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 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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "octopus-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear because its figurative and descriptive of appearance rather than a precise structural or functional limitation. What makes something “octopus-like”? Number of appendages? Suckers on the legs? Flexibility of the device? As can best be understood by the examiner the limitation will be examined as meaning that the device may have 8 legs.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2007/0072500 to Rockstad et al.
In re claim 1, Rockstad et al teaches a multifunctional octopus-like (see 112 rejection above) toy, comprising a water floating body 22, wherein the water floating body is provided with a concave cavity (Fig 3-4 #30) with an opening facing upwards 26, a plurality of tentacles 32 extending upwards are distributed on an outer wall of the water floating body (Fig. 3-4), and an overall appearance is octopus-like (See 112 above, see paragraph 5 and 14, may have any number of legs, more or less than 6 and in paragraph 5 may have 8).
In re claim 2, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 1, wherein the water floating body is a solid or hollow structure (inflatable Abstract) made of a water floating material.
In re claim 3, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 1, wherein the water floating body is an inflatable hollow structure (inflatable abstract).
In re claim 4, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 1, wherein the tentacles are in a smooth curved shape (Fig. 3-4).
In re claim 6, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 1, wherein a number of the tentacles ranges from 3 to 14 (Para 5 and 14, more or less than 6).
In re claim 7, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 1, wherein the water floating body and the tentacles are an integrally connected structure (Fig. 3-4).
In re claim 8, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 2, wherein the water floating body and the tentacles are an integrally connected structure (Fig. 3-4).
In re claim 9, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 3, wherein the water floating body and the tentacles are an integrally connected structure (Fig. 3-4).
In re claim 10, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 4, wherein the water floating body and the tentacles are an integrally connected structure (Fig. 3-4).
In re claim 12, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 6, wherein the water floating body and the tentacles are an integrally connected structure (Fig. 3-4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockstad et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US D768245 to Matthews.
In re claim 5, Rockstad et al teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 1, and further teaches that the tentacles are symmetrically arranged (figure 1-4 line of symmetry being through the elongated floating body 22) at the bottom of the outer wall of the floating body and that the water floating body may be of a circular shape (para 15).
Rockstad et al is silent as to wherein the tentacles are symmetrically arranged at the bottom of the outer wall of the water floating body with respect to the center of a circle.
Matthews teaches a similar pool toy wherein the tentacles are symmetrically arranged at the bottom of the outer wall of the water floating body with respect to the center of a circle (see figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the water floating body and tentacles as taught by Rockstad as being symmetrically arranged with respect to the center of a circle as taught by Matthews, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for users to be evenly distributed around the toy during play to increase balance and buoyancy during use.
In re claim 11, the modified reference teaches the multifunctional octopus-like toy according to claim 5, and Rockstad et al further teaches wherein the water floating body and the tentacles are an integrally connected structure (Figure 3-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7247077, 6899647, 20050085155, D950667, D969253.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DANIEL HUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-330.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at (571) 272-8105. 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.
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642