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 .
Status of Claims
In an amendment filed 9/8/2026 with an RCE, Applicant amended claims 1, 5, and canceled claims 4, 13-16. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 17-21 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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 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 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 1-3, 6-8, 12, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill US Pat. No. 1,644,027 in view of Hillis et al. US Pat. No. 9,259,658.
In Reference to Claim 1
O’Neill teaches:
A children's toy (child play toy, Fig. 1-3, page 1, line 4-8) comprising:
a shell defining a hollow interior space (body having an external shell/skin 4 with a hollow interior for filling material 2), the shell comprising a frontal lobe (head having a harder rubber end/lobe 3 forms a frontal lobe), a rear lobe (rear hard rubber section 3 at feet 7 form at least one rear lobe), and a plurality of generally spherical segments coupling the frontal lobe to the rear lobe (the body of the doll has multiple “generally” spherical lobes/sections as there are multiple rounded/semi-spherical sections between the hard rubber lobes 3 of the head and feet, including arms, hands, neck, torso, legs, etc.);
a filling housed by the shell, the filling situated within the hollow interior space (sponge foam filling 2 is placed within the outer skin 4 to fill the hollow interior space of the toy body, Fig. 1, page 1 lines 40-78); and
a band extending through the hollow interior space from a first longitudinal end of the shell to a second longitudinal end of the shell that is opposite the first longitudinal end, the band comprising an elastic material (extensible metal spring 1 (metal springs are “elastic materials” as they deform under force and return to their original shape and follow Hook’s law)), the band coupled at a first end to a first interior surface on an inner side of the frontal lobe (the top end of band 1 is fixed to an interior surface of the hard rubber portion 3 in the head at a first longitudinal end of the shell, Fig. 1), and coupled at a second end to a second interior surface on an inner side of the rear lobe (the bottom end of the band 1 is fixed to an interior surface in the hard rubber portion 3 of a foot 7 at a second opposite longitudinal end, Fig. 1-2, page 1 lines 36-68),
wherein the shell and the band are configured to stretch from a contracted state to an expanded state in at least a first direction, the first direction being generally parallel with a direction in which the band longitudinally extends through the hollow interior space (the body and band are formed of flexible elastic material capable of stretching along the longitudinal axis of the body and band to form an expanded state longer than the at rest contracted state of Fig. 1 with no force applied by pulling the feet away from the head, Fig. 1, page 1 lines 9-24, 36-57),
in the contracted state, a length of the shell is less than a length of the shell in the expanded state (the entire toy, including the shell, in the contracted/rest state would be less in length than an expanded state where force is applied at the head and foot ends of the toy to stretch the elastic materials of the band and body), and
the band being biased to the contracted state and the band biasing the shell to the contracted state (the toy and elastic parts thereof (band, body) would inherently be biased to the contracted/at rest state when no external forces are applied to the body), wherein the frontal lobe and the rear lobe maintain their shape when the children's toy transitions from the contracted state to the expanded state (the hard rubber portions 3 at the frontal lobe/head and the rear lobe/foot 7 keep those portions in the same maintained shape during use, page 1 lines 45-57).
O’Neill fails to teach:
The shell having specifically a plurality of longitudinally aligned and consecutively ordered generally spherical segments coupling the frontal lobe to the rear lobe.
Further, Hillis teaches:
A similar child’s toy having a resilient body having a plurality of generally spherical segments/lobes coupled between a front and rear lobe and an elastic member extending through a length of the body (the body 12 has a plurality of connected lobes/body portions 16a-f along a length of the body between a head/front lobe 18 and a rear lobe 20, and a central band 34 having a first end connected to the front lobe and a rear end connected to the rear lobe and extending along the longitudinal length of the body in the hollow interior of the body, and filler material within the hollow interior body to form a desired animal shape, Fig. 1-20, Col. 3 lines 41-54, Col. 3 line 65 – Col. 4 line 2).
Though O’Neill doesn’t specifically teach the body having a plurality of longitudinally aligned and consecutive generally spherical lobes (instead teaches an elongate cylindrical section/body with rounded/partially spherical sections (neck, torso, arms, hands, legs, etc.) similar in shape to a plurality of connected spherical lobes), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the body as a plurality of lobes in order to allow the body to deform and take different shapes more easily as is known in the art or to allow the toy to take the shape of a different type of known character or animal (including a generally linear longitudinally extended shape, ex. caterpillar/glow worm) as taught by Hillis (Col. 3 lines 41-54) as the use of differently shapes dolls and animals in the art is a common design choice modification that is common and known in the art. Further, modification of the shape of the body portions or orientation of the body portions is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70), it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), and it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). In this case, body being formed of longitudinally/linearly connected generally spherical lobes is known in the art as taught by Hillis and Hillis further teaches that the shape or animal shape is an obvious modification, and the shape/design of the body does not materially change the function of the toy (resiliently movable and biased to the rest state) and each of these shapes/orientations are commonly known and used in the art and therefore the selection of any of these orientations/shapes is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 2
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises a material selected from the group consisting of long pile polyester, short pile polyester, velvet, velboa, shag, animal fur, artificial fur, cotton, silk, wool, bamboo, nylon, rayon, spandex, acrylic, and combinations thereof (O’Neill: shell 4 is formed of resilient stretchable materials such as soft, flexible, elastic material, such as sponge rubber, or solid skin rubber page 1 lines 9-14, 41-78 or the like of which numerous of the listed materials would apply to meet and are known resilient, flexible, plastic, rubber, and/or similar materials (ex. spandex, nylon, rayon, polyester, etc.) and Hillis teaches the use of a plush stuffed animal body which is generally formed of polyester, artificial fur, woven fabric (cotton, bamboo, wool, etc.) or combinations thereof of similar materials, Col. 3 lines 41-54).
Though O’Neill doesn’t recite specific shell materials listed explicitly, numerous of the claimed materials would be suitably used as the described shell material of O’Neill and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that other known and similar materials may be used and Hillis teaches the claimed materials that are generally used to form plush stuffed animal body outer surface (Col. 3 lines 41-54). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the selection of a material used for portions of the toy to have been any of the listed commonly known materials in the art as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). In this case, the listed materials are commonly known and used materials in the plush toy art and therefore the selection of any of these materials is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 3
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the filling comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, cotton, bamboo, wool, polyethylene foam, polyurethane foam, polystyrene foam, and combinations thereof (O’Neill: filler 2 is generally sponge foam rubber (generally formed of polyurethane) or any other known similar material, page 1 lines 9-14, 41-78, of which numerous of the claimed materials would apply. Hillis: filling 15 may include cotton, polyester, foam rubber, or other similar materials, Col. 3 lines 51-53).
Though O’Neill doesn’t recite specific filler materials, numerous of the claimed materials would be suitably used as the described filler material of O’Neill and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that other known and similar materials may be used and Hillis teaches that these materials are known and used in the art as filling (Col. 3 lines 51-53). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the selection of a material used for portions of the toy to have been any of the listed commonly known materials in the art as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). In this case, the listed materials are commonly known and used materials in the flexible/plush toy art and therefore the selection of any of these materials is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 6
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the filling is configured to stretch along with the band and the shell from the contracted state to the expanded state (O’Neill: the resilient sponge foam filling 2 is placed within the resilient outer skin 4 to fill the hollow interior space of the toy body so that they are together capable of stretching along the longitudinal axis of the body and band to form an expanded state by applying force and stretching the body and filling together to a state that is longer than the at rest contracted state of Fig. 1 by pulling the feet away from the head, page 1 lines 9-24, 36-57).
In Reference to Claim 7
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the first end is mechanically coupled to the first interior surface (O’Neill: the top end of band 1 is mechanically fixed via embedding/fastening/molding to an interior surface of the hard rubber portion 3 in the head at a first longitudinal end of the shell, Fig. 1-2, page 1 lines 36-68).
In Reference to Claim 8
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 7, wherein the second end is mechanically coupled to the second interior surface (O’Neill: the bottom end of the band 1 is mechanically fixed (embedded in/fixed thereto/molded with) or equivalently fastened to an interior surface in the hard rubber portion 3 of a foot 7 at a second opposite longitudinal end, Fig. 1-2, page 1 lines 36-68).
In Reference to Claim 12
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises a plurality of lobes ordered longitudinally along the shell (Hillis: lobes 16a-f are longitudinally ordered along the length of the shell body to resemble a caterpillar, Fig. 1, Col. 3 lines 41-54).
In Reference to Claim 17
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the frontal lobe comprises an appendage extending from the frontal lobe (Hillis: frontal lobe 18 has two appendages extending therefrom to resemble a caterpillar as is known and commonly used in the art, Fig. 1).
Though O’Neill doesn’t specifically teach the front lobe/head portion having an extended bulbous member aesthetically representing a caterpillar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the head with features of a caterpillar (as taught by Hillis), such as bulbous appendages extending from the head, or any other similar aesthetic design in order to mimic the shape of another known and similar animal, such as a caterpillar, as this shape of animal design is known and common in the art as taught by Hillis (Col. 3 lines 41-54) and as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the shape of the body may take other known and commonly used designs, such as those resembling different characters or animals, such as a caterpillar. Further, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), and it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). In this case, body being formed with bulbous appendages extending from the head of the toy is known in the art as taught by Hillis, Hillis teaches that the shape of the animal toy is an obvious modification, and the shape/design of the body does not materially change the function of the toy and the claimed shapes/animal aesthetic features are commonly known and used in the art and therefore the selection of any of these orientations/shapes is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 18
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 17, wherein the appendage comprises a stem coupled to the frontal lobe at a first end of the appendage, and a bulb situated at a second end of the appendage, the second end of the appendage opposite the first end of the appendage (Hillis: unlabeled thin stems extend from the front lobe/head 18 to a second end having a bulbous end portion, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 19
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 18, wherein the bulb comprises a diameter greater than a diameter of the stem (Hillis: the bulbous end of the appendage is wider and greater in diameter than the thinner stem member to mimic a caterpillar shape, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 20
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein each generally spherical segment is mechanically coupled to an adjacent segment at a seam (Hillis: Fig. 1 shows each adjacent segment integrally or mechanically sewn into shape together).
Further, though Hillis doesn’t explicitly recite that the spherical segments are mechanically coupled to an adjacent segment at a seam (via sewing), Hillis appears to show that the segments are most likely connected to one another using seams to create the generally spherical shapes of the generally spherical segments shown (16a-f appear to be formed by sewing adjacent segments to one another at a seam), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of joining adjacent segments to form the same body shape as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 UPSQ 177, 179), and it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). In this case the adjacent segments being formed using a seam does not change the resulting body shape or function of the toy in any way and each of these joining materials/methods are commonly known and used in the art and therefore the selection of any of these materials/shapes is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 21
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the band extends generally along a longitudinal axis of the children's toy through a central portion of the hollow interior space (O’Neill: the band 1 is fixed to an interior surface in the hard rubber portion 3 of the head at one end and to a foot 7 at a second opposite longitudinal end, the band 1 extending generally along a longitudinal axis of the toy body through the center of the hollow interior space filled with material 2 therein, Fig. 1-2, page 1 lines 36-68).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill and Hillis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Theel US Pat. No. 6,623,328.
In Reference to Claim 5
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the elastic material is flat braid elastic or round elastic cord (O’Neill: wire spring 1 is a round metal “cord” which is an “elastic material” as it deforms under force and returns to its original shape and follows Hook’s law))).
Further, Theel teaches:
A flexible child’s toy having a resilient body formed of a plurality of consecutive generally spherical sections between front and rear lobes (160-190) and a round elastic cord formed of elastic material attached at opposite ends to the front lobe and rear lobe and extending along a longitudinal length of the body having a plurality of generally spherical segments/lobes coupled between a front and rear lobe and an elastic member extending through a length of the body to allow the body to stretch to an expanded state and return to a rest state (elastic round cord 210 extends between front and rear lobes (Fig. 2), the cord may be elastic and extend through all of the segment of the toy body, Col. 3 line 42 – Col. 4 line 4).
Though O’Neill doesn’t recite the elastic material being flat braid elastic or round elastic cord, the resilient elastic member of O’Neill functions in the same manner as the claimed materials to allow for elastic stretching, bending, and contraction of the body during use and either material may be suitably used in this scenario and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that other known and similar materials may be used and Theel teaches that these materials are known and used in the art to provide a resilient elastic biasing member within a flexible toy body (Col. 3 line 42 – Col. 4 line 4). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the selection of a material used for portions of the toy to have been any of the listed commonly known materials in the art as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). In this case, the listed materials are commonly known and used materials in the flexible/plush toy art and therefore the selection of any of these materials is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill and Hillis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabrera US Pat. No. 8,628,372.
In Reference to Claims 9-11
O’Neill as modified by Hillis teaches:
The children’s toy of claim 1, wherein the first end is mechanically coupled to the first interior surface and wherein the second end is mechanically coupled to the second interior surface (O’Neill: the top end of band 1 is mechanically fixed via embedding/fastening/molding to an interior surface of the hard rubber portion 3 in the head at a first longitudinal end of the shell, and the bottom end of the band 1 is mechanically fixed via molding or equivalent means to an interior surface in the hard rubber portion 3 of a foot 7 at a second opposite longitudinal end, Fig. 1-2, page 1 lines 36-68).
O’Neill fails to teach:
The ends being chemically coupled or head bond coupled to the interior surfaces.
Further, Cabrera teaches:
A similar child’s toy having a stuffed plush body and a movable actuated wire (toy body 10 with substrate/inner surface 14 and movable wire(s) 14 coupled at ends 16a/b to the substrate, Fig. 1-10) therein to cause movement of the toy during use, the wire being coupled to the substrate using mechanical coupling/thread, thermal/head bonding, chemical bonding, or any other similar known means, Col. 8 lines 22-32).
Though O’Neill doesn’t specifically teach the band being coupled to the first and second ends of the body using specifically chemical or head bonding couplings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a different known coupling means, such as thermal/heat bonding or chemical bonding as these are known and commonly used equivalent coupling means in the art as taught by Cabrera (Col. 8 lines 22-32), and further the selection of a coupling material or means used to couple the band to the body of the toy to have been any of the commonly known means or materials in the art is obvious as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). In this case, the band coupling means being heat-bonding, chemical, or mechanically bonding does not change the function of the toy and each of these types/materials are commonly known and used in the art as taught by Cabrera and therefore the selection of any of these couplings/materials is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theel US Pat. No. 6,623,328.
In Reference to Claim 1
Theel teaches:
A children's toy (toy capable of use with a child, Fig. 1-2) comprising:
a shell defining a hollow interior space (the outer surface of the stuffed body forms a shell with a hollow interior for holding stuffing material therein), the shell comprising a frontal lobe (head/front lobe 160), a rear lobe (tail or last portion 190, Fig. 1, 160, Fig. 2), and a plurality of generally spherical segments coupling the front lobe to the rear lobe (central body portions 170-180, Fig. 1, or 170, Fig. 2, are coupled between the head and tail ends to form a main body, Fig. 1-2);
a filling housed by the shell, the filling situated within the hollow interior space (filling of loose stuffing or rolled cloth/fabric/denim are placed within the shell, col. 2 lines 39-46); and
a band extending through the hollow interior space from a first longitudinal end of the shell to a second longitudinal end of the shell that is opposite the first longitudinal end (band 210 extends through the hollow interior space of the body through the interior and along a longitudinal axis of the body with a first end secured to the head 160 and the second end extending through or knotted at or secured to the rear lobe, Fig. 1-2, col. 3 line 42 – col. 4 line 4) the band comprising an elastic material (elastic round cord, col. 3 lines 42-50), the band coupled at a first end to a first interior surface on an inner side of the frontal lobe (band 35 has a first end 37 coupled to an inner side/surface at anchor 43 of the front lobe 40, Fig. 1), and coupled at a second end to a second interior surface on an inner side of the rear lobe (band 210 has a second end is coupled to an inner surface on the interior of the rear lobe 30, col. 3 line 51 – col. 4 line 4, Fig. 1),
wherein the shell and the band are configured to stretch from a contracted state (Fig. 1) to an expanded state in at least a first direction (stretchable along the cord length by holding a head end while the rear end/lobe is pulled, Fig. 2, Col. 3 line 42 – Col. 4 line 4), the first direction being generally parallel with a direction in which the band longitudinally extends through the hollow interior space (the shell and band both are stretchable along the longitudinal axis of the shell, Fig. 1-2),
in the contracted state, a length of the shell is less than a length of the shell in the expanded state (Fig. 1 shows the body length being less in the contracted state than the expanded state of Fig. 2 (body lobes are separated when force is applied to opposite ends of the toy during use which stretches the elastic cord to an expanded body length, wherein the elastic cord biases the body to return to the rest state after stretching, col. 3 line 42 – col. 4 line 4), and
the band being biased to the contracted state and the band biasing the shell to the contracted state, wherein the frontal lobe and the rear lobe maintain their shape when the children’s toy transitions from the contracted state to the expanded state (the band is resilient and therefore is biased to return the body to the natural unstretched state of Fig. 1 after being stretched, col. 3 line 42 – col. 4 line 4, wherein the segments may be stuffed with a generally firm and less deformable material, such as denim, wherein the segments may also separate as the elastic band stretches which would generally retain the shape of the front and rear lobes, col. 2 lines 39-46, Fig. 2, col. 3 line 42 – col. 4 line 4).
In Reference to Claim 5
Theel teaches:
The children's toy of claim 1, wherein the elastic material is flat braid elastic or round elastic cord (elastic round cord 210, col. 3 lines 42-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-12, filed 9/8/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 16-21 under 103 (Chianese/Hillis and Cabrera where needed) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of O’Neill and Hillis and Cabrera where needed or alternatively and/or additionally in view of Theel.
Potential Amendment Suggestion
After reviewing the prior art and the applicant’s specification and drawings, it would appear that the elastic band in this application is attached to an upper surface of the front lobe above the longitudinal axis of the body and to a lower surface of the rear lobe below the longitudinal axis of the body (Fig. 2-3) so that the elastic band extends close to the longitudinal axis, but not along or parallel to the longitudinal axis. This appears to be different from the elastic bands of the prior art that show the band generally along the longitudinal axis of the body. If this arrangement is more than an obvious design choice and provides an improved or unique function to the toy, then this could be a distinction over the cited prior art. For example, O’Neill shows the elastic band members extending at an angle to the longitudinal central axis of the toy body, but it doesn’t cross the longitudinal axis to be attached to an upper surface of the front lobe and a bottom surface of the rear lobe and Delhome (FR2663555) teaches a longitudinal axis extending band but the front end is secured along the axis as well (Fig. 1-2/7).
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Kazakoff (2008/0305712), Podd (elastic tubing, 6,808,437), Chianese (6,174,216), Wright (5,194,033), Hodes (3,557,436), Bischoff (2,853,831), Delhome (FR2663555), Janas (2,224,456), and Bradish (1,355,799) teach similar resilient/stretchable toys and Holland (1,436,258), Summers (2016/0158112), Smith (8,413,612), and Cogliano (6,074,212) teach similarly shaped animal body toys.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
