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 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 1, “a plurality of teeth” should read “the plurality of gear teeth”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: attachment device in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 limitation “attachment device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The attachment device is described as having 6 lobes in ¶39 but later in Claim 17 is described as having an output shaft of the motor and a nut. It is unclear if these are part of the attachment device or parts of the motor to connect to the attachment device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base 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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (CN203746331U see-translation; hereinafter Ji) in view of James M. Hair, III (US 5820439 A; hereinafter Hair).
Regarding claim 1, Ji discloses a system comprising: a perforated panel (horizontal bottom plate 1 and vertical bottom plate 7 shown in Fig 1), wherein the perforated panel comprises a plurality of holes disposed therethrough (plurality of holes shown in Fig 1); a gear comprising a plurality of gear teeth and a central bore (spur gear 4 with a plurality of teeth around and a central bore in the middle; Fig 4); an attachment device (bevel gear 8 shown in Fig 2 has an attachment device under it) configured to releasably attach the gear to the perforated panel (it is releasably attached because spur gear 4 is mounted on the shaft in ¶29 and these pieces can be combined depending on what is required as described in ¶6, which means that the pieces can be mounted and released for different combinations as shown in Fig 1-3), wherein the attachment device is configured to be disposed through the central bore of the gear (attachment device going through the middle of the gear as seen in Fig 1) and one of the plurality of holes of the perforated panel (going through one of the holes as seen in Fig 1). Ji does not explicitly disclose a motor in mechanical communication with the gear; and a safety clutch in mechanical communication with the motor.
However, Hair focuses on a toy motorcycle that drives a gear train through mechanical communication with a motor. This relates to Ji because mechanical gears can also be used for toys as described in the specification of the present invention and a motor can be used to drive them. Hair teaches a motor in mechanical communication with the gear (motor driving gear train; col 3 lines 35-36); and a safety clutch in mechanical communication with the motor (slip clutch 72 to limit the torque; col 3 lines 35-39).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair because driving the gear with a motor instead of doing it manually has the benefit of consistent and continuous rotation of the gears while power lasts.
Regarding claim 5, Ji discloses wherein the plurality of holes of the perforated panel are organized in a grid pattern (organized in grid pattern as shown in Fig 1), and wherein a spacing between the plurality of holes is optimized based at least in part on a size of the gear (in Fig 3 we can see the spacing is properly optimized for the size of the gears because they work as intended).
Regarding claim 6, Ji discloses wherein the system comprises a plurality of gears (multiple gears in Fig 4), and wherein two or more of the plurality of gears comprises a different quantity of teeth (gears with different sizes have different number of teeth as shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, Ji discloses wherein the gear is attached to the perforated panel by way of the attachment device such that the gear is prevented from translatory motion (mounter gear on the vertical bottom plate 7 is prevented from translatory motion as seen in Fig 1 or 2) and is allowed to rotate about an axis of rotation of the gear defined through the central bore (gears are connected in the middle as shown in all figures and can be revolved and rotated; ¶29).
Regarding claim 8, Ji discloses wherein the system comprises a plurality of gears each comprising a plurality of teeth (plurality of gears have a plurality of teeth and shown in Fig 4), and wherein the plurality of gears are configured to interlock with one another (gears interlocked as shown in Fig 1-3). Ji, as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose the plurality of gears are configured to interlock with one another such that rotation of one of the plurality of gears will cause rotation of all remaining gears of the plurality of gears.
However, Hair focuses on a toy motorcycle that drives a gear train through mechanical communication with a motor. This relates to Ji because mechanical gears can also be used for toys as described in the specification of the present invention and a motor can be used to drive them. Hair teaches the plurality of gears are configured to interlock with one another such that rotation of one of the plurality of gears will cause rotation of all remaining gears of the plurality of gears (motor driving gear train in col 3 lines 35-36 and this is inherent to the mechanism of a gear train because the moment you connect a gear to a motor, that gear becomes the driving gear for any other gear it touches. You CANNOT have a gear train without this mechanism).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair for the benefit of controlling and manipulating speed and torque from a single source, which maintains a constant and precise ratio between speed and torque between all gears.
Regarding claim 9, Ji discloses wherein the axis of rotation of the gear is defined through the central bore (gears connected through their central bore in all figures). Ji does not explicitly disclose wherein the motor causes the gear to rotate about an axis of rotation of the gear.
However, Hair focuses on a toy motorcycle that drives a gear train through mechanical communication with a motor. This relates to Ji because mechanical gears can also be used for toys as described in the specification of the present invention and a motor can be used to drive them. Hair teaches wherein the motor causes the gear to rotate about an axis of rotation of the gear (motor 68 driving the gear train 70 in col 3 lines 35-37 and Fig 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair because driving the gear with a motor through their central bore provides the benefit of preventing the gear from wobbling or rotating eccentrically. By design, the central bore is the most critical feature of the gear and must be rotated from its center, otherwise the force would be unbalanced.
Regarding claim 12, Ji discloses wherein the attachment device configured to releasably attach the gear to the perforated panel comprises: a bolt comprising a shaft configured to be disposed through the central bore of the gear (shaft of bolt going through the middle of the gear as shown in Figs 1-4) and one of the plurality of holes of the perforated panel (connected to a hole in the panel as shown in Fig 1-4). Ji does not explicitly disclose a nut configured to screw on to the bolt and attach the gear to the perforated panel.
However, this is a design choice, which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. The invention is intended to fix the gear on the panel and there are multiple ways to do that. There is no distinction in the specification as to why a nut would be used instead of any other way or combination to fix the gear on the panel.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair because there are multiple ways to attach a gear to a surface. Therefore, a nut could be replaced by any other mechanism that attaches a gear to a surface.
Regarding claim 13, Ji discloses wherein the bolt is disposed through the central bore of the gear (a bolt disposed through the center of the gear as shown in Figs 1-4), and wherein the central bore of the gear defines an axis of rotation of the gear (the middle of the gear defines the axis of rotation by design), and wherein the gear is permitted to rotate about the axis of rotation when the gear is attached to the perforated panel (gear is attached to the perforated panel as seen in Fig 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Ji does not explicitly disclose wherein the gear is a driving gear in direct mechanical communication with an output shaft of the motor; and wherein the system further comprises a driven gear in mechanical communication with the driving gear such that rotation of the driving gear causes rotation of the driven gear.
However, Hair focuses on a toy motorcycle that drives a gear train through mechanical communication with a motor. This relates to Ji because mechanical gears can also be used for toys as described in the specification of the present invention and a motor can be used to drive them. Hair teaches wherein the gear is a driving gear in direct mechanical communication with an output shaft of the motor (motor 68 driving gear train 70 inherently has a driving gear; col 3 lines 35-36 and Fig 2); and wherein the system further comprises a driven gear (inherent because the moment you connect a gear to a motor it inherently becomes the driving gear for all other gears that connect with it) in mechanical communication with the driving gear (shown in Fig. 2) such that rotation of the driving gear causes rotation of the driven gear (the rotation of the driving gear inherently causes the rotation of the driven gear).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair for the benefit of controlling and manipulating speed and torque from a single source, which maintains a constant and precise ratio between speed and torque between all gears.
Regarding claim 16, Ji does not explicitly disclose further comprising a battery in electrical communication with the motor.
However, Hair focuses on a toy motorcycle that drives a gear train through mechanical communication with a motor. This relates to Ji because mechanical gears can also be used for toys as described in the specification of the present invention and a motor can be used to drive them. Hair teaches further comprising a battery in electrical communication with the motor (battery in abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair for the benefit of having a power source that can provide the necessary energy for the motor to drive the gear train.
Regarding claim 17, Ji discloses wherein the attachment device comprises the output shaft is disposed through the one of the plurality of holes of the perforated panel and further disposed through the central bore of the gear (there is a shaft going through the central bore of the gear and through the perforated panel as shown in Fig 1-4). Ji does not explicitly an output shaft to be part of the motor, and a nut configured to screw on to the output shaft of the motor to releasably secure the gear to the perforated panel and the motor; wherein the motor causes the output shaft to rotate, and wherein rotation of the output shaft causes rotation of the gear.
However, Hair focuses on a toy motorcycle that drives a gear train through mechanical communication with a motor. This relates to Ji because mechanical gears can also be used for toys as described in the specification of the present invention and a motor can be used to drive them. Hair teaches wherein the attachment device comprises: an output shaft of the motor (there can be an output shaft of a motor connected to the gear train as shown in Fig 2); wherein the motor causes the output shaft to rotate, and wherein rotation of the output shaft causes rotation of the gear (this is inherent because here the motor drives the gear train and needs to rotate the shaft in order to rotate the gear; col 3 lines 35-36).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair for the benefit of controlling and manipulating speed and torque from a single source, which maintains a constant and precise ratio between speed and torque between all gears.
In regards to a nut configured to screw on to the output shaft of the motor to releasably secure the gear to the perforated panel and the motor, this is a design choice, which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. The invention is intended to fix the gear on the panel and there are multiple ways to do that. There is no distinction in the specification as to why a nut would be used instead of any other way or combination to fix the gear on the panel.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair because there are multiple ways to attach a gear to a surface. Therefore, a nut could be replaced by any other mechanism that attaches a gear to a surface.
Regarding claim 18, Ji does not explicitly disclose wherein the central bore of the gear comprises one or more of a quadrilateral or hexagonal geometry, and wherein the output shaft of the motor comprises a corresponding cross-sectional geometry such that rotation of the output shaft causes rotation of the gear.
However, Hair focuses on a toy motorcycle that drives a gear train through mechanical communication with a motor. This relates to Ji because mechanical gears can also be used for toys as described in the specification of the present invention and a motor can be used to drive them. Hair teaches wherein the output shaft of the motor comprises a corresponding cross-sectional geometry such that rotation of the output shaft causes rotation of the gear (here the motor 68 has a shaft and drives the gear train in col 3 lines 35-36, therefore if the output shaft of a motor rotates a gear, then it will be inherent that it has the corresponding cross-sectional geometry to engage and rotate that gear).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair because it necessary to have the corresponding geometry (like keys, splines, D-shaped shafts, etc.) for the benefit of creating a lock mechanism that allows the motor to rotate the gear.
In regards to the central bore of the gear comprises one or more of a quadrilateral or hexagonal geometry, this is a design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. The invention is intended to make the motor rotate the gear and the shaft needs to have a corresponding geometry in order to hold the gear in place and drive the gear. Multiple geometric shapes such as the ones provided by keys, splines, D-shaped shafts will allow for the gear to be locked in place and be rotated.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Hair because there are multiple geometric shapes used to attach a gear to a shaft of a motor. Therefore, a quadrilateral or hexagonal geometry could be replaced by any other geometric shape used that attaches a gear to a shaft to be rotated.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Hair in view of Danielle Collins (How do ball detent torque limiters work and when are they used; hereinafter Collins).
Regarding claim 2, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose wherein the safety clutch is configured to disengage the motor from the gear in response to experiencing a force or torque that exceeds a threshold.
However, Collins focuses on using ball detent torque limiters for rotating equipment such as motors, gearboxes, and fans. These limiters act as a safety mechanism when there is a torque overload and it relates to Ji because the gears used in the present invention are also rotating equipment that can have a torque overload. Collins teaches wherein the safety clutch is configured to disengage the motor from the gear in response to experiencing a force or torque (here a ball detent torque limiter acts as a safety clutch to disengage rotating equipment when there is a torque overload; 1st screenshot - 2nd paragraph) that exceeds a threshold (torque exceeding preset limit; 1st screenshot - 4th paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Collins for the benefit of preventing any type of catastrophic damage to the motor, gears, or connected components. Basically, with a torque limiter the motor can fully drive the gears but also quickly stop if the gear is stressed beyond its safe predetermined limits.
Regarding claim 3, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose wherein the safety clutch comprises ball bearings configured to provide controlled disengagement of the motor from the gear in response to the safety clutch receiving a force or torque that exceeds a threshold.
However, Collins focuses on using ball detent torque limiters for rotating equipment such as motors, gearboxes, and fans. These limiters act as a safety mechanism when there is a torque overload and it relates to Ji because the gears used in the present invention are also rotating equipment that can have a torque overload. Collins teaches wherein the safety clutch comprises ball bearings configured to provide controlled disengagement of the motor from the gear in response to the safety clutch receiving a force or torque (ball detent torque limiter uses ball bearings; 2nd screenshot - first figure) that exceeds a threshold (torque exceeding preset limit; 1st screenshot - 4th paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Collins for the benefit of preventing any type of catastrophic damage to the motor, gears, or connected components. Basically, with a ball detent torque limiter the motor can fully drive the gears but also quickly stop if the gear is stressed beyond its safe predetermined limits.
Regarding claim 4, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose wherein the safety clutch comprises: a plurality of ball bearings; and a compression spring, wherein the plurality of ball bearings receive tension from the compression spring in response to the compression spring being depressed.
However, Collins focuses on using ball detent torque limiters for rotating equipment such as motors, gearboxes, and fans. These limiters act as a safety mechanism when there is a torque overload and it relates to Ji because the gears used in the present invention are also rotating equipment that can have a torque overload. Collins teaches wherein the safety clutch comprises: a plurality of ball bearings (ball detent torque limiter uses a plurality of ball bearings; 2nd screenshot - first figure); and a compression spring (using rollers and springs; 1st screenshot - 3rd paragraph), wherein the plurality of ball bearings receive tension from the compression spring (tension by forcing together with spring force; 1st screenshot - 4th paragraph) in response to the compression spring being depressed (this is how a spring works, it can be pressed or depressed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Collins for the benefit of preventing any type of catastrophic damage to the motor, gears, or connected components. Basically, with a ball detent torque limiter the motor can fully drive the gears but also quickly stop if the gear is stressed beyond its safe predetermined limits.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Hair in view of Gurdin et al. (US 20110009028; hereinafter Gurdin).
Regarding claim 10, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose further comprising a magnet attached to the perforated panel.
However, Gurdin focuses on an educational toy that has magnets attached to a perforated base and rotary pieces that can show a gear train mechanism. This relates to Ji because Ji also has gears mounted on a surface simulating a gear train. Gurdin teaches a magnet attached to the perforated panel (rotational magnetic disk 74 attached to base board journal 110; ¶62).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Gurdin for the benefit of giving the perforated surface more flexibility with magnetic capabilities to attach to other surfaces or attach other magnetic pieces to the perforated surface.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Hair in view of WeeTect (What is Polycarbonate Injection Molding; hereinafter WeeTect).
Regarding claim 11, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose wherein the gear is constructed of a rigid polycarbonate material.
However, WeeTect shows that polycarbonate is used in various industries for being one of the strongest materials available that can be shaped to your particular need. It relates to Ji because it can be used to make gears or any other part for toys or educational structures. WeeTect teaches wherein the gear is constructed of a rigid polycarbonate material (polycarbonate through injection molding can be used to make the desired shape for your particular need, in this case it would be gears; 2nd Screenshot - Benefits of Polycarbonate Injection Molding).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of WeeTect because polycarbonate is a very durable and strong material that can be shaped into any particular shape you need through injection molding, which provides the benefit of making gears for toys or educational systems very durable.
Regarding claim 15, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose wherein the perforated panel is constructed of a rigid polycarbonate material.
However, WeeTect shows that polycarbonate is used in various industries for being one of the strongest materials available that can be shaped to your particular need. It relates to Ji because it can be used to make gears or any other part for toys or educational structures. WeeTect teaches wherein the perforated panel is constructed of a rigid polycarbonate material (polycarbonate through injection molding can be used to make the desired shape for your particular need, in this case it would be a perforated panel; 2nd Screenshot - Benefits of Polycarbonate Injection Molding).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of WeeTect because polycarbonate is a very durable and strong material that can be shaped into any particular shape you need through injection molding, which provides the benefit of making pieces for toys or educational systems very durable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Hair in view of Marc Gregory Martino (US20180193704 A1; hereinafter Martino).
Regarding claim 19, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose further comprising a fan attached to the gear, wherein rotation of the motor causes rotation of the gear and the fan.
However, Martino shows a self-propelled rocket toy that uses the functionality of connecting a fan with a gear and have both of them rotate through the power of a motor. Martino relates to Ji because mechanical gears can be used for toys and is this case the mechanical gear is also attached to a fan. Martino teaches further comprising a fan attached to the gear, wherein rotation of the motor causes rotation of the gear and the fan (motor 24 coupled to large gear 92 which is attached to the ducted fan 22; ¶140 and Fig 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Martino because the rotation of the motor will rotate the pieces connected to it, such as the gear and the fan, which provides the benefit of controlling both the gear and the fan in sync together with the motor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Hair in view of Ronald L. Klawitter (US 5030160 A; hereinafter Klawitter).
Regarding claim 20, Ji as modified by Hair, does not explicitly disclose further comprising a light attached to the gear.
However, Klawitter shows a light display apparatus for a toy, such as a push toy. Klawitter relates to Ji because mechanical gears can be used for toys and is this case the mechanical gear can also have a light attached to it. Klawitter teaches further comprising a light attached to the gear (light bracket gear 43 with lamps 72 on top of it; Fig 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to implement the teachings of Klawitter because the rotation of the motor will rotate the pieces connected to it, such as the gear and the light, which provides an aesthetically pleasing design that will glow at different speeds depending on the rotation of the gear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715