DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
ln 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth ?///./in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 remain pending. Claim 18 remains canceled. Claims 1, 3, 16-17, and 19-20 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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. ln 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) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2012/0234258 A1) in view of Resh et al. (US 2016/0096117 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cook teaches an apparatus for interaction of a pet animal (Figs. 1-7, “cat toy” 10), the apparatus comprising: an interchangeable base (Fig. 1, “housing” 12 with “interchangeable teaser toy member”, para. [0011]) having a distal end (Fig. 1, upper end above line 12) and a proximate end (Fig. 1, lower end below line 12); a toy end assembly coupled to the distal end of the interchangeable base (Fig. 1, “enticing teaser toy” 32 shown tethered on an “elastic cord or lanyard” 34 connected with a detachable coupling device to the distal end of a “flexible spring coil arm” 42 at distal end or upper end of “housing” 12); and at least one fastener extending from the proximate end of the interchangeable base (Figs. 1-2, “suction cup” 24 shown extending from proximate end or lower end of “housing” 12 fixedly coupled to “battery door” 78), wherein the at least one fastener is configured to removably couple the interchangeable base to a pet toy or pet product (Note, “pet toy or product” is an intended use recitation. A table is capable of being a pet toy or product, such as for storing pet food or for the pet to climb. Further, Resh teaches mounting to another toy below. Fig. 1 shows “suction cup” 24 removably coupled to “flat surface” 22 of a pet toy or pet product, such as the glass coffee table shown and discussed: “The bottom half or base 16 of the cylindrical shape housing 12 is stationary and mounted to a flat surface 22 such as a glass coffee table or a marble kitchen countertop by a suction cup 24 during operation of the cat toy 10. The suction cup allows attachment of the toy to any smooth surface.”, Para. [0023]).
Cook does not expressly disclose wherein a size and shape of the proximate end of the interchangeable base corresponds to an opening in the pet toy or pet product, such that the proximate end of the interchangeable base is configured to at least partially nest within the opening of the pet toy or pet product.
However, in an analogous toy tethering art, Resh teaches wherein a size and shape of the proximate end of the interchangeable base (Fig. 4, “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38) corresponds to an opening in the pet toy or pet product (Note, “pet toy or pet product” is an intended use recitation. Any tethered toy is capable of being a pet toy, for example a cat toy as shown by Cook above. Fig. 4, opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12), such that the proximate end of the interchangeable base is configured to at least partially nest within the opening of the pet toy or pet product (As shown in Fig. 4, with “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38 is nested within opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook wherein a size and shape of the proximate end of the interchangeable base corresponds to an opening in the pet toy or pet product, such that the proximate end of the interchangeable base is configured to at least partially nest within the opening of the pet toy or pet product, as taught by Resh, with a reasonable expectation for success, “Thus, the bottom end 42 of the coupler 38 engages the support surface 16 to retain the housing 12 on the support surface 16.”, as discussed by Resh, Para. [0014], thereby keeping the apparatus mounted in place to be interacted or played with, as further disclosed in Fig. 3 of Resh.
Regarding claim 2, Cook teaches wherein the interchangeable base comprises: a first portion including the proximate end of the interchangeable base (16, Fig. 1 and 2; stationary base 16, para [0022]), wherein the at least one fastener is coupled to the first portion (the bottom half or base 16 is mounted to 22 by 24, para (0024)); and a second portion coupled to and extending away from the first portion, the second portion including the distal end of the interchangeable base (14, Fig. 1 and 2; a rotatable dome or turret top 14 that engages and rides on top of stationary base 16, para [0022]), wherein the toy end assembly is coupled to the second portion (see 44 extending from 14, Fig. 1 and 2; flexible spring coil arm 42 screws onto threads 44 on a distal end of a rigid post, para [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Resh further teaches wherein a size and a shape of the first portion (Fig. 4, “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38) corresponds to the opening in the pet toy or pet product (Fig. 4, opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12), such that the first portion is configured to at least partially nest within the opening of the pet toy or pet product (As shown in Fig. 4, with “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38 is nested within opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook wherein a size and a shape of the first portion corresponds to the opening in the pet toy or pet product, such that the first portion is configured to at least partially nest within the opening of the pet toy or pet product., as further taught by Resh, with a reasonable expectation for success, “Thus, the bottom end 42 of the coupler 38 engages the support surface 16 to retain the housing 12 on the support surface 16.”, as discussed by Resh, Para. [0014], thereby keeping the apparatus mounted in place to be interacted or played with, as further disclosed in Fig. 3 of Resh.
Regarding claim 4, Cook teaches wherein the first portion comprises a power source to control a movement of the toy end assembly (see 76 within 16, Fig. 2; a power source 76 comprises 3 AAA batteries ... recessed into a generally flat circular bottom surface on the lower half or base 16, para [0028]; the power button causes ... where the toy automatically bounces and swings an enticing toy 32, para [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Cook teaches wherein the second portion is dome-shaped (rotatable dome or turret top 14, para [0022]), conically shaped, or spiral-shaped.
Regarding claim 7, Cook teaches wherein the second portion comprises a motorized component that controls a movement of the toy end assembly (60 and 64, Fig. 5 and 6; as the motor turns the first motor gear and its gear teeth engage with the gear teeth of the second transmission gear. The second gear then turns the transmission shaft 60 so that the camming plate 64 affixed to the interior wall rotates the dome 14 back and forth, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Cook teaches wherein the toy end assembly is designed to entice interaction of the pet animal (As shown in Fig. 1, electronically controlled cat toy that moves an enticing teaser toy, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Cook teaches wherein the toy end assembly is movably coupled to the second portion (as the dome 14 rotates, the other end of the post has a knurl that rides on top of a wave guide mounted within the housing base 16 to move the swing arm 42 up and down and to rotate the swing arm 42 from left to right, para [0027]; see these movements happening while coupled to 16, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Cook teaches wherein the at least one fastener comprises snaps (see 78 with projections of common battery door, especially the bottom projection aligned to connect to 16, Fig. 3; commonly known to those with ordinary skill in the art battery doors comprise a snap connection for securing the battery door to the battery compartment), threads, magnets, or combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2012/0234258 A1) in view of Resh et al. (US 2016/0096117 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of McCafferty et al. (US 2015/0027382 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cook as modified by Resh teaches the apparatus of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of protruding arms and wherein the toy end assembly is disposed between the plurality of protruding arms.
However, McCafferty teaches wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of protruding arms (see upper portions of 44s as arms protruding from upper 10, Fig. 3; outer sections 44 form the supporting structure for the vertical module 20, para [0048]) and wherein the toy end assembly is disposed between the plurality of protruding arms (see upper left 40 disposed between left and right 44s, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook as modified by Resh wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of protruding arms and wherein the toy end assembly is disposed between the plurality of protruding arms, as taught by McCafferty, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide more supporting arms to the toy, thereby providing a more robust toy that can be played with for longer and heavier use. Further, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Cook as modified by Resh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one fastener comprises a press fit fastener (Note, Resh is silent on how coupler is fitted through the opening).
However, McCafferty teaches wherein the at least one fastener comprises a press fit fastener (lugs 60 are configured to friction fit or have an interference fit, para [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook as modified by Resh wherein the at least one fastener comprises a press fit fastener, as taught by McCafferty, with a reasonable expectation for success, since these fastening means were art-recognized equivalents for fastening a pet toy to a surface and to ensure the apparatus of Cook as modified by Resh remains fixed to the surface while being played with by a pet.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2012/0234258 A1) in view of Resh et al. (US 2016/0096117 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zelinger (US 5,148,769).
Regarding claim 8, Cook as modified by Resh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the toy end assembly comprises: an elongate member having a first end and a second end, the first end being coupled to the distal end of the interchangeable base; and a toy coupled to the second end of the elongate member.
However, in an analogous pet toy art, Zelinger teaches wherein the toy end assembly comprises: an elongate member (Fig. 1 and 5 spring-like wire 4, col 2, ln 68) having a first end (Fig. 1 and 5 one end 5, col 2, ln 68) and a second end (Fig. 1 free end 11, col 3, ln 10), the first end being coupled to the distal end of the interchangeable base (Fig. 5, see 5 coupled to 10 via 32, Fig. 5; 10 mount 4 at 5, col 2, ln 68; screw 32, col 3, ln 51); and a toy coupled to the second end of the elongate member (see 6 coupled to 11 via 12, Fig. 1; pet toy or amusement device 6 is suspended from the free end 11 of 4 by a suspension arrangement 12, col 3, ln 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook as modified by Resh wherein the toy end assembly comprises: an elongate member having a first end and a second end, the first end being coupled to the distal end of the interchangeable base; and a toy coupled to the second end of the elongate member, as taught by Zelinger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to insure random motion of the member and hence the toy suspended at the free end thereof when batted by a pet animal for maximum enjoyment by the animal”, as discussed by Zelinger, col 2, ln 23-26.
Regarding claim 9, Cook as modified by Resh and Zelinger teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Further, Zelinger teaches wherein the elongate member is arcuate (see arcuate shape of 4, Fig. 1; 4 is generally arcuate in shape, col 3, ln 5-6) and wherein the first end is rotatably coupled to the distal end of the interchangeable base, such that the elongate member and toy are rotatable in relation to the interchangeable base (see 5 coupled to top end of 28 via 32 through 30, Fig. 5; a screw or the like 32 is inserted through loop 30, screw is in threaded engagement and loop 30 is disposed adjacent the end of neck portion 28 and is capture by head of screw 32, col 3, ln 51-55; reasonably assuming coupling via threads of a screw is rotatable coupling where the wire could rotate with the screw as the screw is rotated on the threads relative to the neck portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook as modified by Resh wherein the elongate member is arcuate and wherein the first end is rotatably coupled to the distal end of the interchangeable base, such that the elongate member and toy are rotatable in relation to the interchangeable base, as further taught by Zelinger, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a rotatably removable coupling “whereby the toy is interchangeably suspended at the free end of the spring-like wire member enhances the utility of the device since the toy may be replaced with another toy as may suit the temperament of the animal, or as may be necessary when the toy wears out after extensive use”, as discussed by Zelinger, col 2, ln 27-32.
Regarding claim 10, Cook as modified by Resh and Zelinger teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Further, Zelinger teaches wherein the elongate member is flexible (spring-like wire 4 is of suitable stainless steel having desired spring characteristics, col 3, ln 2-3), such that the toy is movable in relation to the interchangeable base (a toy or amusement object is suspended at the free end of the wire-like member for random movement when batted by a cat or other pet animal, col 2, ln 16-20; the suction cup configuration of the base precludes the device from being displaced on the supporting surface during use as is desirable, col 2, ln 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook as modified by Resh wherein the elongate member is flexible, such that the toy is movable in relation to the interchangeable base, as further taught by Zelinger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to insure random motion of the member and hence the toy suspended at the free end thereof when batted by a pet animal for maximum enjoyment by the animal”, as discussed by Zelinger, col 2, ln 23-26.
Regarding claim 11, Cook as modified by Resh and Zelinger teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Further, Zelinger teaches wherein the toy is removably coupled to the second end of the elongate member, such that the toy is interchangeable (the toy or amusement object is interchangeably suspended at the free end of the wire-like member, col 2, ln 16-19; the toy is removably suspended by the spring-like wire, col 4, ln 29-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook as modified by Resh wherein the toy is removably coupled to the second end of the elongate member, such that the toy is interchangeable, as further taught by Zelinger, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a rotatably removable coupling “whereby the toy is interchangeably suspended at the free end of the spring-like wire member enhances the utility of the device since the toy may be replaced with another toy as may suit the temperament of the animal, or as may be necessary when the toy wears out after extensive use”, as discussed by Zelinger, col 2, ln 27-32.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelinger (US 5,148,769) in view of Resh et al. (US 2016/0096117 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zelinger teaches a toy connection assembly (an animal toy or amusement device ... the spring-like wire is removably mounted to the base and the toy is removably suspended by the spring-like wire, col 4, ln 21-30) comprising: a base (28 and 10, Fig. 1 and 5; neck section 28 carries a mounting arrangement 10, col 2, ln 67-68); a toy coupled to one end of the base (see 4 and 6 coupled to top end of 28 via 10, Fig. 1; Neck section 28 of base carries a mounting arrangement 10 which mounts spring-like wire 4 at one end thereof to base ... pet toy or amusement device 6 is suspended from the free end of the spring-like wire 4, col 2, ln 67 - col 3, ln 10); and a fastener extending from another end of the base (see 2A extending from bottom end of 28, Fig. 1; mounting section 2A, col 2, ln 62), wherein the fastener is configured to removably couple the base to another toy (Zelinger's mounting section is implicitly disclosed as capable of "configured to removably couple the base to another toy" since it is capable of being removably affixed by suction to a supporting surface (col 2, ln 63-64), therefore one may couple the base to a different supporting surface of another, or second toy).
Zelinger does not expressly disclose wherein a size and shape of the other end of the base corresponds to an opening in a second toy, different from the first toy.
However, in an analogous toy tethering art, Resh teaches wherein a size and shape of the other end of the base (Fig. 4, “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38) corresponds to an opening in a second toy, different from the first toy (Fig. 4, opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12; with “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38 is nested within opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Zelinger wherein a size and shape of the other end of the base corresponds to an opening in a second toy, different from the first toy, as taught by Resh, with a reasonable expectation for success, “Thus, the bottom end 42 of the coupler 38 engages the support surface 16 to retain the housing 12 on the support surface 16.”, as discussed by Resh, Para. [0014], thereby keeping the apparatus mounted to the support surface of the base of Zelinger in place to be interacted or played with, as further disclosed in Fig. 3 of Resh.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelinger (US 5,148,769) in view of Viscount et al. (US 2004/0037635 A1) and Resh et al. (US 2016/0096117 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Zelinger teaches an interchangeable toy system (an animal toy or amusement device ... the spring-like wire is removably mounted to the base and the toy is removably suspended by the spring-like wire, col 4, ln 21-30; a toy or amusement object is interchangeably suspended at the free end, col 2, ln 16-17) comprising: a base product (2, Fig. 1-5; the invention includes a base 2, col 2, ln 57-58) having a receptacle (Fig. 4, channel opening 14); and a set of toys (6, Fig. 1; 38, Fig. 6; toy 6 ... bell or the like 38, col 4, ln 13-14; 4 with 22 on the end, Fig. 4·and 4 with 30 on the end, Fig. 5), wherein each toy of the set of toys is selectable and removably attachable to the base product (with the arrangement described, toy 6 can easily be removed and replaced, col 4, ln 16-17; a toy or amusement object is interchangeably suspended at the free end, col 2, ln 16-17), wherein each toy of the set of toys includes: an adapter configured to couple the toy to the base product (4 with 20 and 22 on the end aligned with 14 and 16 in 2, Fig. 4; spring-like wire 4 terminates in a rod-like portion 20, which terminates in a spherical ball 22. Ball is forced downwardly through channel 14 so as to rest in spherical opening 16, col 3, ln 29-42), the adapter including a fastener extending away from an end of the adapter (Fig. 4, spring-like wire 4 terminates in a rod-like portion 20, which terminates in a spherical ball 22. Ball is forced downwardly through channel 14 so as to rest in spherical opening 16, col 3, ln 29-42); and a plaything removably attachable to the adapter (the free end of the wire has a toy removably suspended therefrom, Abstract; a toy or amusement object is interchangeably suspended at the free end of the wire-like member, col 2, ln 16-18).
Zelinger does not expressly disclose the adapter including a plurality of fasteners configured to be removably coupled.
However, in an analogous ornament and sporting goods art, Viscount discloses the adapter including a plurality of fasteners (Fig. 6, “horizontal extensions”, 14; four shown) configured to be removably coupled (As shown in Fig. 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Zelinger to further include the adapter including a plurality of fasteners configured to be removably coupled, as taught by Viscount, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “intentional removal is easily accomplished by overcoming the mating features 9, discussed further above, and rotating the coupling device so that the extensions 14 (or projections 21) are rotated away from lips 7”, as discussed by Viscount, Para. [0038], such that the toy or ornament of Zelinger may be easily replaced or removed.
Zelinger does not expressly disclose the fasteners configured to be coupled the respective toy of the set of the other toys to the receptacle of the first pet toy.
However, in an analogous toy art, Resh discloses the fasteners (Figs. 2 and 4, “coupled ends” 48) configured to be coupled the respective toy of the set of the other toys (Figs. 1-5, “cylinders” 44) to the receptacle of the first pet toy (Figs. 4-5, “first portion” 30 of “arms” 20 of toy “assembly” 10 shown being a receptacle of “retractors” 64 and coupled at “coupled ends” 48 of other toy “cylinders” 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toy system of Zelinger to further include the fasteners configured to be coupled the respective toy of the set of the other toys to the receptacle of the first pet toy, as taught by Resh, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device, such as the toys and fasteners to provide more toys to accommodate multiple pets or to provide more entertainment and stimulation for a single pet, involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19, Zelinger teaches wherein the adapter includes an end portion configured to be received by a receptacle of the base product (20 and 22 into 14 and 16 of 2, Fig. 4; ball 22 is forced downwardly through channel 14 so as to rest in spherical opening 16. Rod-like portion 20 is snugly disposed in channel 14, col 3, ln 36-39; note, Resh is relied upon above for teachings attaching a first toy to a plurality of other toys).
Zelinger does not expressly disclose wherein the end portion of the adapter and the plurality of fasteners together define a modular coupling interface having a predetermined geometry corresponding to the receptacle of the first pet toy, the modular coupling interface being configured to be repeatedly attached to and detached from the first pet toy by nesting engagement between the end portion of the adapter and the receptacle of the first pet toy.
However, Viscount discloses wherein the end portion of the adapter and the plurality of fasteners together define a modular coupling interface having a predetermined geometry corresponding to the receptacle of the first pet toy (Fig. 6, “horizontal extensions”, 14; four shown; note, Resh is relied upon above for teaching the base product as a first toy), the modular coupling interface being configured to be repeatedly attached to and detached from the first pet toy by nesting engagement between the end portion of the adapter and the receptacle of the first pet toy (As shown by Fig. 6; further see Figs. 9-12 showing the modular and interchangeable attachements, such as a flag, alien head, mouse, and string).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toy system of Zelinger wherein the end portion of the adapter and the plurality of fasteners together define a modular coupling interface having a predetermined geometry corresponding to the receptacle of the first pet toy, the modular coupling interface being configured to be repeatedly attached to and detached from the first pet toy by nesting engagement between the end portion of the adapter and the receptacle of the first pet toy, as taught by Viscount, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “intentional removal is easily accomplished by overcoming the mating features 9, discussed further above, and rotating the coupling device so that the extensions 14 (or projections 21) are rotated away from lips 7”, as discussed by Viscount, Para. [0038], such that the toy or ornament of Zelinger may be easily replaced or removed.
Regarding claim 20, Viscount discloses wherein the plaything of each toy of the set of other toys is different from each other, such that the first pet toy is selectively couplable to different playthings via respective adapters of respective toys of the set of toys (As shown by Fig. 6; also see Figs. 9-12 showing the modular and interchangeable attachments, such as a flag, alien head, mouse, and string).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/205 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not show attachment to a pet toy or pet product, it is first noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, “pet toy or product” is an intended use recitation. A table is capable of being a pet toy or product, such as for storing pet food or for the pet to climb.
Further, Resh teaches mounting to another toy. Resh teaches wherein a size and shape of the proximate end of the interchangeable base (Fig. 4, “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38) corresponds to an opening in the pet toy or pet product (Note, “pet toy or pet product” is an intended use recitation. Any tethered toy is capable of being a pet toy, for example a cat toy as shown by Cook above. Fig. 4, opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12), such that the proximate end of the interchangeable base is configured to at least partially nest within the opening of the pet toy or pet product (As shown in Fig. 4, with “bottom pole” 34 at “top end” 40 of “coupler” 38 is nested within opening at “coupler end” 24 of “housing” 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Cook wherein a size and shape of the proximate end of the interchangeable base corresponds to an opening in the pet toy or pet product, such that the proximate end of the interchangeable base is configured to at least partially nest within the opening of the pet toy or pet product, as taught by Resh, with a reasonable expectation for success, “Thus, the bottom end 42 of the coupler 38 engages the support surface 16 to retain the housing 12 on the support surface 16.”, as discussed by Resh, Para. [0014], thereby keeping the apparatus mounted in place to be interacted or played with, as further disclosed in Fig. 3 of Resh.
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not expressly disclose modular and reconfigurable attachment to other toys, it is first noted that regarding applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, while Zelinger does not expressly disclose wherein the end portion of the adapter and the plurality of fasteners together define a modular coupling interface having a predetermined geometry corresponding to the receptacle of the first pet toy, the modular coupling interface being configured to be repeatedly attached to and detached from the first pet toy by nesting engagement between the end portion of the adapter and the receptacle of the first pet toy, Viscount discloses wherein the end portion of the adapter and the plurality of fasteners together define a modular coupling interface having a predetermined geometry corresponding to the receptacle of the first pet toy (Fig. 6, “horizontal extensions”, 14; four shown; note, Resh is relied upon above for teaching the base product as a first toy), the modular coupling interface being configured to be repeatedly attached to and detached from the first pet toy by nesting engagement between the end portion of the adapter and the receptacle of the first pet toy (As shown by Fig. 6; further see Figs. 9-12 showing the modular and interchangeable attachements, such as a flag, alien head, mouse, and string).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toy system of Zelinger wherein the end portion of the adapter and the plurality of fasteners together define a modular coupling interface having a predetermined geometry corresponding to the receptacle of the first pet toy, the modular coupling interface being configured to be repeatedly attached to and detached from the first pet toy by nesting engagement between the end portion of the adapter and the receptacle of the first pet toy, as taught by Viscount, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “intentional removal is easily accomplished by overcoming the mating features 9, discussed further above, and rotating the coupling device so that the extensions 14 (or projections 21) are rotated away from lips 7”, as discussed by Viscount, Para. [0038], such that the toy or ornament of Zelinger may be easily replaced or removed.
Further, while Zelinger does not expressly disclose the fasteners configured to be coupled the respective toy of the set of the other toys to the receptacle of the first pet toy, Resh discloses the fasteners (Figs. 2 and 4, “coupled ends” 48) configured to be coupled the respective toy of the set of the other toys (Figs. 1-5, “cylinders” 44) to the receptacle of the first pet toy (Figs. 4-5, “first portion” 30 of “arms” 20 of toy “assembly” 10 shown being a receptacle of “retractors” 64 and coupled at “coupled ends” 48 of other toy “cylinders” 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toy system of Zelinger to further include the fasteners configured to be coupled the respective toy of the set of the other toys to the receptacle of the first pet toy, as taught by Resh, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device, such as the toys and fasteners to provide more toys to accommodate multiple pets or to provide more entertainment and stimulation for a single pet, involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Lastly, Viscount expressly discloses wherein the plaything of each toy of the set of other toys is different from each other, such that the first pet toy is selectively couplable to different playthings via respective adapters of respective toys of the set of toys (As shown by Fig. 6; also see Figs. 9-12 showing the modular and interchangeable attachments, such as a flag, alien head, mouse, and string; note, Resh is relied upon above for teaching attaching a set of toys, such as the cylinders, to another first toy, such as the round octopus).
Therefore the prior art, in combination, discloses each and every limitation as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647