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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 the phrase “the active portion” would be clearer as “ the second active portion”. 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the first link" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a091) as being anticipated by Reynolds (7766227). Reynolds discloses a toy assembly having a base (12), a handle (68) with a graspable portion (76) that is movable by a user about an axis with respect to the base between first and second positions (Figs. 2 & 8), an active portion (14) continuously movable with respect to the base in response to the handle continuously moving between the first and second positions (Figs. 2 & 8), a linkage assembly (16) coupled between the active portion and handle partially received in a cavity (50) of the base (Fig. 9) and the toy assembly has an overall thickness dimension of less than an inch and the base has a thickness of less than half an inch (Fig. 5, column 2 line 53 – column 3 line 9).
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, 4-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogar (WO0045913A1). Bogar discloses a flat toy assembly (Fig.5) having a base (11), a handle (50) with a graspable portion (51) that is movable by a user about an axis with respect to the base between first and second positions (Fig. 3), a first active portion (61) and a second active portion (60) pivotably movable with respect to the base in response to the handle moving between the first and second positions (Figs. 2-3) and a linkage assembly having a first link (65) and a second link (63) coupled between the handle and active portions (Figs. 1-3). The handle includes a linking rod portion (52) and a stem (54) positioned between the linking rod portion and the graspable portion with the stem positioned along the axis (Fig. 3). The second active portion is pivotably coupled to the base for rotation about a second axis that is parallel to the rotation axis of the handle (Fig. 3). Bogar discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the overall thickness dimension of the toy assembly being less than one inch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the toy assembly with a thickness of less than an inch since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the same relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaustein (5988684) and Cooper (5098102). Blaustein discloses a flat toy assembly (Fig. 5) having a base (17) and a plurality of active portions (46) movable with respect to the base in response to 360 degree rotational movement of an actuator component (36) that could be manually operated (Fig. 8, column 7 lines 21-28) due to a linkage assembly coupled between the actuator component and active portions (Figs. 3 & 4E). The linkage assembly includes a first link (64) having a first end connected to the actuator component to form a first pivot (39) and a second end connected to a first end of a second link (66) to form a second pivot (Fig. 3). A second end of the second link is connected to a first active portion in the form of a truck bed (46). A second active portion in the form of a figurine (46) includes a guide rail (66) to be slidably movable with respect to the base along the guide rail in response to movement of the actuator component (Figs. 3 & 4E). The first link includes an intermediate portion (62) connected to the second active portion (Fig. 3). A third active portion in the form of a pivotably rotatable wheel (46e) is pivotably coupled to the base and the second active portion through the linkage assembly (Fig. 3). Blaustein discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the actuator component including a handle movable with respect to the base about an axis between first and second positions and the overall thickness of the toy assembly being less than one inch. Cooper discloses a flat toy assembly (Figs. 1-2) having active portions attached to a base (20) with an actuator component (32) connected with a handle (28) that is movable with respect to the base about an axis between first and second positions due to 360 degree rotation of the handle (column 3 line 61 – column 4 line 19). Since Blaustein discloses that the toy assembly can use a manual actuator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the rotatable actuator with a handle as taught by Cooper for the predictable result of configuring the toy with a known means to impart rotation and activation to a toy device to create animation effects with enhanced user control. In regard to the thickness of the toy assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the toy assembly with a thickness of less than an inch since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the same relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krivanek (2008/0032587) and Nelson (2013/0305574). Krivanek discloses a flat card toy assembly (Fig. 9-10B) having a base with a first front surface (134) and a second rear surface (168) opposite the first, a handle (138) extending from the first surface and movable with respect to the base about an axis between first and second positions, an active portion (300) movable with respect to the base in response to the handle moving between the first and second positions and a linkage assembly coupled between the handle and active portion (Figs. 9-10B, paragraph 40). Krivanek discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the second surface including an attachment means in the form of a magnet, suction cup or plurality of hooks and the overall thickness dimension of the toy assembly being less than one inch. Nelson discloses a flat card assembly having a base with a first front surface and a second rear surface opposite the first wherein the second surface includes an attachment means in the form of a hook or hanger (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Nelson to include an attachment means to the base of Krivanek for the predictable result of providing the assembly with increased utility by enabling it to be attached to a surface for display. In regard to the attachment assembly including a plurality of hooks, the examiner notes that such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts which has been held to be obvious unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the toy assembly with a thickness of less than an inch since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the same relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibaum (2396382). Maibaum discloses a flat toy assembly (Figs.1-2) having a base (10), a handle (46) movable with respect to the base about an axis between first and second positions, an active portion (50) movable with respect to the base in response to the handle moving between the first and second positions and a linkage assembly coupled between the handle and the active portion (Fig. 1). The linkage assembly includes a first link (38) that extends through a slot (48) formed in the handle, a second link (40) pivotably coupled to the handle and a third link (20) extends through a slot (12) formed in the second link such that the second and third links are positioned between the first link and the active member (Figs. 1 & 2, page 2 column 1 lines 7-44). Maibaum discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the overall thickness dimension of the toy assembly being less than one inch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the toy assembly with a thickness of less than an inch since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the same relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibaum. Maibaum discloses a flat toy assembly (Figs.1-2 and 17) having a base (10), a handle (46) movable with respect to the base about an axis between first and second positions, an active portion (124) movable with respect to the base in response to the handle moving between the first and second positions and a linkage assembly coupled between the handle and the active portion (Fig. 17). The linkage assembly includes a first link (50), a second link (66), a third link (122) pivotably coupled to the second link and the base (96) so as to be operatively positioned between the second link and the active portion and a fourth link (60) operatively positioned between the base and the active portion (Fig. 17, page 3 column 2 lines 5-52). Maibaum discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the overall thickness dimension of the toy assembly being less than one inch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the toy assembly with a thickness of less than an inch since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the same relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibaum. Maibaum discloses a flat toy assembly (Figs.1-2 and 16) having a base (10), a handle (46) movable with respect to the base about an axis between first and second positions, an active portion (114) movable with respect to the base in response to the handle moving between the first and second positions and a linkage assembly coupled between the handle and the active portion (Fig. 16). The linkage assembly includes a first link (104), a second link (120) positioned operatively between the base and the active portion and a third link (108) positioned operatively between the first link and the active portion (Fig. 16, page 3 column 1 line 49- column 2 line 4). Maibaum discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the overall thickness dimension of the toy assembly being less than one inch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the toy assembly with a thickness of less than an inch since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the same relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibaum. Maibaum discloses a flat toy assembly (Figs.1-2 & 12-13) having a base (10), a handle (46) movable with respect to the base about an axis between first and second positions, an active portion (92) movable with respect to the base in response to the handle moving between the first and second positions due to a scissor linkage assembly (94) coupled between the handle and the active portion (Fig. 12, page 2 column 2 line 66 – page 3 column 1 line 17). Maibaum discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the overall thickness dimension of the toy assembly being less than one inch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the toy assembly with a thickness of less than an inch since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the same relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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