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 1-15, filed 4/8/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are presented in landscape/horizontal orientation instead of the preferred vertical/portrait orientation and when presented on the side, the top margin/heading space is to be on the right side of the page (37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)-(i)). In this case, it does not appear to be necessary to have the figures presented sideways to clearly view the invention and therefore should be oriented vertically. If the applicant feels the drawings must be presented sideways to fully view the invention, the figures should be flipped such that the heading/top margin is on the right side as discussed in the MPEP (37 C.F.R. 1.84(i)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,951,413. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the presented claims.
In Reference to presented Claim 1
A modular mobile and accessory system, comprising:
a flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein at least one of the proximal end and distal end includes an end cap;
wherein the end cap is configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of an accessory, the end cap and accessory cap having corresponding male and female fittings; and
wherein the fittings comprise a rotating tongue-and-groove fitting.
In Reference to presented Claim 2
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 1, wherein the end cap comprises the male fitting and the accessory cap comprises the female fitting.
Patented Claim 1
A modular mobile and accessory system, comprising:
a flexible rod comprising an elongated flexible member wrapped with a relatively softer material; the flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein at least one of the proximal end and distal end includes an end cap;
wherein the end cap is configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of an accessory, the end cap and accessory cap having corresponding male and female fittings; and
wherein the fittings comprise a rotating tongue-and-groove fitting (underlined is exact wording used in presented claim 1), wherein the end cap of the rod comprises the male fitting and the accessory cap comprises the female fitting (bold is the exact wording used in presented claim 2).
In Reference to presented Claim 3
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 1, wherein a silicone or rubber sleeve is disposed over and around the end cap.
Patented Claim 3
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 1, wherein a silicone or rubber sleeve is disposed over and around the end cap (exact wording used in presented claim 3).
In Reference to presented Claim 4
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 1, wherein the end cap includes: a tapered body section with a narrowed male fitting section extending therefrom; and one or more tongue sections extending radially outward from the male fitting section.
Patented Claim 4
The module mobile and accessory system of claim 1, wherein the end cap includes: a tapered body section with a narrowed male fitting section extending therefrom; and one or more tongue sections extending radially outward from the male fitting section (exact wording used in presented claim 4).
In Reference to presented Claim 5
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 4, wherein the accessory cap includes: a base section with a narrowed female fitting section extending outwardly therefrom; a perimeter of the edge of the female fitting section includes inwardly extending notches which delimit grooves; and wherein the tongue sections of the end cap are received into the grooves such that the end cap is seated inside the accessory cap.
Patented Claim 5
The module mobile and accessory system of claim 4, wherein the accessory cap includes: a base section with a narrowed female fitting section extending outwardly therefrom; a perimeter of the edge of the female fitting section includes inwardly extending notches which delimit grooves; and wherein the tongue sections of the end cap are received into the grooves such that the end cap is seated inside the accessory cap (exact wording used in presented claim 5).
In Reference to Claim 6
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 5, wherein rotating either the end cap or the accessory cap causes the tongue sections to rotate to a position disposed at least partially behind the notches.
Patented Claim 6
The module mobile and accessory system of claim 5, wherein rotating either the end cap or the accessory cap causes the tongue sections to rotate to a position disposed at least partially behind the notches (exact wording used in presented claim 6).
In Reference to presented Claim 7
A modular mobile and accessory system, comprising:
a flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end;
wherein each of the proximal and distal ends of the rod include an end cap, the end cap of the proximal end configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of a first accessory and the end cap of the distal end configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of a second accessory; and
wherein the first accessory comprises a headband or a claw and the second accessory comprises a dangling toy.
In Reference to presented Claim 8
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 7, wherein a silicone or rubber sleeve is disposed over and around at least one of the end caps.
Patented Claim 7
A modular mobile and accessory system, comprising:
a flexible rod comprising an elongated flexible member wrapped with a relatively softer material (obvious wording to one having ordinary skill in the art to that of presented claim 8);
the flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end;
wherein each of the proximal and distal ends of the rod include an end cap, the end cap of the proximal end configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of a first accessory and the end cap of the distal end configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of a second accessory, the end caps and the accessory caps each having corresponding male and female fittings; and
wherein the first accessory comprises a headband or a claw and the second accessory comprises a dangling toy (underlined has the exact wording as presented claim 7).
In Reference to presented Claim 12
A modular mobile and accessory system, comprising:
a flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end;
wherein each of the proximal and distal ends of the rod include an end cap, the end cap of the proximal end configured to releasably engage a first accessory cap of an accessory and the end cap of the distal end configured to releasably engage a second accessory cap of the accessory, the end caps and the accessory caps each having corresponding male and female fittings.
Patented Claim 8
A modular mobile and accessory system, comprising:
a flexible rod comprising an elongated flexible member wrapped with a relatively softer material;
the flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end;
wherein each of the proximal and distal ends of the rod include an end cap, the end cap of the proximal end configured to releasably engage a first accessory cap of an accessory and the end cap of the distal end configured to releasably engage a second accessory cap of the accessory, the end caps and the accessory caps each having corresponding male and female fittings (underlined has the exact wording as presented claim 12).
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 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keegan et al. US Pub. No. 2002/0164917.
Keegan teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
A modular mobile and accessory system (mobile toy accessory system, Fig. 1-15), comprising:
a flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end (leg 34 is a cylindrical rod having proximal and distal ends (bottom (near 111) and top (near 122) ends), wherein the central support/body is formed as a flexible bellow 106 which are movable/flexible during use, Fig. 4-7), wherein at least one of the proximal end and distal end includes an end cap (leg 34 has an end cap 122 at its upper end and a lower cap/connector 114 at the lower end, Fig. 5-6);
wherein the end cap is configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of an accessory, the end cap and accessory cap having corresponding male and female fittings (the end cap 122 is a male connector which engages a female connector 60 of an accessory); and
wherein the fittings comprise a rotating tongue-and-groove fitting (fingers/tongues 156 engage grooves 144, handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6).
In Reference to Claim 2
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 1, wherein the end cap comprises the male fitting and the accessory cap comprises the female fitting (the end cap 122 is a male connector which engages a female connector 60 of an accessory, Fig. 5-6).
In Reference to Claim 12
A modular mobile and accessory system (mobile toy accessory system, Fig. 1-15), comprising:
a flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end (leg 34 is a cylindrical rod having proximal and distal ends (bottom (near 111) and top (near 122) ends), wherein the central support/body of the rod is formed as a flexible bellow 106 which are movable/flexible during use, Fig. 4-7);
wherein each of the proximal and distal ends of the rod include an end cap (leg 34 has an end cap 122 at its upper end and a lower cap/connector 114 at the lower end, Fig. 5-6), the end cap of the proximal end configured to releasably engage a first accessory cap of an accessory and the end cap of the distal end configured to releasably engage a second accessory cap of the accessory, the end caps and the accessory caps each having corresponding male and female fittings (the end cap 122 is a male connector which engages a female connector 60 of an accessory and the end cap 114 is a male connector received in female connector 170, Fig. 2, 5-6).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keegan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norman US Pub. No. 2004/0063381.
In Reference to Claim 3
Keegan teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 1 as rejected above.
Keegan fails to teach:
A silicone or rubber sleeve is disposed over and around the end cap.
Further, Norman teaches:
A similar toy system having a rod and protective covering being soft silicone or rubber or the like to protect the user from the inner materials of the device (soft outer layer 70 formed of cotton, foam, or rubber surrounding the inner surface of 18, Fig. 2, 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Keegan to have further included a soft silicone or rubber sleeve disposed around parts of the device, such as the rod body and end caps, in order to make the interactive surfaces of the device safe for use by children and protect any hard or potentially dangerous surfaces which is generally known and common in the art and as taught by Norman ([0030]).
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keegan as applied to claim 1/12 above.
In Reference to Claim 4-5
Keegan teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 1, wherein the end cap includes: a tapered body section with a narrowed male fitting section extending therefrom (cap 122 has a first portion 124 and a second narrower tapered by section 126/132 extending therefrom, Fig. 5-6); and one or more tongue sections extending radially outward from the male fitting section, and wherein the accessory cap includes: a base section with a narrowed female fitting section extending outwardly therefrom; a perimeter of the edge of the female fitting section includes inwardly extending notches which delimit grooves; and wherein the tongue sections of the end cap are received into the grooves such that the end cap is seated inside the accessory cap (the female base 60 has extending fingers/tongues 156 that engage grooves 144 of the male connector, the handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6).
Though Keegan shows the tongues being located on the female connector and the grooves being on the male connector instead of the reverse configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the arrangement of the connecting portions to have placed the tongues on the male connector and the grooves on the female connector as the exact shape and/or placement of the connecting portions of the connectors is 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) and 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)). In this case, the respective coupling portions being located on either respective coupling portion/cap and the shape of the cap/coupling portions being tapered or otherwise shaped is merely a matter of obvious design choice and does not provide a different function than that shown by the prior art and one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the exact arrangement/location of the respective coupling portions as both achieve the same coupling means between the coupling portions.
In Reference to Claim 6
Keegan teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 5, wherein rotating either the end cap or the accessory cap causes the tongue sections to rotate to a position disposed at least partially behind the notches (when rotated, the tongues/fingers are rotated behind the notches to lock the respective coupling portions together, (the female base 60 has extending fingers/tongues 156 that engage grooves 144 of the male connector, the handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6), as modified above).
In Reference to Claims 13-14
Keegan teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 12, wherein each end cap includes: a tapered body section with a narrowed male fitting section extending therefrom (cap 122 has a first portion 124 and a second narrower tapered by section 126/132 extending therefrom, Fig. 5-6); and one or more tongue sections extending radially outward from the male fitting section, wherein each accessory cap includes: a base section with a narrowed female fitting section extending outwardly therefrom; a perimeter of the edge of the female fitting section includes inwardly extending notches which delimit grooves; and wherein the tongue sections of the end cap are received into the grooves such that the end cap is seated inside the accessory cap (the female base 60 has extending fingers/tongues 156 that engage grooves 144 of the male connector, the handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6).
Though Keegan shows the tongues being located on the female connector and the grooves being on the male connector instead of the reverse configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the arrangement of the connecting portions to have placed the tongues on the male connector and the grooves on the female connector as the exact shape and/or placement of the connecting portions of the connectors is 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) and 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)). In this case, the respective coupling portions being located on either respective coupling portion/cap and the shape of the cap/coupling portions being tapered or otherwise shaped is merely a matter of obvious design choice and does not provide a different function than that shown by the prior art and one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the exact arrangement/location of the respective coupling portions as both achieve the same coupling means between the coupling portions.
In Reference to Claim 15
Keegan teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 14, wherein rotating either the end cap or the accessory cap causes the tongue sections to rotate to a position disposed at least partially behind the notches (when rotated, the tongues/fingers are rotated behind the notches to lock the respective coupling portions together (the female base 60 has extending fingers/tongues 156 that engage grooves 144 of the male connector, the handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6), as modified above)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. US Pub. No. 2004/0211868 in view of Harris US Pat. No. 5,370,570.
In Reference to Claim 7
Holmes teaches:
A modular mobile and accessory system (mobile accessory system, Fig. 1-4C), comprising:
a flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end (flexible rod 20 having a first lower end 16 and a first upper end at 18, [0016]-[0017]);
wherein each of the proximal and distal ends of the rod include an end cap, the end cap of the proximal end configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of a first accessory (a proximal end cap 1 releasably couples with accessory cap/connector 2 of first accessory/clamp base 10) and the end cap of the distal end configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of a second accessory (a distal end cap 60 releasably engages cap 61 of a second accessory 24/26); and
wherein the first accessory comprises a headband or a claw (claw shaped clamp 10 is attached to the proximal end of the rod capable of being secured to a whatever object or surface a user desires, for example a desk or crib, [0015], Fig. 1-3) and the second accessory comprises an attachable object, such as a camera or other device (the second accessory 24 allows for mounting of a secondary item, such as a webcam, or camera, or similar device including a dangling toy, [0020]).
Holmes fails teach:
The secondary accessory specifically including a dangling toy.
Further, Harris teaches:
A similar adjustable system having a movable rod member with a claw mount coupled at a first end for adjustably and removably mounting the rod to a crib and a distal end removably coupled to a secondary accessory including a dangling toy (mobile 6 with dangling toy(s) 5 attached via dangling string 7 at the distal end, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Holmes to have used the mounting system as a crib attached mobile having a dangling toy attached to the distal end as Holmes is fully capable of being used to adjustably position a dangling toy over an infant placed in a crib to entertain an infant user and adjustable crib mounted toy positioning systems are known and serve the same function of adjustably positioning a device relative to a user as desired and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the adjustable mounting system of Holmes to have adjustably positioned a toy above a user in a crib as a crib is a known and common object that mounting systems are used on and dangling toys are known to be adjustably positioned thereon to entertain a user/infant within the crib in an adjustable manner to allow the position of the toy to be modified as needed and Holmes teaches that it may be mounted to any surface, object, or device as desired ([0015]) and that other items may be attached to the distal end of the mount, of which dangling toys are well-known and commonly attached devices to movable mounting systems as taught by Harris (Col. 1 lines 7-24, Col. 1 line 49 – Col. 2 line 8, Col. 3 lines 4-17, Col. 5 lines 4-31).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes and Harris as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Norman US Pub. No. 2004/0063381.
In Reference to Claim 8
Holmes as modified by Harris teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 7 as rejected above.
Holmes fails to teach:
A silicone or rubber sleeve is disposed over and around the end cap.
Further, Norman teaches:
A similar toy system having a rod and protective covering being soft silicone or rubber or the like to protect the user from the inner materials of the device (soft outer layer 70 formed of cotton, foam, or rubber surrounding the inner surface of 18, Fig. 2, 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Holmes to have further included a soft silicone or rubber sleeve disposed around parts of the device, such as the rod body and end caps, in order to make the interactive surfaces of the device safe for use by children and protect any hard or potentially dangerous surfaces which is generally known and common in the art and as taught by Norman ([0030]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes and Harris as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Keegan et al. US Pub. No. 2002/0164917.
In Reference to Claims 9-10
Holmes as modified by Harris teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 7, wherein at least of the end caps includes: a tapered body section with a narrowed male fitting section extending therefrom (Holmes: lower end cap 1 has a tapered body with a narrow male portion extending therefrom received within connector 2, Fig. 1).
Holmes fails to teach:
One or more tongue sections extending radially outward from the male fitting section, wherein at least one of the accessory caps includes: a base section with a narrowed female fitting section extending outwardly therefrom; a perimeter of the edge of the female fitting section includes inwardly extending notches which delimit grooves; and wherein the tongue sections of the at least one end cap are received into the grooves such that the at least one end cap is seated inside the accessory cap. .
Keegan teaches:
A modular mobile and accessory system (mobile toy accessory system, Fig. 1-15), comprising:
a flexible rod having a proximal end and a distal end (leg 34 is a cylindrical rod having proximal and distal ends (bottom (near 111) and top (near 122) ends), wherein the central support/body is formed as a flexible bellow 106 which are movable/flexible during use, Fig. 4-7), wherein at least one of the proximal end and distal end includes an end cap (leg 34 has an end cap 122 at its upper end and a lower cap/connector 114 at the lower end, Fig. 5-6);
wherein the end cap is configured to releasably engage an accessory cap of an accessory, the end cap and accessory cap having corresponding male and female fittings (the end cap 122 is a male connector which engages a female connector 60 of an accessory); and
wherein the fittings comprise a rotating tongue-and-groove fitting (fingers/tongues 156 engage grooves 144, handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6),
wherein the end cap includes: a tapered body section with a narrowed male fitting section extending therefrom (cap 122 has a first portion 124 and a second narrower tapered by section 126/132 extending therefrom, Fig. 5-6); and one or more tongue sections extending radially outward from the male fitting section, and wherein the accessory cap includes: a base section with a narrowed female fitting section extending outwardly therefrom; a perimeter of the edge of the female fitting section includes inwardly extending notches which delimit grooves; and wherein the tongue sections of the end cap are received into the grooves such that the end cap is seated inside the accessory cap (the female base 60 has extending fingers/tongues 156 that engage grooves 144 of the male connector, the handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the connectors of Holmes to have further included rotationally locking means on the connectors as rotational locking means are well-known and commonly used releasably connecting means in the art and allow the connectors to be easily locked and unlocked as needed and as taught by Keegan ([0031]). Further, though Keegan shows the tongues being located on the female connector and the grooves being on the male connector instead of the reverse configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the arrangement of the connecting portions to have placed the tongues on the male connector and the grooves on the female connector as the exact shape and/or placement of the connecting portions of the connectors is 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) and 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)). In this case, the respective coupling portions being located on either respective coupling portion/cap and the shape of the cap/coupling portions being tapered or otherwise shaped is merely a matter of obvious design choice and does not provide a different function than that shown by the prior art and one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the exact arrangement/location of the respective coupling portions as both achieve the same coupling means between the coupling portions.
In Reference to Claim 11
Holmes as modified by Harris and Keegan teaches:
The modular mobile and accessory system of claim 10, wherein rotating either the end cap or the accessory cap causes the tongue sections to rotate to a position disposed at least partially behind the notches (Keegan: when rotated, the tongues/fingers are rotated behind the notches to lock the respective coupling portions together, (the female base 60 has extending fingers/tongues 156 that engage grooves 144 of the male connector, the handle tab 142 facilitates rotation of the locking collar to couple the grooves and fingers 144/156, [0031], Fig. 5-6), as modified above).
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, Crowther (11,470,985), Bearsch (10,228,090), Bird (9,420,872), Tobin (2007/0218799), Gelfond (2005/0287909), Asbach (6,629,727), Berman (6,532,601), Paduano (6,464,555), Nostrant (2002/0118535), Fielden (6,357,710), Smith (6,016,926), Reilly-Dunbar (GB2318522), Wedeking (5,419,613), Krenzel (5,276,596), Bryant (5,192,041), Volcani (5,033,528), and De Rosa (2,110,037) teach similar adjustable mounts for assorted items, accessories, and 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
Prosecution Insights