DETAILED ACTION
2nd Non-final Office Action
The Examiner of record has changed. After review, the current Examiner does not believe that claims 1, 10, and 16 (as amended) are allowable. This second non-final office action supersedes the previous non-final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings (Figs. 1, 3-5) contain photographs of a view that is capable of being illustrated as a line drawing . 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4, line 3 claims “extends is aligned”. This typographical error should be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13, line 3 claims “extends is aligned”. This typographical error should be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2, line 3 claims “extends is aligned”. This typographical error should be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (herein “Cheng”; US Pat. No. 7,077,717 B2) in view of Siegel (FR Pat. No. 636977).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a toy figure (Fig. 5), comprising: a first body component defining a first receptacle (Fig. 7 below; noting the arm with a portion to receive the ball, i.e. the socket, is obvious); a second body component defining a second receptacle (Fig. 7 below; noting the body/torso); and a connector that couples the first body component to the second body component (Fig. 7 below, noting this is obvious from Fig. 5), the connector enabling the second body component to move relative to the first body component (Fig. 5; noting this is obvious and functionally possible), the connector including: a first connector portion engageable with the first receptacle of the first body component (Fig. 7 below; noting this is obvious), the first body component is rotatable relative to the first connector portion about a first rotational axis when the first connector portion is located in the first receptacle (Fig. 7 below and Fig. 5; noting this is functionally possible given the ball and socket arrangement in the arm and would be obvious to a POSA); a second connector portion engageable with the second receptacle of the second body component (Fig. 7; noting this is obvious); and a middle portion located between the first connector portion and the second connector portion (Fig. 7 below), the middle portion is symmetrically located between the first connector portion and the second connector portion (Fig. 7 below; noting it appears to be symmetric), the middle portion having: a first end coupled to the first connector portion; a second end coupled to the second connector portion (Fig. 7 below; noting this is obvious); and a longitudinal axis extending from the first end to the second end (Fig. 7 below; noting this is obvious and/or inherent). It is noted that Cheng does not specifically disclose an asymmetrically located middle portion and wherein the longitudinal axis is offset from and perpendicular to the first rotational axis. However, Siegel discloses a very similar joint used in a manikin wherein the connector has an asymmetrically located middle portion and wherein the longitudinal axis is offset from and perpendicular to the first rotational axis (Fig. 3 below; noting the “axis” of rotation would be slightly above the longitudinal axis given the middle portion offset). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cheng to use an asymmetrically located middle portion and wherein the longitudinal axis is offset from and perpendicular to the first rotational axis as taught and suggested by Siegel because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a joint for a toy doll that rotates and a joint for a manikin that rotates and has a connector with an offset middle portion) according to known methods (using the offset middle portion in the connector) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to have a joint that rotates, the connector having a middle portion that is asymmetric with an offset longitudinal axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
455
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the second connector portion is rotatable about a second rotational axis when the second connector portion is located in the second receptacle (Cheng: Fig. 7 above; noting this is functionally possible given the structure and would be obvious to a POSA), and the longitudinal axis is offset from and parallel to the second rotational axis (Cheng: Fig.7 above and Siegel: Fig. 3 above; noting this is obvious given the combination).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the longitudinal axis is a first longitudinal axis, the connector has a connector first end, a connector second end opposite the connector first end and a second longitudinal axis that extends from the connector first end to the connector second end, and the first longitudinal axis is offset from and parallel to the second longitudinal axis (Siegel: Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claims 4 and 22, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the second connector portion has a ring portion with a first outer surface (Cheng: Fig. 7 above), the middle portion has a second outer surface (Siegel: Fig. 3 above), and the second outer surface extends is aligned and continuous with the first outer surface (Siegel: Fig. 3 above; making obvious alignment of the middle portion with the rest of the internal outer surface on the lower side).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the ring portion is a first ring portion, the second connector portion includes a second ring portion with a third outer surface, and the second outer surface is aligned with the third outer surface (Cheng: Fig. 7; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that the combined Cheng and Siegel do not specifically disclose that the middle portion has a square cross-sectional shape. However, both Cheng and Siegel appear to show that the middle portion has a round or circular shape (Cheng: Fig. 7 and Siegel: Fig. 3 above). In addition, regarding the exact shape of the middle portion, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)(see applicant’s spec, pars. [0011] and [0052]; applicant giving not criticality for the exact shape of square). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact shape of the middle portion would not be significant: that is, the middle portion would still connect the first connector portion to the second connector portion regardless of its exact shape.
Regarding claim 8, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the first body component is a toy figure arm, the second body component is a toy figure torso (Cheng: Fig. 7), the first body component includes a slot formed therein, and the middle portion of the connector travels back and forth in the slot (Siegel: Fig. 3 above; the Examiner construing this broadly as the slot being the socket for the ball; the slot allowing for the middle portion to travel into it based on movement of the arm at the socket; i.e. this language is functionally possible given the structure).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the toy figure arm has an arm longitudinal axis, the toy figure torso has a torso longitudinal axis, and the toy figure arm can be moved relative to the toy figure torso so that the arm longitudinal axis extends perpendicularly to the torso longitudinal axis (Cheng: Fig. 7 and Siegel: Fig. 3; noting this would be obvious and functionally possible given the combination).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses a toy figure (Fig. 5), comprising: an arm defining a first receptacle (Fig. 7 above; noting a socket to receive the ball is obvious); a torso defining a second receptacle (Fig. 7 above); and a connector that movably couples the arm to the torso (Fig. 7 above and Fig. 5; also noting this is functionally possible given the structure), the connector having a first longitudinal axis (Fig. 7 above), the connector including: a first connector portion engageable with the first receptacle, the arm being rotatable relative to the first connector portion about a first rotational axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the ball/socket structure at the shoulder); a second connector portion engageable with the second receptacle and rotatable about a second rotational axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure at the torso), the second rotational axis being perpendicular to the first rotational axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious); and a middle portion symmetrically located between the first connector portion and the second connector portion (Fig. 7 above; noting the middle appears to be symmetric), the middle portion having a second longitudinal axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious and/or inherent). It is noted that Cheng does not specifically disclose an asymmetrically located middle portion and the second longitudinal axis being offset from the first longitudinal axis. However, Siegel discloses a very similar joint used in a manikin wherein the connector has an asymmetrically located middle portion and wherein the second longitudinal axis being offset from the first longitudinal axis (Fig. 3 above). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cheng to use an asymmetrically located middle portion and wherein the longitudinal axis is offset from and perpendicular to the first rotational axis as taught and suggested by Siegel because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a joint for a toy doll that rotates and a joint for a manikin that rotates and has a connector with an offset middle portion) according to known methods (using the offset middle portion in the connector) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to have a joint that rotates, the connector having a middle portion that is asymmetric with an offset longitudinal axis).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the second longitudinal axis is offset from and perpendicular to the first rotational axis (Siegel: Fig. 3 above; the “second” being the axis of the middle portion).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the second longitudinal axis is offset from and parallel to the second rotational axis (Cheng: Fig. 7 and Siegel: Fig. 3; noting this would be obvious given the combination)
Regarding claim 13, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that the second connector portion has a first ring portion with a first outer surface, a second ring portion with a second outer surface (Cheng: Fig. 7 above), the middle portion has a third outer surface, and the third outer surface extends is aligned with the first outer surface and the second outer surface (Siegel: Fig. 3 above; making obvious alignment of the middle portion with the rest of the internal outer surface on the lower side).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng discloses a toy figure (Fig. 5), comprising: an arm (Fig. 7 above); a torso (Fig. 7 above); and a connector that movably couples the arm to the torso (Fig. 7 above, and Fig. 5; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure), the connector having a first longitudinal axis (Fig. 7 above), the connector including: a first portion engageable with the arm (Fig. 7 above; noting a socket for the ball is obvious), the arm being rotatable relative to the first portion about a first rotational axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the ball/socket structure); a second portion engageable with the torso (Fig. 7 above; noting obvious and functionally possible given the structure), the second receptacle and rotatable about a second rotational axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure), the second rotational axis being perpendicular to the first rotational axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious); and a middle portion symmetrically located between the first connector portion and the second connector portion (Fig. 7 above; noting the identified middle portion appears to be symmetric), the middle portion having a second longitudinal axis (Fig. 7 above; noting this is obvious and/or inherent). It is noted that Cheng does not specifically disclose an asymmetrically located middle portion and the second longitudinal axis being offset from the first longitudinal axis. However, Siegel discloses a very similar joint used in a manikin wherein the connector has an asymmetrically located middle portion and wherein the second longitudinal axis being offset from the first longitudinal axis (Fig. 3 above). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cheng to use an asymmetrically located middle portion and wherein the longitudinal axis is offset from and perpendicular to the first rotational axis as taught and suggested by Siegel because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a joint for a toy doll that rotates and a joint for a manikin that rotates and has a connector with an offset middle portion) according to known methods (using the offset middle portion in the connector) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to have a joint that rotates, the connector having a middle portion that is asymmetric with an offset longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 19, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose the first portion includes a body with a first body side (Cheng: Fig. 7 above; noting the arm side, i.e. the ball; the first body side being the front) and a second body side opposite to the first body side (Cheng: Fig. 7 above; noting the ball on the other side, i.e. the rear, the Examiner construing this broadly, i.e. a ball extends outward on both sides), the first body side having a first extension extending outwardly therefrom (Cheng: Fig. 7 above; noting the ball extension on one side, i.e. the front), the second body side having a second extension extending outwardly therefrom (Cheng: Fig. 7 above; noting the ball extension on the other side, i.e. the rear), and the first rotational axis passes through the first extension and the second extension (Cheng: Fig. 7 above). Noting the Examiner construes claim 19 under the broadest reasonable interpretation. That is, applicant does not claim 19 with any specific structure but rather uses very general limitations that is broadly met by the prior art of Cheng and/or Seigel.
Regarding claim 21, the combined Cheng and Siegel disclose that arm includes a slot formed therein, and the middle portion of the connector travels back and forth in the slot (Siegel: Fig. 3 above; the Examiner construing this broadly as the slot being the socket for the ball; the slot allowing for the middle portion to travel into it based on movement of the arm at the socket; i.e. this language is functionally possible given the structure).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
7/6/26
Prosecution Insights