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 § 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 17-18 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 17 recites the limitation "the rotation member" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnarski (2014/0340234), Rago (2007/0281581) and Eifes (2021/0023470). Wojnarski discloses a flag display device having a handle (paragraph 102) with grips (102), a flag member (12) formed from fabric such as cloth or plastic (paragraph 17) coupled to a top end of the handle (Fig. 1), an illumination member in the form of a plurality of light emitting diodes (14) embedded in the flag member for selective illumination (paragraph 32) defining at least a first pattern with a first color to emulate a first country or team flag (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 2, 18 and 29). The flag display device further includes an audio member (34) with a speaker (4) configured for playing audio or music associated with the country or team emulated by the pattern and colors of the flag (paragraphs 23-24 & 31-32). The flag can be configured to have any desired shape (paragraphs 17 & 27). Wojnarski discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the flag being shaped with curved ends, the illuminated flag member being attached to the handle by a rotation member to allow both rotation and hoisting of the flag and an adhesive on the bottom end of the handle. Rago discloses a display device (Fig. 2) having a handle (106) with a fabric illumination assembly (102) rotatably coupled to a top of the handle (paragraph 27) by a rotation member (124) that can be selectively actuated to rotate the fabric illumination assembly to both rotate and hoist the fabric illumination member creating waves (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 23-32). The display device can provide rotation, illumination and sound features (paragraphs 52-53) and further includes batteries (120) for powering the components of the display device and memory (1102) for storing control information for the display device (paragraphs 105-106). Since Wojnarski and Rago both disclose hand-held fabric illumination display devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle of Wojnarski to include a rotation member, batteries and memory as taught by Rago for the predictable result of creating a more dynamic and interesting display that provides enhanced functionality and utility by enabling increased visual effects to be created. Eifes discloses a rotation device with a handle wherein a bottom end of the handle can be configured with an adhesive (200) for securing to a surface (paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wojnarski and Rago to include an adhesive bottom surface as taught by Eifes for the predictable result of giving the device enhanced utility and functionality by enabling the device to be securely displayed on a surface without tipping over. In regard to the flag having curved ends, the examiner notes that changes in shape have been held to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnarski, Rago and Eifes as applied for claim 1 above and further in view of Roedle (WO2008101721A1). The references discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the flag display device configured such that the plurality of light emitting diodes can selectively illuminate to define a second pattern and a second color to emulate a different country’s flag as compared to the first. Roedle discloses a fabric flag with embedded light emitting diodes that are configured for selectively illuminating a first country’s flag with a first pattern and first color and then selectively illuminating a second country’s flag with a second pattern and a second color (Figs. 1a-b, description pages 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flag and illumination member of Wojnarski as taught by Roedle for the predictable result of enabling enhanced versatility and utility by enabling the pattern and colors of the flag to be changed providing enhanced visual effects.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnarski, Rago and Binder (2012/0244969). Wojnarski discloses a flag display device having a handle (paragraph 102) with grips (102), a flag member (12) formed from fabric such as cloth or plastic (paragraph 17) coupled to a top end of the handle (Fig. 1), an illumination member in the form of a plurality of light emitting diodes (14) embedded in the flag member for selective illumination (paragraph 32) defining at least a first pattern with a first color to emulate a first country or team flag (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 2, 18 and 29). The flag display device further includes an audio member (34) with a speaker (4) configured for playing audio associated with the country or team emulated by the pattern and colors of the flag (paragraphs 23-24 & 31-32). The flag can be configured to have any desired shape (paragraphs 17 & 27). Wojnarski discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the flag being shaped with curved ends, the illuminated flag member being attached to the handle by a rotation member to allow both rotation and hoisting of the flag and having flash memory configured to store music and illumination patterns. Rago discloses a display device (Fig. 2) having a handle (106) with a fabric illumination assembly (102) rotatably coupled to a top of the handle (paragraph 27) by a rotation member (124) that can be selectively actuated to rotate the fabric illumination assembly to both rotate and hoist the fabric illumination member creating waves (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 23-32). The display device can provide motorized rotation, illumination and sound features (paragraphs 52-53) and further includes batteries (120) for powering the components of the display device and memory (1102) for storing control information for the display device (paragraphs 105-106). Since Wojnarski and Rago both disclose hand-held fabric illumination display devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle of Wojnarski to include a rotation member, batteries and memory as taught by Rago for the predictable result of creating a more dynamic and interesting display that provides enhanced functionality and utility by enabling increased visual effects to be created. Binder discloses a device that can include motors (paragraph 112), illumination (paragraph 9) and musical sound (paragraph 10) features wherein control of the features is stored in flash memory (paragraph 12, 63) and the features are powered by a rechargeable battery (paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Binder to modify the memory and battery of Wojnarski and Rago to include flash memory and a rechargeable battery for the predictable results of using known elements for storing control information and powering the device, respectively. In regard to the flag having curved ends, the examiner notes that changes in shape have been held to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnarski, Rago and Binder as applied for claim 11 above and further in view of Roedle (WO2008101721A1). The references discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the flag display device configured such that the plurality of light emitting diodes can selectively illuminate to define a second pattern and a second color to emulate a different country’s flag as compared to the first. Roedle discloses a fabric flag with embedded light emitting diodes that are configured for selectively illuminating a first country’s flag with a first pattern and first color and then selectively illuminating a second country’s flag with a second pattern and a second color (Figs. 1a-b, description pages 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flag and illumination member of Wojnarski as taught by Roedle for the predictable result of enabling enhanced versatility and utility by enabling the pattern and colors of the flag to be changed providing enhanced visual effects.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnarski, Rago and Binder as applied for claim 11 above and further in view of Yearick (6296542). Wojnarski, Rago and Binder disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the rotation member configured to rotate between 0.5 and 10 rotations per second. Yearick discloses a hand-held rotation device for creating animation effects having a motor (16) configured to provide rotations of 175 RPM which is about 2.91 revolutions per second (column 2 lines 35-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Yearick to operate a rotation member so as to have rotations between 0.5-10 rotations per second for the predictable result of operating a motor at a speed that can create interesting animation effects.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnarski, Rago, Binder and Yearick as applied for claim 17 above and further in view of Roedle (WO2008101721A1). The references discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the flag display device configured such that the plurality of light emitting diodes can selectively illuminate to define a second pattern and a second color to emulate a different country’s flag as compared to the first. Roedle discloses a fabric flag with embedded light emitting diodes that are configured for selectively illuminating a first country’s flag with a first pattern and first color and then selectively illuminating a second country’s flag with a second pattern and a second color (Figs. 1a-b, description pages 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flag and illumination member of Wojnarski as taught by Roedle for the predictable result of enabling enhanced versatility and utility by enabling the pattern and colors of the flag to be changed providing enhanced visual effects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-18 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