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
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Giudice (2022/0118373) and Lehmann (5041048). Del Giudice discloses a model toy having a main body (32), a container portion (56) provided in the main body having an opening that opens upward (Fig. 1) and a hemispherical bottom surface (Fig. 12), a discoid shaped rotational plate (34) provided within the container portion (Figs. 3 &12) having a first plate surface (42) and a second plate surface (44) opposite the first, a rotational shaft (36) configured to rotationally support the rotational plate in the container portion (Figs. 3, 12 & 22) and an electronic operation portion (Fig. 13) provided in the main body configured to perform a rotational operation (paragraph 91), wherein when the operation portion is operated the rotational plate is configured to switch between a first state where an inner portion of the container portion and the opening are partitioned while the first plate surface is oriented upward and a second state where the inner portion of the container portion and the opening are partitioned while the second plate surface is oriented upward (Fig. 12). The hemispherical shape of the bottom surface extends along a locus of a periphery of the rotational plate obtained by rotating the rotational plate (Fig. 12). A figure body (48) can be included with the model toy (Fig. 19), which is sized to allow the figure body to be positioned on the rotational plate for storage in a space formed by the partitioning of the inner portion by the rotational plate (paragraphs 63 & 90, Fig. 12). Del Giudice discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of including pairs of rotational shafts and gears configured for rotating the rotational plate. Lehmann discloses a toy device (Fig. 3) with a main body (12) configured with a container portion for receiving a rotational plate (14), wherein a first rotational shaft (53) is located inside the main body and includes a first rotational gear (52) on a first end and an operation portion (64) on a second end opposite the first end and the rotational plate includes a second rotational shaft (38) with a second rotational gear (50) on a first end of the rotational shaft that has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the first gear and the first and second rotational gears mesh together with the first rotational gear located below the second rotational gear such that rotation of the first gear rotates the rotational plate, second rotation shaft and second rotational gear together (Figs. 4-6). Since both Del Giudice and Lehmann relate to toys configured with rotational plates operated by operation portions and rotational shafts, it would have been obvious to modify the electronic configuration of Del Giudice with the mechanical configuration as taught by Lehmann for the predictable result of substituting known rotational control mechanisms to create the desired functionality of providing rotatable plates in toys to create interesting animation effects in a more simplified manner. In regard to the second rotational shaft and rotational plate being integral, the examiner notes that such a modification has been held to be obvious. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Giudice and Lehmann as applied above and further in view of Seda (5160288). Del Giudice and Lehmann disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the toy body simulating a cooking object. Seda discloses a model toy (Fig. 1) having a main body (10) with a container portion (12) provided in the main body which includes an upwardly positioned opening (Fig. 2). A rotational disc shaped plate (16) is provided inside the container portion and has a first plate surface with a figure body (17) imitating the shape of a cooking object and a second plate surface (18) opposite the first (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Seda to have the toy object of Del Giudice and Lehmann simulate a cooking object since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 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 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.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights