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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the second line of each claim should read “…by pinching [and] a second set of appendage material is…” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenstein (US 1777729) alone.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 13-14 Lowenstein teaches a customizable doll (kit) comprising: a planar material shaped as a living creature (Lowenstein: “front sheet 13…representation 14, the head and body of a man” [spec, Fig. 1]); and comprising a first set of appendage openings (19) and a second appendage opening (18). Lowenstein fails to show that the second appendage opening is a set of openings. It is obvious and well known to one skilled in the art to make one slot (18) into two. Making the slow 18 into two separate slots would be considered an obvious design choice and would serve the same function as one elongate slot.
Lowenstein further shows appendage material (15,16) for insertion into the first set of appendage openings and the second set of appendage openings.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 17 Lowenstein modified shows the customizable doll of claim 1, wherein the first set of appendage openings represents opening for arms (19) and the second set of appendage openings represents opening for legs (18).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 18 Lowenstein shows the customizable doll of claim 1, wherein the planar material shaped as a living creature is in the shape of a human being (Lowenstein: “the head and body of a man being illustrated” [spec, Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 7, Lowenstein shows the customizable doll kit of claim 6, wherein the planar material and appendage material are affixed to a same planar material sheet (Lowenstein: “shows a planar sheet in figure 1 where the planar material and appendage material are affixed).
Regarding claim 8, Lowenstein shows the appendage material is affixed to a planar sheet and the planar sheet is affixed to the planar material at a bottom portion of the shaped living creature (Lowenstein: “legs 16…project through…slot 18 located at the lower extremity of the torso” [spec, Fig. 1]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Lowenstein is silent to the precise measurements of the living creature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the customizable doll the claimed dimensions as it would perform no differently and assure the compact design fits on a planar sheet as shown by Lowenstein. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenstein (US 1777729) as applied to claims above and further in view of Schlau (US 3574968).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15 Lowenstein teaches appendage material (15,16) above but fails to show the material is wax infused yarn. Schlau shows it is known in the art to make appendages from wax infused yarn (commercially known as pipe cleaners). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the appendages of Lowenstein from the material shown in Schlau to allow for various combinations for play (description of prior art from Schlau).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16 Lowenstein in view of Schlau teach a customizable doll of claim 2, wherein a first set of appendage material is affixed to the first set of appendage openings by pinching a second set of appendage material is affixed to the second set of appendage openings by pinching. Lowenstein discloses the appendages going into the openings. Schlau teaches the appendage material is pinched (“pressed together” column 1, line 54 of Schlau) to resist removal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the appendages as taught by Schlau to allow various combinations for play (description of prior art from Schlau).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA ROSE FULTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-3pm.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675