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 1-10, filed 3/3/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim Objections and Warnings
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “At” should read “at”.
Claims 7-10 appear that they should likely depend from independent claim 6 and not claim 5 as presented, however for the purposes of examination, these claims are being evaluated as presented.
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the perimeter” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the soft toy projectile shape” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the perimeter” in line 3 and “said at least one launcher body” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the soft toy projectile shape” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, and 9-10 are therefore rejected as they depend from a rejected claim.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu US Pub. No. 2007/0072508.
Hsu teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
A soft toy projectile launcher (soft projectile launching toy 1, Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a launcher body having a generally round panel of flexible sheet material (main body is formed by two generally round panels of flexible fabric sheet material 11 (upper and lower), [0014]-[0016]), said panel having a channel forming hem around the perimeter of the panel for receiving a flexible rigid ring (perimeter having a hemmed/stitched aperture to hold flexible/rigid shape-maintaining ring 12 therein, Fig. 1-3), said ring and panel to be folded into a smaller size body (the flexible body 1 is capable of being folded into a smaller size, [0018])); and
at least one soft toy projectile which is to be placed within the launcher body (soft pellet shaped projectiles/loads 13 are held in the open area between the sheet panels 11, Fig. 1-3, [0014]-[0016]);
In Reference to Claim 2
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1 wherein the flexible rigid ring is either a flat ring or a tubular ring (thin flat metal ring 18 is inserted into the aperture 16 in the hemmed perimeter 14 of the panel, Fig. 2-4);
In Reference to Claim 3
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1 wherein the soft toy projectile shape is either a sphere, hemisphere, ellipsoid, bullet, cylinder, cube, prism, pyramid, cone, or irregular shape (round/spherical pellets (pellets are generally spherical, cylindrical, or irregular in shape) 13 form the soft toy projectiles as shown in Fig. 1-3);
In Reference to Claim 4
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1 wherein the generally round panel of flexible sheet material comprises at least one pocket (the round flexible sheets form a pocket area between the two sheets 11 to hold the pellets 13 therein, Fig. 1-3, [0014]-[0016]);
In Reference to Claim 6
A soft toy projectile launcher (soft projectile launching toy 1, Fig. 1-7) comprising:
at least two launcher bodies, each having a generally round panel of flexible sheet material (main body is formed by two generally round panels of flexible fabric sheet material 11 (upper and lower), [0014]-[0016]), said panel having a channel forming hem around the perimeter of the panel for receiving a flexible rigid ring (perimeter having a hemmed/stitched aperture to hold flexible/rigid shape-maintaining ring 12 therein, Fig. 1-3), said bodies to be folded into smaller size bodies with said at least one launcher body being placed within another launcher body (the flexible body 1 is capable of being folded into a smaller size, [0018])); and
at least one soft toy projectile which is to be placed within each launcher body (soft pellet shaped projectiles/loads 13 are held in the open area between the sheet panels 11, Fig. 1-3, [0014]-[0016]);
In Reference to Claim 7
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 5 wherein the flexible rigid ring is either a flat ring or a tubular ring (shape maintaining ring 12 is shown as a tubular ring, Fig. 1-3);
In Reference to Claim 8
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 5 wherein the soft toy projectile shape is either a sphere, hemisphere, ellipsoid, bullet, cylinder, cube, prism, pyramid, cone, or irregular shape (round/spherical pellets (pellets are generally spherical, cylindrical, or irregular in shape) 13 form the soft toy projectiles as shown in Fig. 1-3);
In Reference to Claim 9
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 5 wherein the generally round panel of flexible sheet material comprises at least one pocket (the round flexible sheets form a pocket area between the two sheets 11 to hold the pellets 13 therein, Fig. 1-3, [0014]-[0016]);
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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu as applied to claim 1/5 above, and further in view of Willingham US Pat. No. 4,709,928.
In Reference to Claims 5 and 10
Hsu teaches:
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1/5 as rejected above.
Hsu fails to teach:
Wherein the generally round panel of flexible sheet material comprises a clasp.
Further, Willingham teaches:
A soft toy projectile launcher (soft/flexible circular game board 10 capable of use as a soft toy projectile launcher, Fig. 1-5d, Col. 1 line 54 – Col. 2 line 36) comprising:
a launcher body having a generally round panel of flexible sheet material (round panel of flexible sheet material 12, Fig. 1-5d, Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 15), said panel having a channel forming hem around the perimeter of the panel for receiving a flexible rigid ring (flexible/rigid ring 18 heed within hemmed/stitched portion 14 at the perimeter of the sheet 12, Col. 3 lines 8-61), said ring and panel to be folded into a smaller size body (the hemmed ring 12 within flexible panel 10 is foldable into a smaller size, Fig. 5a-d, Col. 4 lines 6-47); and
at least one soft toy projectile which is to be placed within the launcher body (Fig. 1 shows soft toy projectiles/dice (light plastic) which are placed on the playing surface/panel sheet and are capable of being launched therefrom, Col. 4 lines 6-47, and other soft items, such as playing cards, score cards, instructions (generally formed of soft paper or cardboard material), or the like may further be held in a soft leather carrying case which is additionally capable of holding items while being launched by movement of the panel by the user, Col. 2 lines 20-28, Col. 3 line 50 - Col. 4 line 5);
wherein the generally round panel of flexible sheet material comprises a clasp (clasp/slider member 20 is formed within the aperture 16 of the sheet to secure ends of the flexible rigid ring therein, Fig. 2-4, Col. 3 lines 30-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Hsu to have further included a clamp member in order to secure the ends of the shape maintaining ring within the toy structure as this is well-known and commonly used in the art as taught by Willingham (Col. 3 lines 30-49).
Alternatively and/or Additionally, Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Willingham US Pat. No. 4,709,928.
In Reference to Claim 1
Willingham teaches:
A soft toy projectile launcher (soft/flexible circular game board 10 capable of use as a soft toy projectile launcher, Fig. 1-5d, Col. 1 line 54 – Col. 2 line 36) comprising:
a launcher body having a generally round panel of flexible sheet material (round panel of flexible sheet material 12, Fig. 1-5d, Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 15), said panel having a channel forming hem around the perimeter of the panel for receiving a flexible rigid ring (flexible/rigid ring 18 heed within hemmed/stitched portion 14 at the perimeter of the sheet 12, Col. 3 lines 8-61), said ring and panel to be folded into a smaller size body (the hemmed ring 12 within flexible panel 10 is foldable into a smaller size, Fig. 5a-d, Col. 4 lines 6-47); and
at least one soft toy projectile which is to be placed within the launcher body (Fig. 1 shows soft toy projectiles/dice (light plastic) which are placed on the playing surface/panel sheet and are capable of being launched therefrom, Col. 4 lines 6-47, and other soft items, such as playing cards, score cards, instructions (generally formed of soft paper or cardboard material), or the like may further be held in a soft leather carrying case which is additionally capable of holding items while being launched by movement of the panel by the user, Col. 2 lines 20-28, Col. 3 line 50 - Col. 4 line 5);
Though Willingham is silent to the exact material the projectiles are formed of, a pair of dice or other game projectiles (cards, instructions, scorecards, etc.) may be broadly considered soft relative to significantly harder materials, such as steel or other metals or the like, and further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the game pieces as “soft” in order to prevent injuries during use and 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 Reference to Claim 2
Willingham teaches:
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1 wherein the flexible rigid ring is either a flat ring or a tubular ring (thin flat metal/plastic flexible rigid ring 18 is inserted into the aperture 16 in the hemmed perimeter 14 of the panel, Fig. 2-4);
In Reference to Claim 3
Willingham teaches:
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1 wherein the soft toy projectile shape is either a sphere, hemisphere, ellipsoid, bullet, cylinder, cube, prism, pyramid, cone, or irregular shape (the dice (Fig. 1) are generally cube shaped, and cards or instructions are generally rectangular in shape);
Further, the shape of the objects would be an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art as Willingham teaches that any game may be played on the panel and games use many different shaped parts and further it has been held that the configuration of a 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).
In Reference to Claim 4
Willingham teaches:
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1 wherein the generally round panel of flexible sheet material comprises at least one pocket (the planar flexible sheet is folded for storage which creates an interior pocket therein, Fig. 5c-d, further the flexible rigid ring is placed within a pocket 16 beyond the hemmed area, Fig. 2-4);
In Reference to Claim 5
Willingham teaches:
The soft toy projectile launcher of claim 1 wherein the generally round panel of flexible sheet material comprises a clasp (clasp/slider member 20 is formed within the aperture 16 of the sheet to secure ends of the flexible rigid ring therein, Fig. 2-4, Col. 3 lines 30-49);
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, Kane (2024/0207753), Parsley (9,873,063), Anderson (2017/0246552), Campana (8,911,274), Mroczka (8,733,334, 8,469,011), Wang (6,682,384), Oblack (6,565,404), Liao (6,533,637), Herr (6,520,825), Zheng (6,045,093), Spector (6,390,879), Zheng (5,358,440), Snipes (5,092,608), McFarland (5,078,637), Silverglate (4,944,707), Brown (4,223,473), Schreiber (3,359,000) teach similar soft projectile 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 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