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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 14 the “the” before “microcontroller” should be replaced with an “a” and in line 17 the “a” before microcontroller” should be replaced with a “the” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 12-14 the second instance of the phrase “the retractable trigger mechanically connected to the spring-activated projectile launcher and configured to release a dummy projectile” should be omitted since it is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 14-17 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 1 recites the limitation "the fighter aircraft" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, “a fighter aircraft assembly” is disclosed in line 16 making it unclear what is intended to be encompassed by the claim since the same feature appears to be claimed twice with different terminology. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the phrase “attached to the fighter aircraft” in line 3 being omitted.
Claim 14 discloses in line 3 having “an ergonomically shaped handle” wherein, the use of “ergonomically” makes the scope of the claim unascertainable since it is unknown what features the handle would be required to have in order to meet the limitation of being “ergonomically shaped”. In lines 15-16 the claim discloses “a translucent fighter aircraft assembly” as having “at least one spring-activated projectile launcher” but since the claim previously disclosed a fighter aircraft assembly and a projectile launcher associated therewith it is unclear how both the fighter aircraft and launcher relates back to the previously disclosed fighter aircraft and projectile launcher, making the scope of the claim unascertainable. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted the fighter aircraft assembly being translucent and having the spring-activated projectile launcher associated with the trigger being located on a wing or fuselage portion of the fighter aircraft assembly.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stilber (9782689), Tachau (2001/0049249) and Pearson (3010718). Stilber discloses an interactive hand-held toy apparatus (Fig. 1) having an elongated and translucent body (12), a waterproof speaker (29) releasably secured thereto and configured to connect to a smart device over a wireless network (claim 2), a strand of colored light emitting diodes (11) extending through the translucent body, a translucent (claim 6) toy object (14) releasably attached to a first end of the body to create a hermetic seal (column 3 lines 50-54) and a handle portion (18) coupled to a second end of the body and including a push button control switch (46), a microcontroller (36) configured to illuminate the strand of light emitting diodes when the push-button switch is depressed (column 4 lines 28-36), a multi-axis sensor (35) to sense a change in movement of the apparatus and sent an electrical signal to the microcontroller, a power switch (45) and a battery source (48) electrically connected to the microcontroller and multi-axis sensor (column 3 line 21 – column 4 line 13). A memory module (50) contains a plurality of pre-programmed sound effects corresponding to the toy object (column 4 lines 1-6). The speaker is further configured to play a timed pre-programmed sound effect in response to a signal from the multi-axis sensor or depressing the push-button switch and the push-button control switch is further configured to control a timed colored light scheme (column 3 lines 21-column 4 line 13). Stilber discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the toy object being a fighter aircraft assembly with a spring-activated projectile launcher for a dummy missile or bomb that is released when a trigger on the handle is actuated. Tachau discloses an interactive hand-held toy apparatus (abstract) having a toy object in the form of a fighter aircraft assembly (Fig. 14A) releasably connected to an ergonomically shaped handle (1408A) having a plurality of push buttons and controls for selectively controlling functions associated with the aircraft such as the launching of dummy bomb or missile projectiles (110A) operatively coupled to a fuselage of the aircraft (paragraph 37) and generating fighter aircraft sounds such as damage or explosion sounds and missile launch sounds (paragraphs 73, 76 and 83-85). Since both Stilber and Tachau disclose interactive toys attached to handles for coordinating sounds and movements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the toy object of Stilber to include a fighter aircraft assembly that includes launchable missile projectiles and sound effects that correspond to the fighter aircraft as taught by Tachau for the predictable result of providing a toy object with enhanced play value since it provides enhanced functionality and creates a more immersive and entertaining play experience. Pearson discloses a toy fighter aircraft apparatus that attaches to a handle (30) with a trigger (164) that is configured to launch dummy missile projectiles (136) from an outer fuselage portion of the fighter aircraft apparatus using a spring-activated projectile launcher (Fig. 5) connected to the trigger by a trigger rod (158) and the spring (142) is compressible to enable re-loading of the dummy projectile after launch of the projectile by squeezing the trigger (Figs. 1-2 & 5, column 4 lines 17-62). Since Tachau and Pearson both disclose fighter aircraft attached to handles and configured to fire dummy missile projectiles, it would have been obvious to configure the launcher of Tachau as a spring-activated projectile launcher as taught by Pearson for the predictable result of configuring the fighter aircraft with a known launching mechanism that enables repeated launching of a dummy missile from the fighter aircraft in an easily reuseable manner that provides increased entertainment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Stilber does not specifically disclose a fighter aircraft toy attached to the elongated and translucent body and Tachau does not disclose the elongated and translucent body with added features, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tachau discloses that it is known to incorporate control mechanisms into an elongated handle component used with a fighter aircraft as such teaching the desirability of combining toy aircraft with interactive handled toy assemblies.
In response to applicant's argument that Stilber and Tachau are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Stilber and Tachau are in the field of endeavor of handled interactive toys.
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