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 in parent application 17/445,509.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23, filed 4/26/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Further, it appears that this application is being handled by attorney (Stephen Burr), however a power of attorney has not been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/2/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The foreign references and NPL appear to all have been submitted in the parent application 17/445,509.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral “2” is used to identify two different parts of the figure in Fig. 5 (the pocket area/playing surface and the front surface of the garment below the pocket). 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the another one of the at least one play figure is fastened to at least one of the movable fastening device and the moving element via at least one of a clamp and a hook and loop fastener (claim 2), and the pocket extension substantially parallel to the play surface and perpendicular to the play surface in a direction that corresponds to a height of the moving element (claim 4), the tunnel of claim 6 (appears to be shown in Fig. 7, however this is never discussed as a “tunnel”) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-23 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 remainder of the garment” in lines 9, 11, 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what part of the garment is being referenced. It is assumed that this limitation is intending to define that the playing surface/movable fastening device/element are connected to the garment as a whole or that it is connected to a portion of the garment that is specifically not the playing surface, however this is not clear as written. The garment only includes the play surface, play figure, and movable fastening device as claimed, and not another portion of the garment that would be defined as “the remainder”. It is unclear if the playing surface is a portion of the garment or an entirety of an outer surface of the garment itself. The pocket later in the claim is defined as a smaller portion of the play surface and therefore it is assumed that the play surface is attempting to define the entire outer surface of the garment, however it doesn’t really seem accurate that the entire garment surface is actually a play area based on the presented drawings and specification as Fig. 1 only shows playing parts in part of the garment (three sections on the front of the garment, but not the whole front surface itself as the toy and interacting parts can’t really function without the shown connecting portions occupying the sections of the front of the garment, and the pocket as being only one of the playing area portions. The specification claims that the play surface 2 is the front side of the T-shirt/garment. Therefore it is unclear if the remainder of the garment would be the back of the T-shirt/garment. Further, the newly presented Figures of this application introduce new embodiments where the playing surface appears to only be within the pocketed areas of the garments 3, and not the whole front surface or other portions of the garment.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the periphery” in line 3 and “the possibility” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The pocket does not have previously defined sides or edges and therefore this is unclear.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “all sides/edges” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The pocket does not have previously defined sides or edges and therefore this is unclear.
Therefore claims 2-4, 6-19, and 21-23 are 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, 6-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adamus US Pub. No. 2010/0167619.
In Reference to Claim 1
Adamus teaches:
A garment (garment 1 with attachable play figure toy 2, Fig. 1-3) comprising:
a play surface (the front surface 1A of the garment 1 is functionally a play surface);
at least one play figure (attachable play figure 2); and
a movable fastening device, wherein the at least one play figure and the movable fastening device are provided on the play surface (movable fastening element/magnet 5 is placed on the play surface within movable fastening device pocket 4A),
wherein the movable fastening device is at least one of (i) connected to the remainder of the garment, and (ii) integrated with the remainder of the garment (magnet 5 is movably connected to and integrated with the garment 1 via being held within the sewn pocket area 4a on the garment),
wherein the movable fastening device has a moving element that is mounted in a movable manner relative to at least one of (iii) the remainder of the garment, and (iv) the play surface (magnet element 5 is smaller than the pocketed area 4a on the front/playing surface 1a of the garment and therefore is movable within this pocketed area of the garment/playing area),
wherein the movable fastening device has a fixed part (the pocket/fastening device is sewn to the garment and that portion of the fastening device is fixed on the garment, [0033], [0035], Fig. 1),
wherein the at least one play figure is detachably fastened to at least one of (v) the movable fastening device, and (vi) the moving element (the play figure 2 has a corresponding magnetic element 3/3a that removably couples the play figure to the magnetic element of the movable fastening device),
wherein at least one of the at least one play figure is magnetically fastened to at least one of (vii) the movable fastening device, and (viii) the moving element (the play figure 2 has a corresponding magnetic element 3/3a that removably couples the play figure to the magnetic element of the movable fastening device),
wherein the movable fastening device is configured as a pocket that is integrated in the play surface and forms an interior space inside which the moving element is movably mounted (pocket 4a forms a sewn pocket integrated in the play surface front 1a of the garment with an interior space to allow the magnet element 5 to be placed therein),
wherein the pocket extends over a two-dimensional plane of the play surface and covers at least 5% of an area of the play surface (the pocket/playing area of the pocket 4 is clearly more than 5% (appears to cover about 33% or so) of the playing area/surface of the front of the garment 1/1a, Fig. 1),
wherein the moving element is at least one of (ix) a magnet, and (x) a magnetizable body (element 5 is a magnet, [0033]-[0036]), and
wherein the at least one of a non-movable magnet and a non-movable magnetizable body is implemented into a body of the play figure and fixed thereon/thereto so that the non-movable magnet or non-movable magnetizable body cannot be moved with respect to the body of the play figure (toy play figure 2 has magnet 3/3a fixedly mounted at the rear surface thereof which is not moved relative to the toy body 2, [0035], Fig. 1-3), and wherein the movable fastening device is partially movable relative to at least one of the garment and the play surface (the magnet element 5 of the fastening device is movable relative to the garment and playing surface as it is smaller than the pocketed area 4/4a it is secured therein and both the pocket and garment are formed using flexible/resilient materials, therefor further providing a movable relationship).
In Reference to Claim 4
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pocket has an extension that is substantially parallel to the play surface, and the extension perpendicular to the play surface in a direction that corresponds to a height of the moving element (the patch 4a itself forms an extension above the garment/playing surface, the patch has both height and width dimensions parallel to the garment surface and a perpendicular height to accommodate the magnet therein to define the pocket therebetween).
In Reference to Claim 6
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the interior space of the pocket has a tunnel, and wherein a width of the tunnel parallel to the play surface corresponds to a width of the moving element, such that the moving element is mounted in the tunnel and is movable along a length of the tunnel (the patch 4a is significantly larger than the magnet and therefore the magnet would be movable within a tunnel/area corresponding to a width of the magnet along a length within the sewn pocket perimeter, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 7
The garment as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one static fastening mechanism ([0036] discusses that additional magnets may be attached to the garment, wherein additional magnets may be considered static fastening mechanisms being magnets).
In Reference to Claim 8
The garment as claimed in claim 7, wherein the at least one static fastening mechanism is configured as at least one of (xv) a hook-and-loop fastener, (xvi) a magnet, (xvii) a magnetizable body, and (xviii) a press button ([0036] discusses that additional magnets may be attached to the garment, wherein additional magnets may be considered static fastening mechanisms being magnets).
In Reference to Claim 9
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pocket has first and second opposing sides, and wherein the first side is formed or bounded by a material defining the play surface, and the second opposing side is defined by a piece of textile fastened to the play surface (the pocket formed by patch 4a, which has an outer play surface that the toy 2 attaches thereto, and an inner surface facing the garment surface which is fastened to the garment/play surface via stitching).
In Reference to Claim 10
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the garment is formed at least partially by two textile material layers, and the pocket is arranged between the two textile material layers and delimited by a fastening of the two textile material layers in a peripheral region of the pocket (the pocket formed by securing the textile material layer patch 4a on the garment textile play surface area , the magnet held between the textile layers within a peripheral region of the pocket formed by the two textile layers via stitching, [0033], [0035], Fig. 1-2).
In Reference to Claim 13
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pocket covers at least 10% of the area of the play surface (the pocket/playing area of the pocket 4 is clearly more than 5% (appears to cover about 33% or so) of the playing area/surface of the front of the garment 1/1a, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 14
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pocket extends over a front of the play surface (the pocket patch 4a is placed over a front playing surface of the garment, Fig. 1-2).
In Reference to Claim 16
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the moving element is shaped as a disk (magnet 5 is shaped as a round disk, Fig. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 17
The garment as claimed in claim 16, wherein the disk has a round peripheral shape that defines a cylinder having flat principle surfaces (magnet 5 has a flat round peripheral shape cylindrical disk having two main flat surfaces, Fig. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 19
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pocket forms a portion of an edge of the play surface (the pocket/patch 4a forms an edge/perimeter (at the sewn edges) of a play surface where the embedded magnet 5 can interact with the play toy 2, Fig. 1-2).
In Reference to Claim 20
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pocket is completely closed around all sides/edges of the pocket so that the moving element located within the pocket cannot be removed (pocket/patch 4a is completely closed around the perimeter via sewing, Fig. 1-2, [0033], [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 21
The garment as claimed in claim 20, wherein the pocket is completely closed around its sides/edges via at least one of a sewn closure, a glued closure, and a mechanically fastened closure (pocket/patch 4a is completely closed around the perimeter via sewing, Fig. 1-2, [0033], [0035]).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salvanto US Pub. No. 2009/0126071.
In Reference to Claim 2
Adamus teaches:
The garment as claimed in claim 1 as rejected above.
Adamus fails to teach:
Wherein another one of the at least one play figure is fastened to at least one of the movable fastening device and the moving element via at least one of (xi) a clamp, and (xii) a hook-and-loop fastener.
Further, Salvanto teaches:
A similar wearable garment (100) having attachable toys/accessories (102/210), wherein the toys/accessories are attachable via movable fastening devices being a clamp or a hook-and-loop fastener (Fig. 1-3, [0010], decorative shaped toys attachable to the garment via snaps, Velcro (hook-and-loop), zipper, magnets, and combinations thereof or other similar fasteners).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Adamus to have included additional coupling means of clamp(s) and/or hook-and-loop fasteners on the garment in order to allow other decorative toys/accessories to be attached to the garment as is known in the art and as taught by Salvanto ([0010]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included more fastening devices on the garment in order to allow more/other toys/accessories to be used with the garment and as Adamus teaches that multiple magnets/fastening means may be used ([0036]). Further, it has been held that duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQW 8).
In Reference to Claim 3
Adamus teaches:
The garment as claimed in claim 1 as rejected above.
Adamus fails to teach:
Wherein the movable fastening device is configured as at least one of (xiii) a pendulum fastened to the play surface at least at one point and/or along at least a part of a length of the pendulum, and (xiv) a guide rail having a runner that is mounted in the guide rail, wherein the runner comprises the moving element.
Further, Salvanto teaches:
A similar wearable garment (100) having attachable toys/accessories (102/210), wherein the toys/accessories are attachable via movable fastening devices pendulum fastened to the play surface (loop 114 and pendulum ring 104 both act as pendulum members to allow removable coupling of toys/accessories to the garment/play surface, Fig. 1-3, [0010], [0018]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Adamus to have included additional coupling means of a pendulum or guide rail on the garment in order to allow other decorative toys/accessories to be attached to the garment as is known in the art and as taught by Salvanto ([0010], [0018]-[0027]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included more fastening devices on the garment in order to allow more/other toys/accessories to be used with the garment and as Adamus teaches that multiple magnets/fastening means may be used ([0036]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zandman US Pat. No. 6,332,862.
In Reference to Claim 5
Adamus teaches:
The garment as claimed in claim 1 as rejected above.
Adamus fails to teach:
Wherein the interior space of the pocket is configured to be openable and reclosable in a subregion of the periphery, to allow the possibility of at least one of removing the movable element, inserting the movable element, and replacing the moving element.
Further, Zandman teaches:
A similar wearable garment including a magnet housed in a pocket therein, the pocket being openable/closeable by overlapping edges across the perimeter (10/12, Fig. 5, Col. 3 lines 4-12), wherein the magnet is removable from the pocket for laundering or replacement with other magnetic members, including those with different magnetic strengths/properties (Col. 1 lines 57-62)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Adamus to have formed the pocket as openable and closeable in a subregion of the pocket in order to allow the user to change, replace, or modify the magnetic member therein as needed as is known in the art and as taught by Zandman (Col. 1 lines 57-62). Further, 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghaly US Pub. No. 2004/0077265.
In Reference to Claim 11
Adamus teaches:
A play device for children (play device/garment with toy as discussed above, Fig. 1-3), the play device comprising:
a garment as claimed in claim 1 (t-shirt/garment of claim 1 as discussed above); and
wherein the play figure of the garment is at least one play figure (attachable toy 2 is a play figure toy/plush bear),
wherein the at least one play figure has a magnet and/or a magnetizable body (toy 2 has a magnet 3a/3b therein to interact with the magnet 5 of the garment as discussed above),
Adamus fails to teach:
A rod that has a magnet and/or a magnetizable body, wherein the rod is detachably connectable to the garment in order to keep the at least one play figure attached on the garment, and to be able to move the at least one play figure over the play surface by magnetic force between the at least one play figure and the rod, and wherein a part of the play surface of the garment is disposed between the at least one play figure and the rod.
Further, Ghaly teaches:
A magnetic toy in the form of a magic wand/baton (38) which as a compartment at one end that houses a permanent magnet (44) to interact with other magnetic elements of a toy ([0080], Fig. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Adamus to have included additional magnetically interactive features, such as a magnetic wand/baton as Adamus teaches that more magnets may be used for coupling ([0036]) and the use of more magnetic features would make the toy more interesting and interactive to a user. In this case, the wand/baton of Ghaly may be removably coupled to any of the magnets on the garment of Adamus and would allow a user to manipulate or interact with the magnets or magnetically activated switches via the wand/baton as is known in the art as taught by Ghaly ([0080]-[0081]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamus as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Vithlani US Pub. No. 2010/0058510.
In Reference to Claim 12
Adamus teaches:
The garment as claimed in claim 7 as rejected above.
Adamus fails to teach:
Wherein the at least one static fastening mechanism comprises at least three static fastening mechanisms that are arranged alongside one another such that the three static fastening mechanisms form a substantially continuous line or path.
Further, Vithlani teaches:
A similar wearable garment (6) including a plurality of one static fastening mechanisms comprising at least three static fastening mechanisms that are arranged alongside one another such that the three static fastening mechanisms form a substantially continuous line or path (a plurality of fastening mechanisms 1a/2a/3a/4a/5a statically arranged on the play surface of the garment to removably interact with complementary fastening mechanisms on attachable toy portions to allow a user to interchangeably couple additional toys to the playing surface of the garment, the at least three static fastening mechanisms arranged alongside one another to form a substantially continuous line or path, each static fastener is arranged on the playing surface such that a line or path may be drawn to connect them all, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Adamus to have formed the garment with more static fastening mechanisms arranged on the playing surface in order to allow attachment of more interactive figures or accessories in more configurations making the device more fun and interactive as desired as taught by Vithlani ([0001], [0007]-[0010], [0030]-[0036]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included more fastening devices on the garment in order to allow more/other toys/accessories to be used with the garment and as Adamus teaches that multiple magnets/fastening means may be used ([0036]) and it has been held that duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQW 8), and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claim(s) 18 and 22-23 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 Adamus as applied to claim 1 above.
In Reference to Claim 18
Adamus teaches:
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one of the non-movable magnet and the non-movable magnetizable body of the play figure is fixed at an extremity part of the play figure body (the magnet 3a is attached/fixed to the extreme back surface of the play figure (Fig. 2-3) and is labeled as 2b (leg/extremity) in Fig. 3, [0037]).
Further, the exact placement of the magnet in the figure toy to have been anywhere on the toy body is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) and the magnet being movable or fixed on the toy is merely a matter of obvious design choice and it has been held that forming in one piece an articlae which has been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).
In Reference to Claim 22-23
Adamus teaches:
The garment as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pocket has a length dimension and a width dimension, wherein the length dimension of the pocket is at least two times greater than a maximum dimension of the moving element, and wherein the width dimension of the pocket is at least 4 times greater than the maximum dimension of the moving element, wherein the width dimension of the pocket is at least 3 times greater than the maximum dimension of the moving element, and wherein the length dimension of the pocket is at least 5 times greater than the maximum dimension of the moving element (the garment magnet 5 appears to have a similar size and shape to the toy figure magnet 3 as shown in Fig. 2, and the magnet 3 is significantly smaller than the patch area 4 as shown in Fig. 1, which would appear to show the claimed dimensions of a width/height of at least twice the width of the magnet and a height/width of at least four times the magnet size (the height and width are interchangeable depending on the perspective of the user). The annotated figure below shows the vertical height/width dimension appear to be about five time the width of the magnet and the horizontal height/width dimension appears to be about four times the width of the magnet).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the patch and magnet to have had the claimed relative sizes in order to allow the magnet to move within the pocket in different ways or orientations as it has been 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 (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (as annotated and described above), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). In this case, the only difference between relative sizes of the magnet and dimensions of the patch/pocket is merely a matter of aesthetics in that the figure is placeable or movable within the chosen magnetic play area, which does not materially change the function of the device, but merely changes the aesthetics/placement options of the figure on the garment, which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stroud US Pub. No. 2009/0038205.
In Reference to Claim 15
Adamus teaches:
The garment as claimed in claim 1 as rejected above.
Adamus fails to teach:
The moving element (magnet) being coated with a chemically inert, waterproof coating.
Further, Stroud teaches:
Similar wearable garments/accessories including magnets placed therein/thereon, wherein the magnets may include a chemically inert waterproof coating (waterproof protective coating of polymer or similar material, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Adamus to have included a protective coating on the magnet in order to protect it from the elements as is known in the art and as taught by Stroud ([0066]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the magnet with a different material coating 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 this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to choose known chemically inert waterproof coating material in order to protect the magnet member from damage from the elements during use or during washing.
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, Madine (10,111,471), Harris (2020/0282301), Covo (9,089,169), Kempe (2014/0082817), Henderson (2014/0047613), Randolph (2013/0091620), Kulp (2010/0269239), Goldkind (6,769,139), Stocker (5,210,881), Williams (4,860,387), and Gladstein (2,628,452) teach similar garments having play surfaces and toys attached thereto.
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