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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, filed 3/4/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied/redundant language (ex. “Disclosed is”) and the abstract appears to be a translation of the foreign application which recites unclear or improper grammar and should be reviewed and corrected to be more clear (ex. “a detachable structure is used between a base and each clamping seat, assembly and carrying are convenient, the rotating platform is fixed on the turntable, and the turntable rotates through a limiting seat” and “so that detachable and assembly are convenient” are generally unclear and should be improved). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, and 7 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 2 recites the limitation “the pair of clamping plates” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the pair of clamping seats” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the pair of clamping seats” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke et al. US Pat. No. 6,869,368 in view of Gates US Pat. No. 7,097,599.
In Reference to Claim 1
Clarke teaches:
A rotating toy device for children (rotating carousel toy device for children, Fig. 1-10), comprising a rotating platform (rotating platform device bouncer 11 or motorbike 60’) and a turntable assembly (turntable assembly 22) disposed at a bottom of the rotating platform (turntable 22 supports the rotating platform at a bottom end), wherein a base assembly is disposed at a bottom of the turntable assembly (stationary base 30 disposed at the bottom of the turntable 22), the turntable assembly comprises a turntable fixedly connected with the rotating platform (turntable surface 25 fixedly connects to the rotating platform device 11 so that the turntable and platform device rotate together on the base 30).
Clarke fails to teach:
Clamping plates (22) are clamped and connected to two ends of the turntable (21) and are fixed through screws.
Further, Gates teaches:
A similar child toy (10, Fig. 1-13) having a rotatable portion (150) attached to a base/platform (20) via turntable/shaft member 60), the base/platform being formed in multiple pieces (base 20 includes a main piece 24 and side piece(s) 22 connected to the main piece, Fig. 4, 6-7, wherein the base may also be formed as a central piece with two end pieces as shown in Fig. 12 for base 20) removably attachable to each other using screws (Fig. 7 shows the connected pieces fixed to one another using brackets 54/56 with screws 54/56a fastened to threaded holes 54b/56b, which may be applied to Fig. 12 which shows the base portion 20 formed of a central piece with two side/clamping pieces fixed together during use using screws in the same manner as the previous base but with any number of attachable pieces, Col. 9 lines 56-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Clarke to have formed portions of the device, such as the turntable housing and base platform housing in a number of separate pieces securable together as this is a known and common feature in the art to allow the device to be taken apart into smaller pieces for storage or transport and easily assembled as taught by Gates (Col. 5 line 65 – Col. 6 line 25, Col. 9 lines 56-59). Further, though Clarke doesn’t specifically teach the turntable having two end/clamping plates that are clamped onto two ends of the turntable and connected using screws, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the turntable in a few pieces so that it may be easily separated to allow for smaller pieces for transportation or storage as this is a commonly known feature in the art as taught by Gates and as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179). In this case, the turntable having a main piece and two end pieces attachable using screws simply takes the integral round turntable and forms it in three attachable/separable parts and provides no other benefit or function and is taught by similar prior art (Gates) and therefore is merely a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 2
Clarke as modified by Gates teaches:
The rotating toy device for children according to claim 1, wherein the turntable and the pair of clamping plates are assembled to form a round structure (the connected turntable assembly 22 of Clarke as modified above is round in shape as shown in the figures, ex. Fig. 1, and Gates also teaches a round platform (20, Fig. 7)).
In Reference to Claim 4
Clarke as modified by Gates teaches:
The rotating toy device for children according to claim 1, wherein the base assembly comprises a base, and clamping seats are clamped and connected to two ends of the base, and are fixed through screws (the base 30 of Clarke may be formed in three pieces including a center piece with two end pieces attached to the center piece as described above and as taught by Gates for the base 20 (Fig. 6-7, 12, Col. 5 line 65 – Col. 6 line 25, Col. 9 lines 56-59)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Clarke to have formed portions of the device, such as the turntable housing and base platform housing in a number of separate pieces securable together as this is a known and common feature in the art to allow the device to be taken apart into smaller pieces for storage or transport and easily assembled as taught by Gates (Col. 5 line 65 – Col. 6 line 25, Col. 9 lines 56-59). Further, though Clarke doesn’t specifically teach the base having two end/clamping plates that are clamped onto two ends of the base and connected using screws, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the base in a few pieces so that it may be easily separated to allow for smaller pieces for transportation or storage as this is a commonly known feature in the art as taught by Gates and as it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179). In this case, the base having a main piece and two end pieces attachable using screws simply takes the integral round base and forms it in three attachable/separable parts and provides no other benefit or function and is taught by similar prior art (Gates) and therefore is merely a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 5
Clarke as modified by Gates teaches:
The rotating toy device for children according to claim 4, wherein the base and the pair of clamping seats are assembled to form a round structure (the assembled base 30 forms a round structure matching the round circular structure of the turntable 22, Fig. 1-10, and Gates also teaches a round circular platform/base (20, Fig. 7)).).
In Reference to Claim 6
Clarke as modified by Gates teaches:
The rotating toy device for children according to claim 4, wherein a limiting groove is formed in a top center of the base, the limiting groove is matched with a limiting seat, and the base and the limiting seat are fixed through screws (Gates shows a bearing 70 including screws 84 to secure the bottom of the turntable to the base which includes a limiting groove 64 matched with limiting seat 42/44 of the base, wherein screws are inserted into screw holes 48/50 secure the bottom of the turntable with the base, Fig. 4-7, 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the bottom of the turntable with a bearing means, limiting seat, and screws in order to rotatably and removably attach the turntable to the base as is known in the art and as taught by Gates (Col. 5 line 15 – Col. 7 line 11).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke and Gates as applied to claim 1/4 above, and further in view of Figura US Pat. No. 3,442,509.
In Reference to Claim 3
Clarke as modified by Gates teaches:
The rotating toy device for children according to claim 1, wherein a bottom center of the turntable is movably provided with a limiting seat through a bearing (the bottom center of the turntable 22 is rotatably connected to a shaft 45 of motor 44 (which is a functionally a bearing) to provide the rotational means between the turntable and the base, further Gates shows a bearing 70 including screws 84 to secure the bottom of the turntable to the base and screw holes 48/50 which accepts screws to secure the bottom of the turntable in bearing 42/44 of the base, Fig. 4-7, 13), and a bottom of the turntable is provided with a plurality of inner power-assisting wheels and outer power-assisting wheels (a plurality of inner wheels 24 are provided in the turntable assembly 20 to provide rotational assistance to the turntable on the base and outer magnetic switches 46 act on outer magnets 48 (forming outer power-assisting wheels) to provide additional rotational power means to further assist the rotation means between the turntable and the base).
Further, Figura teaches:
A similar rotating toy have a rotatable part and a base, the rotatable part being driven by motor driven wheels between the base and the rotatable part to provide rotation to the rotatable part (motor 78 drives wheels 96/130 to rotate the turntable 12 relative to the base 45, Fig. 1-8, Col. 3 line 68 – Col. 4 line 13, Col. 5 lines 37-45).
Though Clarke generally teaches the motor have a shaft which is directly connected to the turntable to drive/power the turntable to rotate relative to the base while wheels and magnets aid in the rotation of the turntable on the base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have changed the driving means to have been applied through the wheels of the device as powered wheels are another known and equivalent means in the art to provide rotation of a turntable on a base as taught by Figura (Col. 3 line 68 – Col. 4 line 13, Col. 5 lines 37-45) and further as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the bottom of the turntable with a bearing means, limiting seat, and screws in order to rotatably and removably attach the turntable to the base as is known in the art and as taught by Gates.
In Reference to Claim 7
Clarke as modified by Gates teaches:
The rotating toy device for children according to claim 4, wherein a rolling groove used for rolling inner power-assisting wheels is formed in a top of the base (Clarke: a groove formed by slots 32 to guide the inner wheels 24 at the top of the base), and outer power-assisting wheels roll on a top of a round structure formed by assembling the base and the pair of clamping seats (the second set of wheels/means (such as 24’’ of Fig. 10 sits within a round groove structure 32’’ at the ends of the base where the clamping seats would reside as modified by Gates above).
Further, Figura teaches:
A similar rotating toy have a rotatable part and a base, the rotatable part being driven by motor driven wheels between the base and the rotatable part to provide rotation to the rotatable part (motor 78 drives wheels 96/130 to rotate the turntable 12 relative to the base 45, Fig. 1-8, Col. 3 line 68 – Col. 4 line 13, Col. 5 lines 37-45).
Though Clarke generally teaches the motor have a shaft which is directly connected to the turntable to drive/power the turntable to rotate relative to the base while wheels and magnets aid in the rotation of the turntable on the base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have changed the driving means to have been applied through the wheels within respective grooved areas of the device as powered wheels are another known and equivalent means in the art to provide rotation of a turntable on a base as taught by Figura (Col. 3 line 68 – Col. 4 line 13, Col. 5 lines 37-45) and further as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the bottom of the turntable with a bearing means, limiting seat, and screws in order to rotatably and removably attach the turntable to the base as is known in the art and as taught by Gates.
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, Sonner (7,780,500), Clarke (6,343,994, 5,487,705), Theodoropoulos (5,732,961), Lambert (5,118,094), Trubody (4,119,310), Lugger (3,170,687), Ellis (2,785,896), and Hargreaves (1,521,946) teach similar rotatable toys for children.
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