DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to application filed 01/26/2024.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
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(b)
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 1-4 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 a method of making a personalized slime product in a retail setting by a customer comprising: … the customer selecting a glue base; the customer selecting a color to dye the glue base; the customer mixing the color and the glue base; the customer adding slime foam beads, shaving cream, or slime activator to the mixed color and glue base and mixing together; applying slime activator to the customer’s hands; the customer poking the slime against a surface using the individual’s fingertips; and the individual kneading the slime to the desired consistency to form a personalized slime product, rendering said claim indefinite because it is unclear whether a personalized slime product, the glue base, and slime activator is the same or different from the subsequent recitations of a personalized slime product, glue base, and slime activator. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: the mixed color, the customer’s hands, the individual’s fingertips, the individual kneading the slime to the desired consistency.... There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
The term “the desired consistency” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the desired consistency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is the desired consistency? How is the desired consistency measured? What is the scope. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the method of making a personalized slime product of claim 1, rendering said claim indefinite because it is unclear a personalized slime product is the same or different from the subsequent recitations of a personalized slime product. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the step of adding clay or artificial snow to the slime product. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the method of making a personalized slime product of claim 1, rendering said claim indefinite because it is unclear a personalized slime product is the same or different from the subsequent recitations of a personalized slime product. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites a method of making a handcrafted ice cream slime from a To-Go Slime Bar including: selecting a type of ice cream slime from a slime bar menu; … adding slime foam beads, shaving cream, or slime activator dependent on which type of ice cream slime the customer ordered, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether a type of ice cream slime is the same or different from the subsequent recitation of type of ice cream slime. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites: the glue, the customer, the slime, the ice cream slime product. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
The terms “mixing the color and the glue together until these parts can no longer be separated or viewed independent of each other,” “vigorously mixing,” and “a desired consistency” in claim 4 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “mixing the color and the glue together until these parts can no longer be separated or viewed independent of each other,” “vigorously mixing,” and “a desired consistency” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What does it mean to mix the color and the glue together until these parts can no longer be separated or viewed independent of each other and to vigorously mix? How is mixing until these parts can no longer be separated or viewed independent of each other and vigorously measured? What is a desired consistency? How is a desired consistency measured? What is the scope? Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a method and claim 4 is directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
making a personalized slime product in a retail setting by a customer comprising: the customer identifying a type of slime to be made;
the customer selecting a glue base;
the customer selecting a color to dye the glue base;
the customer mixing the color and the glue base;
the customer adding slime foam beads, shaving cream, or slime activator to the mixed color and glue base and mixing together;
applying slime activator to the customer’s hands;
the customer poking the slime against a surface using the individual’s fingertips; and the individual kneading the slime to the desired consistency to form a personalized slime product.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions related to a person customizing an item by selecting ingredients to add to the slime toy and mixing the ingredients together using hands. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims do not recite additional elements.
The claims do not recite any elements that amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, no additional elements were identified as additional limitations.
The limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ing-GILBERT et al. (US Pub. No. 20190370873 A1, hereinafter “Ing-GILBERT”).
Regarding claim 1.
Ing-GILBERT discloses a method of making a personalized slime product in a retail setting by a customer comprising (Ing-GILBERT, [0004]: workshop for customers to customize slime toy):
the customer identifying a type of slime to be made; the customer selecting a glue base; the customer selecting a color to dye the glue base (Ing-GILBERT, [0008]: select type and form of slime; [0043]: selecting slime form comprising ingredients, colors, and add-ins; [0060]: borax is gelling agent; [0056] The most common ingredients used in the production of toy Slime 100 are water, polymeric materials, gelling agents, colorants, fillers, and preservatives);
the customer mixing the color and the glue base; the customer adding slime foam beads, shaving cream, or slime activator to the mixed color and glue base and mixing together; applying slime activator to the customer’s hands; the customer poking the slime against a surface using the individual’s fingertips; and the individual kneading the slime to the desired consistency to form a personalized slime product (Ing-GILBERT, [0070]: customer mixes all ingredients by hand and in between fingers (e.g. squeezing, stretching, pulling, rolling, and feeling slime); [0056]: ingredients used in the production of toy Slime 100 are water, polymeric materials, gelling agents, colorants, fillers, and preservatives; [0046]: add-in includes beads to add to slime; [0064]: select the amount of the ingredients based on consistency of the selected Slime toy and then mix; [0066]: get the ingredients to mix and create a squishy Slime with an accurate consistency).
Regarding claim 2
Ing-GILBERT discloses the method of making a personalized slime product of claim 1, wherein the personalized slime product is a butter slime or a cloud slime and further includes the step of adding clay or artificial snow to the slime product to form the personalized slime product (Ing-GILBERT, [0055]: butter slime and snowflakes).
Regarding claim 3
Ing-GILBERT discloses the method of making a personalized slime product of claim 1, further including dressing the personalized slime product with one or more of: glitter, slime charms, slime scents, slime sprinkles or clay pieces (Ing-GILBERT, [0063]: glitter and scents; [0046]: (glitters, beads, soap flakes, Gold Leafs) 25 and Scents comprising Lavender, Eucalyptus, Coconut, Lemon, Honey and other decorative materials).
Regarding claim 4
Ing-GILBERT discloses a method of making a handcrafted ice cream slime from a To-Go Slime Bar including (Ing-GILBERT, [0004]: workshop for customers to customize slime toy; [0006]: stations to customize slime; [0070]: hand mixing; [0055]: butter slime; FIG. 4, [0045]: fluffy slime):
selecting a type of ice cream slime from a slime bar menu; scooping an ice cream slime; selecting a glue base; selecting a color of paint or food coloring to dye the glue (Ing-GILBERT, [0008]: select type and form of slime; [0043]: selecting slime form comprising ingredients, colors, and add-ins; [0060]: borax is gelling agent; [0056] The most common ingredients used in the production of toy Slime 100 are water, polymeric materials, gelling agents, colorants, fillers, and preservatives; [0055]: butter slime; [0070]: dig in the slime; FIG. 4, [0045]: fluffy slime);
mixing the color and the glue together until these parts can no longer be separated or viewed independent of each other; adding slime foam beads, shaving cream, or slime activator dependent on which type of ice cream slime the customer ordered and vigorously mixing; applying activator, kneading and/or poking the slime to a desired consistency; packaging the ice cream slime product (Ing-GILBERT, [0005]: mixing and making a Slime toy with an accurate viscosity; [0070]: customer mixes all ingredients by hand and in between fingers (e.g. squeezing, stretching, pulling, rolling, and feeling slime); [0056]: ingredients used in the production of toy Slime 100 are water, polymeric materials, gelling agents, colorants, fillers, and preservatives; [0046]: add-in includes beads to add to slime; [0064]: select the amount of the ingredients based on consistency of the selected Slime toy and then mix; [0066]: get the ingredients to mix and create a squishy Slime with an accurate consistency; [0055]: butter slime; [0021]: making a Slime with 100% accurate consistency; [0071]: at final station the customer gets a lid from the lid counter 66 and fastens the container 200 and attach the sticker 75 on the container 200 and goes to the check-out desk for payment to take a customized squishy slime home; FIG. 4, [0045]: fluffy slime).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Williams et al. (US Pub. No. 20240350935 A1) related to kits, and methods of making and using an mixture that forms a goo-like play compound, Davidson et al. (US Patent No.10974159 B2), and non-patent literature, Mechanical characterization and optical microscopy of homemade slime and the effect of some common household products, related to the synthesis of homemade slime and investigate how adding different household chemicals are used to make slime.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688