DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-6 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Furthermore, claims 1, 4, and 6 specifically claim “and/or”. This language is considered indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is listing the claim requirements as optionally or required (see MPEP 2173.05(H)). For purposes of the rejection, the Examiner construes the “and/or” limitations as “optional” and noted below.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldfarb et al. (herein "Goldfarb”; US Pat. No. 3,724,125)
Regarding claim 1, Goldfarb discloses a doll device (Fig. 1), comprising a trunk body (1) and a head (2) arranged on it (Fig. 1), wherein the trunk body (1) is connected to hand bodies (4) and/or foot bodies (5) through corresponding ropes (3) (Fig. 3; noting for this particular interpretation, the Examiner only is looking at the “foot bodies” as “or” is specifically claimed making the “hand bodies” optional; see interpretation of claim 3 below), and the trunk body (1) is equipped with a self-resetting rope-tightening mechanism (6) that tightens the rope (3) during self-resetting (Figs. 1 and 2, item 25, Fig. 5), and the self-resetting rope-tightening mechanism (6) includes a button (60) that, when pressed, relaxes the rope (3) (Figs. 1 and 2, item 25 and col. 1, lines 37-63).
Regarding claim 7, Goldfarb discloses that the trunk body (1) is rotationally connected to the head (2) through a vertical axis (23) (Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 14-16; clearly showing that the head can rotate with respect to the trunk via a vertical axis; the Examiner taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of this language).
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al. (herein "Goldfarb”; US Pat. No. 3,724,125) in view of Huang (US Pub. No. 2002/0098771 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Goldfarb discloses that the self-resetting rope-tightening mechanism (6) can translate to retract and release the rope (3) (col. 1, lines 37-63). It is noted that Goldfarb does not specifically disclose that the motion is rotation. However, Huang discloses a similar toy wherein rotation of the mechanism causes the appendages to move (Figs. 3 and 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Goldfarb to make the mechanism rotate as taught by Huang because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a mechanism that causes appendage movement by mechanism translation, and a mechanism that causes appendage movement by mechanism rotation) according to known methods (using rotation of the mechanism instead of translation) to obtain predictable results (the mechanism continuing to provide movement of the appendages, the mechanism moving in rotation).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al. (herein "Goldfarb”; US Pat. No. 3,724,125) in view of Graf (US Pat. No. 3,358,401).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that Goldfarb does not specifically disclose that when the trunk body (1) is connected to a hand body (4) through a corresponding rope (3), the hand body (4) includes several hand body segment monomers (41) for the rope (3) to pass through sequentially (noting the Examiner interprets this as an either/or requirement read in from claim 1 where only the hands or foot bodies need be present; the Examiner interpreting for purposes of this claim that the “foot bodies” are present); and when the trunk body (1) is connected to a foot body (5) through a corresponding rope (3), the foot body (5) includes foot body segment monomers (51) for the rope (3) to pass through sequentially. However, Graf discloses and when the trunk body (1) is connected to a foot body (5) through a corresponding rope (3), the foot body (5) includes foot body segment monomers (51) for the rope (3) to pass through sequentially (Figs. 1 and 2; again, based on the above language, the Examiner construing that only the foot bodies limitations is required from claim 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Goldfarb to make the trunk body connected to a foot body through a corresponding rope, the foot body includes foot body segment monomers for the rope to pass through sequentially as taught by Graf because doing so would be use of a known technique (using multiple segments in the leg connected by rope which is connected to a push button) to improve a similar product (a doll with legs that is connected by a rope to a push button) in the same way (using multiple leg segments connected by the rope, the multiple leg segments allowing for more movement of the legs when the rope tension is released by the button).
Regarding claim 4, the combined Goldfarb and Graf disclose that each hand body segment monomer (41) has a first inclined surface (411) for contact with adjacent hand body segment monomers (41), and the first inclined surface (411) is inclined relative to the extension direction of its hand body segment monomer (41) (noting this is not needed as “or” immediately follows this limitation; i.e. the limitation with regards to the hand bodies is optional); and/or each foot body segment monomer (51) has a second inclined surface (511) for contact with adjacent foot body segment monomers (51), and the second inclined surface (511) is inclined relative to the extension direction of its foot body segment monomer (51) (Graf: Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al. (herein "Goldfarb”; US Pat. No. 3,724,125) in view of Bustanoby (US Pat. No. 2,519,883).
Regarding clam 5, Goldfarb discloses that that the head (2) includes a lower jaw (21) connected to the upper end of the trunk body (1) (Fig. 1; noting this is obvious). It is noted that Goldfarb does not specifically disclose that the lower jaw (21) rotationally connected to an upper head body (22) capable of swinging up and down through a horizontal axis (20). However, Bustanoby discloses a head wherein the lower jaw (21) rotationally connected to an upper head body (22) capable of swinging up and down through a horizontal axis (20) (Figs. 5, 6, and 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Goldfarb to make the lower jaw (21) rotationally connected to an upper head body (22) capable of swinging up and down through a horizontal axis (20) as taught by Bustanoby because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a figure with a head, and a figure head with a jaw that opens) according to known methods (making the figure head jaw open) to obtain predictable results (a figure with a head and a jaw that opens, the opening of the jaw allowing the figure head to mimic eating or talking).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Goldfarb and Bustanoby disclose that the upper end of the lower jaw (21) has a first concave cavity (211) facing the upper head body (22) (Bustanoby: Figs. 3 and 4; clearly showing the inside of the head is hollow and thus can be the first concave cavity), and/or the lower end of the upper head body (22) has a second concave cavity (221) facing the lower jaw (21) (noting “or” is used, so this language is not needed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the claim claims the structure necessary to create the rotational movement of the self-resetting rope-tightening mechanism. The prior art of record does not disclose this structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
9/16/25
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711