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
Claims 1-1, filed 2/28/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim Objections
In Claim 7, the use of the trademark “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth” has been noted in this application. It should be capitalized wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology. Although the use of trademarks is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as trademarks. It is noted that the applicant should capitalize each letter of the word in the bracket or include a proper trademark symbol, such as ™ or ® following the word.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "or the like" (in this case “dome-like” and “elliptical dome-like”) renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless networking technology based on the IEE 802.11 standards and a wireless personal area network for wireless communication between devices and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong US Pat. No. 6,997,772 in view of Chernick US Pat. No. 7,731,561.
In Reference to Claim 1
Fong teaches:
A toy (10, Fig. 1-6) comprising:
a plush body (toy 10 is shown as a plush stuffed animal toy, Fig. 1-2, Col. 2 lines 40-48);
an LED assembly embedded in the plush body (LED assembly 12 embedded/inserted into opening 22 in the toy to embed the device in a central area of the body, Fig. 1-3), the LED assembly comprising:
one or supports (LED support surface 34);
an array of programmable LED lights on each of the one or more fan blades (programmable arrays of LED lights 35 are placed on support 34 between spacer 36, Fig. 4-5, Col. 3 line 4 – Col. 4 line 61);
a controller configured to control the motor and the array of programmable LED lights to cause the array of programmable LED lights to switch on or off in specific sequences while the one or more fan blades are rotating, creating one or more images (control boards 38/39 and microprocessor MPU operatively control the electrical and optical functions to display different images by selective activation of the LEDs during use, Fig. 1-6 (Fig. 5 shows different displayed images), Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 5 line 34); and
an encasing shell configured to encase the LED assembly (protective front cover 31 encases the LED assembly within the plush body, Fig. 1-4), at least a portion of the encasing shell comprising a transparent material or a translucent material, through which the one or more images are projected (cover 31 is clear/transparent or translucent plastic to allow light images and decorative clear or translucent sheet 33 to be seen therein, Fig. 1-5, Col. 3 line 59 – Col. 4 line 34).
Chernick fails to teach:
The LED assembly being a fan blade LED having one or more fan blades configured to rotate via a motor.
Chernick teaches:
A toy (plush toy 10, Fig. 1-4) comprising:
a plush body (plush body 12 formed of synthetic fur 14 and stuffing 16 to form a plush toy body);
a fan blade LED assembly attached to the plush body (the rotatable assembly 40 includes rotatable fan blades 44/82 with LEDs 62 are connected to the plush body via shaft 34 and embedded motor 30) and the fan blade LED assembly comprising:
one or more fan blades (fan blades 44 (two) or more 82, Fig. 1-4);
an array of programmable LED lights on each of the one or more fan blades (arrays of programmable/controllable LED light sources 62 are positioned along fan blades 44, Fig. 3, Col. 3 lines 31-48);
a motor coupled to the one or more fan blades to cause the one or more fan blades to rotate (motor 30 rotates the blades 44); and
a controller configured to control the motor and the array of programmable LED lights to cause the array of programmable LED lights to switch on or off in specific sequences while the one or more fan blades are rotating, creating one or more images (control circuit 65 controls the rotation of the blades and images produced by the LED lights, Fig. 3, Col. 3 lines 31-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Fong to have modified the LED assembly to have been motor driven fan blades having LED arrays arranged thereon as this is another commonly known and used programmable LED light display means in the art and the use of either known and common equivalent display means is a matter of design choice and further as the rotatable fan blades allow for more dynamic and interesting patterns to be displayed to the user as is known in the art and as taught by Chernick (Col. 1 lines 20-30, 54-56, Col. 3 lines 31-48).
In Reference to Claim 8
Fong as modified by Chernick teaches:
The toy of claim 1, wherein the translucent material comprises at least one of: frosted glass, frosted plastic, or frosted crystal (Frost: cover 31/33 may be formed of translucent (inherently frosted as its partially transparent) plastic, Col. 3 lines 59-64).
In Reference to Claim 9
Fong as modified by Chernick teaches:
The toy of claim 1, wherein the encasing shell is in one of: a spherical shape, a semi-spherical shape, a dome-like shape, an elliptical shape, a semi-elliptical shape, or an elliptical dome-like shape (Fong: dome 31 is shown as semi-spherical or dome shaped, Fig. 1-4).
In Reference to Claim 10
Fong as modified by Chernick teaches:
The toy of claim 1, wherein the one or more images are configured to form one or more animations (Fong: LEDs may produce animated images/light patterns, Col. 3 lines 40-46 and Chernick teaches the LEDs produce rotating patterns of light which are a type of 112
animated image, Col. 3 lines 31-48).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong and Chernick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watry US Pat. No. 10,616,310.
In Reference to Claim 2
Fong as modified by Chernick teaches:
The toy of claim 1 as rejected above.
Fong fails to teach:
An intercommunication module embedded in the plush body, the intercommunication module configured to communicate with an external device.
Further, Watry teaches:
A similar interactive toy (70/72/74, Fig. 1-18) having connected electronic components (100, Fig. 4) including lights (190), speakers (180), a power source (110), sensors (160), memory (130), and controller means (processor(s) 120, transceivers 140) to control the electronic components, and a wireless remote controller (60) also containing processors and communication means that can operate the features of the electronic toy using communication modules in the toy and in the remote controller using signals and wireless networks (Fig. 1-18, where numerous/different toys 70/72/74 may be used, Col. 1 lines 15-24, Col. 1 line 66 – Col. 6 line 58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Fong to have further included wireless remote controlling means that communicate and operate the toy device in order to allow another user (such as a parent) to interact or control the toy without being with the toy or to allow multiple toys to interact with each other as these remote control devices, communication, and electronic components are commonly known and used in the art as taught by Watry (Col. 1 lines 15-24, Col. 1 line 66 – Col. 6 line 58).
In Reference to Claim 3
Fong as modified by Chernick and Watry teaches:
The toy of claim 2, wherein the controller is coupled to the intercommunication module and configured to: process data received from the external device; and cause the fan blade LED assembly to display one or more images based on the processing of the data received from the external device (the controller and LED of Fong/Watry may be controlled in the same manner as the LED device of Watry which may be operated and controlled by the remote device, Col. 10 lines 46-67, Col. 11 lines 29-47, Col. 12 lines 13-48, Fig. 1-6).
In Reference to Claim 4
Fong as modified by Chernick and Watry teaches:
The toy of claim 3, wherein: the toy is a first toy, and the external device is a second toy, the first toy and the second toy are configured to communicate with each other, and controllers of the first toy and the second toy are configured to synchronize and cause fan blade LED assemblies of the first toy and the second toy to display correlated images based on communication between the first toy and the second toy Watry: multiple toys 70/72/74 may communicate with one another as well as be controlled via a network including smart device(s) 60 and all of the toys and devices may be synchronized through the cloud system 80, Fig. 1-18, Col. 1 line 60 – Col. 2 line 52, Col. 10 line 46 – Col. 11 line 3, Col. 13 line 37-45) to interact with one another and play similar or related actions (lights, sounds, etc.), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it obvious to allow the user to control the produced images as taught by Fong and Chernick to make the toys aesthetically pleasing to the children/user’s and allow each child to see the same aesthetic images even if they aren’t in the same location).
Further, though the prior art doesn’t specifically teach the LED assemblies being functionally synchronized, the prior as combined teaches that they are capable of being synchronized (Wirth: Col. 10 line 46 – Col. 11 line 3, Col. 13 line 37-45) and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prior art is capable of synchronizing the connected toys as they could execute the same programmed instructions to each connected device. Further, 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 displayed images are merely aesthetic designs, which are obvious modifications to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 5
Fong as modified by Chernick and Watry teaches:
The toy of claim 3, wherein: the toy is a first toy, and the first toy and a plurality of second toys are configured to form an ad hoc network, and the ad hoc network facilitates communication among the first toy and the plurality of second toys, causing controllers of the first toy and the plurality of second toys to synchronize and cause fan blade LED assemblies of the first toy and the plurality of second toys to display one or more correlated images based on the communication (Watry: multiple toys 70/72/74 may communicate with one another as well as be controlled via a network including smart device(s) 60 and all of the toys and devices may be synchronized through the cloud system 80, Fig. 1-18, Col. 1 line 60 – Col. 2 line 52, Col. 10 line 46 – Col. 11 line 3, Col. 13 line 37-45) to interact with one another and play similar or related actions (lights, sounds, etc.), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it obvious to allow the user to control the produced images as taught by Fong and Chernick to make the toys aesthetically pleasing to the children/user’s and allow each child to see the same aesthetic images even if they aren’t in the same location).
Further, though the prior art doesn’t specifically teach the LED assemblies being functionally synchronized to produce correlating images, the prior as combined teaches that they are capable of being synchronized and producing correlated images based on their interactions/information (Wirth: Col. 10 line 46 – Col. 11 line 3, Col. 13 line 37-45) and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prior art is capable of synchronizing the connected toys as they could execute the same or related programmed instructions to respond with correlated images based on the connected information to each connected device. Further, 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 displayed images are merely aesthetic designs, which are obvious modifications to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 6
Fong as modified by Chernick and Watry teaches:
The toy of claim 2, wherein the intercommunication module is configured to determine whether a second toy is nearby or within a predetermined distance, and responsive to determining that the second toy is nearby or within the predetermined distance, the controller causes the fan blade LED assembly to display one or more predetermined animations (Wirth: the toys may include location sensors (Col. 2 lines 23-37, Col. 1 line 60 – Col. 8 line 24, Col. 8 lines 53-67, Col. 10 line 46 – Col. 11 line 3) and the multiple toys 70/72/74 may communicate with one another as well as be controlled via a network including smart device(s) 60 and all of the toys and devices may be synchronized through the cloud system 80, Fig. 1-18, Col. 1 line 60 – Col. 2 line 52, Col. 10 line 46 – Col. 11 line 3, Col. 13 line 37-45) to interact with one another and play similar or related actions (lights, sounds, etc.) which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it obvious to allow the user to control the produced images as taught by Fong and Chernick to make the toys aesthetically pleasing to the children/user’s and allow each child to see the same aesthetic images even if they aren’t in the same location).
Further, though the prior art doesn’t specifically teach the LED assemblies being functionally synchronized to produce correlating images, the prior as combined teaches that they are capable of being synchronized and producing correlated images based on their interactions/information (Wirth: Col. 10 line 46 – Col. 11 line 3, Col. 13 line 37-45) and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prior art is capable of synchronizing the connected toys as they could execute the same or related programmed instructions to respond with correlated images based on the connected information to each connected device. Further, 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 displayed images are merely aesthetic designs, which are obvious modifications to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 7
Fong as modified by Chernick and Watry teaches:
The toy of claim 2, wherein the intercommunication module includes at least one of: a Wi-Fi module configured to communicate with external devices via a wireless internet network, a Bluetooth module configured to communicate with external devices over a short-range wireless network, a near field communication (NFC) module configured to communicate with external devices over a close-range wireless network, or a cellular radio module configured to communicate with external devices over a cellular network (communication between the toy and remote device may be using wi-fi, Bluetooth, wireless networks, or cellular networks as is known and taught by Watry, Col. 2 lines 5-29, Col. 11 lines 29-47).
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, Gramelspacher (9,557,037), Van Zant (6,165,037), Sutton (5,888,117), Copley (5,114,376) teach a similar plush toy bodies with embedded light means therein, Padawer (2020/0372918), Roberts (2018/0111046), Nanda (9,937,428), Boeckle (9,126,122), Eisenson (2010/0041304) teach similar interactive toys, and Fong (7,165,857), Chernick (7,179,149), Matlock (7,477,208), Rago (7,766,718), Kessler (7,771,247), Cannon (9,186,595) teach similar toys having programmable rotatable LED lights.
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 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, 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711