finger since the hand sections 49’, 51’ are sealed from the pet toy’s arms 49, 51.).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams, Guttmann, and Biasuzzi, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Yarbrough further teaches that the interior surface (150) has a smooth surface (¶25 states that the glove 150 may comprise a glove insert made of fabric which would provide a smooth surface.).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams, Guttmann, and Biasuzzi, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Yarbrough further teaches that the pet toy (200) is any one of a squirrel, fox, dog, cat, lion, bird, raccoon, insect, tiger, octopus, or fish (Fig. 2 shows that pet toy 200 may be a dog.).
Regarding Claim 7, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams, Guttmann, and Biasuzzi, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Yarbrough further teaches that the limbs (230,240) are coated with a scent or sight stimulus (Fig. 2 shows that limbs 230 and 240 include patches which serve as a sight stimulus.).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams, Guttmann, and Biasuzzi, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Biasuzzi further teaches an animated toy (shown in Fig. 1) wherein the limbs (14,15) are adapted with a pocket (18,19) inside which treats are positionable (Treats may be positioned inside pockets 18 and 19.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Williams, Guttmann, and Biasuzzi to have the limbs be adapted with a pocket inside which treats are positionable as taught by Biasuzzi with reasonable expectation of success to provide more sources of stimulation for the pet.
Claims 9, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarbrough (US 20040102133 A1) in view of Parrish (US 20170280794 A1), Williams (US 4601670 A), Biasuzzi et al. (US 4300307 A), Snyder (US 2795896 A), and Renforth et al. (US 20150257364 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yarbrough teaches a pet toy (200; Fig. 2 shows a second embodiment of pet toy 100 having the same interior features as shown in Fig. 1.), comprising:
An exterior surface (110);
An interior cavity defined by an interior surface (Fig. 1 shows that the interior surface of glove 150 surrounds an interior cavity.), wherein the interior cavity extends within the pet toy’s body, including head and limbs (Fig. 1 shows that the interior cavity [where glove 150 is located] extends within the body of pet toy 100. Fig. 2 further shows that the interior cavity [where glove 150 is located] can be located within the pet toy’s body, including head and limbs.);
A padding protective layer (120) positioned between and throughout the exterior and interior surfaces (Fig. 1 shows that padding layer 120 is positioned between and throughout the exterior surface 110 and the interior surface 150.);
An arm sleeve (Claim 1 states that pet toy 100 comprises a sleeve portion.), providing comfort and protection (The arm sleeve of claim 1 [shown in Fig. 2] is capable of providing comfort and protection to the arm of a user.), which has an opening that leads to the interior cavity that conforms to an arm of the user (Figs. 1-2 show that the arm sleeve has an opening that leads to the interior cavity [where glove 150 is located] that conforms the user’s arm.); and
The interior cavity of the pet toy having space (150) to accommodate the user’s hand (Fig. 1 shows that glove 150 includes a space that accommodates the user’s hand.), constructed of a layered protective material (¶22 states that glove 150 may also have a glove insert made of fabric or leather which would provide an additional layer of comfort and protection.),
The head of the pet toy (Fig. 2 shows that pet toy 200 includes a head.) that has an interior cavity that enables user manipulation of the head (Fig. 2 shows that the head of the pet toy has an interior cavity that enables the user to manipulate the head by moving its upper jaw 252 and lower jaw 251.), and
A tail that is sealed off from the pet toy’s interior cavity (Fig. 2 shows that pet toy 200 comprises a tail which is sealed off form the pet toy’s interior cavity [which is connected to arm sleeve 220].).
The system of Yarbrough teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the exterior surface at least partially comprises a plush material, the interior cavity is comprised of a plush tricot fabric, the padding protective layer is a felt padding protective layer, and the space is constructed of a layered felt laminate protective material. The system of Yarbrough teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the exterior surface is a largest layer, the interior surface is a smallest layer, and the padding protective layer is a size in between the exterior and interior surface sizes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the exterior surface of the system of Yarbrough at least partially comprise a plush material to provide a gentle material for pets to play with, to have the interior cavity of the system of Yarbrough be comprised of a plush tricot fabric to provide a fabric that’s comfortable to wear, to have the padding protective layer of the system of Yarbrough be a felt padding protective layer to provide an insulating and durable protective layer, and to construct the space of the system of Yarbrough using felt laminate in order to provide lighter and softer gloves since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the exterior surface be a largest layer, the interior surface be a smallest layer, and the padding protective layer be a size in between the exterior and interior surface sizes to protect against wear and tear as well as protect the user’s hand during play, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
The system of Yarbrough further teaches that the head includes a pocket that holds a squeaky toy (170) that squeaks responsive to external downward pressure (¶25 states that pet toy 200 can include a squeaky toy 170. Fig. 1 shows that the squeaky toy 170 is located in a pocket and that squeaky toy 170 is capable of squeaking when external downward pressure is applied.). However, the system of Yarbrough fails to explicitly state that the pocket is included in a chin of the head between the exterior surface and the interior surface so that the squeaky toy squeaks responsive to external downward pressure from the pet toy's chin against its chest. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the pocket of the system of Yarborough be included in a chin of the head between the exterior surface and the interior surface so that the squeaky toy squeaks responsive to external downward pressure from the pet toy's chin against its chest to provide interactive amusement for the pet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
However, the system of Yarbrough fails to explicitly state that the arm sleeve comprises an elastic portion to provide a secure grip.
Parrish teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (¶2 states that the invention relates to toys for use in playing with animals including dogs and cats.), the system of Parrish teaches an arm sleeve (10) comprising an elastic portion (27) to provide a secure grip (¶33 states that elastic band 27 provides a secure grip to holds the wrist of a user.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough to have the arm sleeve comprise an elastic portion to provide a secure grip as taught by Parrish with reasonable expectation of success to hold the wrist of a user during play.
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish fails to explicitly state that the interior cavity is sealed between the pet toy's arm and a hand section to prevent a user from inserting a finger into the pet toy's hand while providing a protective surface for the pet to chew and play.
Williams teaches a pet toy (11; Figs. 1-5 show that the hand puppet 11 may be used to play with a pet.) comprising a hand section (49’, 51’), wherein an interior cavity (55) is sealed between the pet toy's arm (49,51) and a hand section (49’, 51’) to prevent a user from inserting a finger into the pet toy's hand while providing a protective surface (57) for the pet to chew and play (Fig. 5 shows that an interior cavity 55 of the toy 11 is sealed between the toy’s arms 49,51 and hand section 49’,51’ so that user is prevented from inserting a finger 46a,46c into the toy’s hand 49’, 51’ while providing a protective surface 57 that a pet may chew and play with.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish to have the interior cavity is sealed between the pet toy's arm and a hand section to prevent a user from inserting a finger into the pet toy's hand while providing a protective surface for the pet to chew and play as taught by Williams with reasonable expectation of success to protect the fingers of the user during play (Williams, Abstract).
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish and Williams fails to explicitly state that the hand section includes a pocket.
Biasuzzi teaches an animated toy (shown in Fig. 1) comprising hand sections (14,15) that include a pocket (18,19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish and Williams to have the hand section include a pocket as taught by Biasuzzi with reasonable expectation of success to provide more sources of stimulation for the pet.
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, and Biasuzzi further teaches that the pocket is inaccessible to the user’s finger since the hand section is sealed from the pet toy’s arm (As shown in Fig. 5 of Williams, the hand sections 49’, 51’ are sealed from the pet toy’s arms 49, 51. Due to the modification by Biasuzzi, a pocket 18,19 would be placed in the hand sections 49’,51’ and would therefore be inaccessible to the user’s finger since the hand sections 49’, 51’ are sealed from the pet toy’s arms 49, 51.).
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, and Biasuzzi fails to explicitly state that the tail being positioned on a front side of the pet toy such that the arm sleeve is positioned behind the tail.
Snyder teaches a toy (10) comprising a tail (17) wherein the tail (17) is positioned on a front side of the toy such that an arm sleeve (15) is positioned behind the tail (Figs. 1-2 show that tail 17 is located on the front side of toy 10 such that arm sleeve 15 is positioned behind tail 17.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, and Biasuzzi to have the tail be positioned on a front side of the pet toy such that the arm sleeve is positioned behind the tail as taught by Snyder with reasonable expectation of success because such arrangement would allow a pet to play with the puppet’s tail more easily.
The system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, and Snyder fails to explicitly state that the tail has a crinkly material that provides auditory sounds when touched from external pressure.
Renforth teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a pet toy.), the system of Renforth teaches a pet toy (50) comprising a tail (53) that has crinkly material that provides auditory sounds when touched from external pressure (¶35 states that tail section 53 is made of a noisemaking material such as crinkle plastic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, and Snyder to have the tail have crinkly material that provides auditory sounds when touched from external pressure as taught by Renforth with reasonable expectation of success to provide more sources of stimulation for the pet.
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
Yarbrough further teaches that the interior surface (150) has a smooth surface (Fig. 1 shows that the interior surface 150 is a smooth surface.).
Regarding Claim 14, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
Yarbrough further teaches that the pet toy (200) is any one or more of a squirrel, fox, dog, cat, lion, bird, raccoon, insect, tiger, octopus, or fish (Fig. 2 shows that pet toy 200 may be in the form of a dog.).
Regarding Claim 15, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
Yarbrough further teaches that the limbs (230,240) are coated with a scent or sight stimulus (Fig. 2 shows that limbs 230 and 240 include patches which serve as a sight stimulus.).
Regarding Claim 16, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
However, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth fails to explicitly state that the limbs are adapted with a pocket inside which treats are positionable.
Biasuzzi teaches an animated toy (shown in Fig. 1) wherein the limbs (14,15) are adapted with a pocket (18,19) inside which treats are positionable (Treats may be positioned inside pockets 18 and 19.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth to have the limbs be adapted with a pocket inside which treats are positionable as taught by Biasuzzi with reasonable expectation of success to provide more sources of stimulation for the pet.
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
However, the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth fails to explicitly state that the arm sleeve is comprised of a scratch-resistant material providing an additional layer of protection for the body of the user while using the pet toy with their pet.
Parrish further teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (¶2 states that the invention relates to toys for use in playing with animals including dogs and cats.) an arm sleeve (10) comprising a scratch-resistant material providing an additional layer of protection for the body of the user while using the pet toy with their pet (¶8 states that arm sleeve 10 is formed of a fabric material of sufficient thickness and durability so that scratching or biting through the fabric of the mitt is minimized or completely avoided.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yarbrough as modified by Parrish, Williams, Biasuzzi, Snyder, and Renforth to have the arm sleeve be comprised of a scratch-resistant material providing an additional layer of protection for the user’s body while using the pet toy with their pet as taught by Parrish to avoid scratches, bites, and similar pet-related injuries that can occur while playing with a pet (Parrish, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, on Pg. 6, Applicant argues the following: “In short, not only is Yarbrough different, but it would not be possible to combine Yarbrough's design with the other references because Yarbrough's construction would make it impossible to implement the ergonomic and freedom in form that the Applicant's product provides. Indeed, the amount of plush material in Yarbrough would make the squeaky toy, at least, unusable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Looking at Fig. 1 of Yarborough, the squeaky toy 170 would still be usable even if the amount of padding material 120 and exterior material 110 was modified so that the exterior layer 110 is the largest layer, the interior layer 150 is the smallest layer, and the padding layer 120 is a size in between the exterior and interior surface sizes. As noted in the rejection of Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the exterior surface be a largest layer, the interior surface be a smallest layer, and the padding protective layer be a size in between the exterior and interior surface sizes to protect against wear and tear as well as protect the user’s hand during play, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, on Pgs. 6-7, Applicant argues the following: “Williams mentions that the ‘right hand 49’ and left hand 51' of the body member 17 is filled with stuffing material 57,’ such as ‘cotton or polyester type material.’ (Williams, Colum 2, Lines 50-54). There is nothing in Williams that states the ‘hand section of the pet toy being layered and harder relative to the pet toy's at least partially comprising plush material,’ as recited in the Applicant's claim 1. In this regard, the Applicant notes the Examiner's statement that ‘Guttmann is relied for its teaching of a toy (10) comprising a hand section (12) and that the hand section (12) of the pet toy is layered and harder....’ (Office Action, Page 17). However, as noted previously, the Applicant disagrees because Guttmann's construction would result in harm to a pet, as argued previously and incorporated herein.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In rejection of Claim 1, Williams is not relied upon for its teaching of the hand section of the pet toy being layered and harder relative to the pet toy's at least partially comprising plush material. Rather, Guttmann is relied upon for its teaching that the hand section of the pet toy is layered and harder relative to the pet toy's at least partially plush material exterior surface because due to the modification by Guttmann, the pet toy 200 would comprise hand sections 12 of Guttman with rubber pad 26 and wall portion 24 as layers. Rubber pad 26 would make the hand section 12 harder relative to the pet toy’s at least partially plush material exterior surface. Examiner notes that Guttmann is relied upon for its teaching of a rubber pad 26 and that the inclusion of a coloring matter 31 is optional (See Column 2 Lines 45-50; “may be readily filled with the material 31”.
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 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 ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643