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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs 6A-C & 11 fail to comply with CFR 1.84(l) & (m) . Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected 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 2, 10 and 18 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said toy fan" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said touch sensor" in 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said touch sensor" in 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick (2006/0034096) and Rago (2007/0281581). Chernick discloses an illumination display toy device having a base (20) secured to a rotating center of a hand-held rotatable fan element with blades (Fig. 4), a motor (16) for spinning the fan element, a programmable circuit board (38) connected to a power supply (40), an LED board (30) connected to the circuit board (Fig. 2) and a fiberoptic holder formed by a front surface of the base which includes a plurality of flexible fiber optic rods (26) attached to the holder at a proximal end and extending to a distal free end to define a substantially straight stable initial position (Figs. 1 & 2). The circuit board includes instructions for illuminating the distal ends of the fiber optic rods when the base is rotated to create an illumination effect that floats above the base and the flexibility of the fiber optic rods allows a perturbance to interfere with the stable position causing a distortion of the illumination effect until the perturbance is removed (paragraphs 21-22 & 25-26). The flexible fiber optic rods can all have the same height or they can have variable lengths such that some rods are longer than others to create a profile shape that impacts the illumination effect (paragraphs 20 & 24). Chernick discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the illumination effect including a persistence of vision display that creates an image. Rago discloses a persistence of vision display toy device having a flexible rotatable element and a programmable circuit (114B) with instructions to create an image while the device rotates (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 70-71). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art form the teaching of Rago to modify the circuit board to include instructions for creating a persistence of vision image when the device is rotated for the predictable result of creating a more dynamic and interesting play experience.
Claim(s) 2, 11-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick and Rago as applied above and further in view of Kulis II (2007/0049159). Chernick and Rago disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the fiber optic rods further positioned over a fan blade of the fan. Kulis II discloses a rotatable illumination device with blades for creating persistence of vision images, wherein illumination devices (24) are positioned over the blades (Figs. 1-2 & 4A-D, paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Kulis II to further place the fiber optic rods of Chernick and Rago on the fan blades, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts which has been held to be obvious unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick and Rago as applied for claim 5 above and further in view of Asamizu (CN111724691A). Chernick and Rago disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the profile shape being tapered or curved from one end to the other. Asamizu discloses an illuminated display using fiber optic rods that can taper from one end to the other (Fig. 10, page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Asamizu to taper the fiber optic rods of Chernick and Rago for the predictable result of enhancing the visual appeal of the device over different viewing angles (page 10). In regard to the profile being curved, the examiner notes that such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the rods and changes in shape have been held to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick and Rago as applied for claim 1 above and further in view of Canobbio (2014/0357333). Chernick and Rago disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the device including a touch sensor with the circuit board for detecting contact with the rods. Canobbio discloses an illumination toy device with a touch sensor (108) that can detect contact with the device responsive to instructions in a circuit ( paragraphs 27-28, 31-32, 38 & 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Canobbio to modify Chernick and Rago with a touch sensor and to configure the circuit board to detect contact with the device using the touch sensor for the predictable result of providing enhanced play value by creating a more interactive toy device that is responsive to contact in a visually interesting manner.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick, Rago and Kulis II as applied for claim 14 above and further in view of Asamizu (CN111724691A). Chernick, Rago and Kulis II disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the profile shape being tapered or curved from one end to the other. Asamizu discloses an illuminated display using fiber optic rods that can taper from one end to the other (Fig. 10, page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Asamizu to taper the fiber optic rods of Chernick, Rago and Kulis II for the predictable result of enhancing the visual appeal of the device over different viewing angles (page 10). In regard to the profile being curved, the examiner notes that such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the rods and changes in shape have been held to be obvious absent persuasive evidence that the configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernick, Rago and Kulis II as applied for claim 11 above and further in view of Canobbio (2014/0357333). Chernick, Rago and Kulis II disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the device including a touch sensor with the circuit board for detecting contact with the rods. Canobbio discloses an illumination toy device with a touch sensor (108) that can detect contact with the device responsive to instructions in a circuit ( paragraphs 27-28, 31-32, 38 & 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Canobbio to modify Chernick, Rago and Kulis II with a touch sensor and to configure the circuit board to detect contact with the device using the touch sensor for the predictable result of providing enhanced play value by creating a more interactive toy device that is responsive to contact in a visually interesting manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711