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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 3-5 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.
Claims 1 and 5 both disclose in the last line of each claim that the first rotational gear is “located on a lower side” which is unclear since it is incomplete, it is unknown relative to what the first rotational gear is being compared to determine a possible positioning. For the purposes of examination the claims will be interpreted as “the first rotational gear is located below the second rotational gear”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rotational shaft" in lines 2, 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the independent claim from which this claim depends discloses first and second rotational shafts and as such it is unknown which of the shafts is intended to include the locking protrusion and as such the scope of the claim is unascertainable. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as the locking protrusion being included on the first rotational shaft.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rotational shaft" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the independent claim from which this claim depends discloses first and second rotational shafts and as such it is unknown which of the shafts is intended to include the regulation protrusion and as such the scope of the claim is unascertainable. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as the locking protrusion being included on the first rotational shaft.
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 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 (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.
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 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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
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