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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, filed 5/15/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/15/2024 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.
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 1-20 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 3 recited the limitation “the longitudinal axis of the housing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recited the limitation “the longitudinal axis of the housing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, it is unclear in the limitation “a water pump disposed inside a housing configured to receive a pool noodle extending along a longitudinal axis” if the longitudinal axis is being defined for the pool noodle, the housing, or the water pump. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding the use of “pool noodle” in the claims (independent claims 1 and 6 use this language which causes issues in all of the claims), there is no real industry standard for what a “pool noodle” would exactly define. In general, this would be considered a hollow foam/plastic tube that acts as a personal floatation device in a pool, however the dimensions, materials, and shapes vary widely in the market. Some are not hollow, some are curved or straight, some are quite thick or wide or long and others are thinner or have smaller hollow interiors. The specification does not go into detail about any particular size, shape, or dimensions and further does not really go into details on the materials used for the “pool noodle” outside fairly vague refences of “foam” or “factory foam”. Further, the invention doesn’t appear to use a full length pool noodle as would be generally considered a pool noodle, which is generally quite long to act as a personal floatation device (generally about 6 ft. in length and 3 inches in diameter and formed of flexible plastic foam, such as polyethylene). The invention appears to use a cut portion of a pool noodle as the launcher housing appears significantly smaller in length than a pool noodle used as a personal floatation device. It appears to the examiner that instead a limitation of “a straight hollow foam cylindrical tube” would be more useful and clear than “pool noodle”. Further, some of the claims later define a “foam layer fixedly enclosing the housing”, which it is unclear if this is the pool noodle limitation, or a different foam layer. If this foam layer is intended to define the “pool noodle”, then it is unclear why the pool noodle limitation is included.
Claims 2, 4-7, and 9-18 are therefore rejected as they depend on 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 1-3, 6-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spector US Pat. No. 5,605,485.
Spector teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
A continuously operable water gun (continuously operable water gun (when activated continuously), Fig. 1-6) comprising:
a water pump disposed inside a housing (water pump 21 disposed inside housing 11) configured to receive a pool noodle extending along a longitudinal axis (a flexible foam plastic accessory 10 is in the form of a broadly longitudinal tube shape approximating a “pool noodle” which extends around and along the main longitudinal axis of the housing along the firing axis along the barrel 25 and outlet nozzle 26 of the housing to conceal the housing therein); and
a foam layer fixedly enclosing the housing (outer toy 10 has a flexible foam plastic inner layer enclosing the housing 11 therein, Fig. 1-3, Col. 3 lines 13-28),
wherein:
the housing defines a discharge conduit (26) and an intake conduit (22) both fluidly coupled to the water pump (21) configured such that when the intake conduit is submerged below a surface of water to receive water (intake conduit 22 is submerged below a surface of water within reservoir 23, Fig. 4/6) then the discharge conduit selectively disperses water along an axis of firing (the pump 21 when activated moves water from the intake conduit through the housing to the discharge nozzle/conduit, which water shoots out along a firing axis, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 2
The continuously operable water gun of claim 1, the housing further comprises ribs configured such that the pool noodle releasably couples to the housing when the pool noodle is inserted onto the housing (the housing 11 has protrusions on the left and right ends of the top surface that act as “ribs” and the lower protruding handle/trigger guard also acts as a “rib” that frictionally retains the foam/pool noodle outer 10 on the housing during use, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 3
The continuously operable water gun of claim 1, further comprising the pool noodle configured to be received along the longitudinal axis of the housing (the toy/pool noodle 10 is received along the longitudinal axis of housing 11 as discussed above, Fig. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 6
A continuously operable water gun (continuously operable water gun (when activated continuously), Fig. 1-6) comprising:
a water pump disposed inside a housing (water pump 21 disposed inside housing 11) configured to receive a pool noodle extending along a longitudinal axis (a flexible foam plastic accessory 10 is in the form of a broadly longitudinal tube shape approximating a “pool noodle” which extends around and along the main longitudinal axis of the housing along the firing axis along the barrel 25 and outlet nozzle 26 of the housing to conceal the housing therein, and the housing 11 is “configured to” receive a standard foam pool noodle in the same fashion);
wherein, the housing defines a discharge conduit (26) and an intake conduit (22) both fluidly coupled to the water pump (21, Fig. 4) configured such that when the intake conduit is submerged below a surface of water to receive water (intake conduit 22 is submerged below a surface of water within reservoir 23, Fig. 4/6) and the discharge conduit then disperses water along an axis of firing (the pump 21 when activated moves water from the intake conduit through the housing to the discharge nozzle/conduit, which water shoots out along a firing axis, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 7
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6, further comprising a foam layer fixedly enclosing the housing (outer toy 10 has a flexible foam plastic inner layer frictionally fixedly enclosing the housing 11 therein, Fig. 1-3, Col. 3 lines 13-28).
In Reference to Claim 8
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6, further comprising the pool noodle configured to be received along the longitudinal axis of the housing (the toy/pool noodle 10 is received along the longitudinal axis of housing 11 as discussed above, Fig. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 9
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6, wherein the housing further comprises ribs configured such that the pool noodle releasably couples to the housing when the pool noodle is inserted onto the housing (the housing 11 has protrusions on the left and right ends of the top surface that act as “ribs” and the lower protruding handle/trigger guard also acts as a “rib” that frictionally retains the foam/pool noodle outer 10 on the housing during use, Fig. 1).
In Reference to Claim 14
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6, further comprising a spray nozzle (outlet 26 is a spray nozzle that sprays water out thereof during use, Fig. 1).
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 4-5, 10-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Orlowski US Pub. No. 2014/0154946.
In Reference to Claims 4-5
Spector teaches:
The continuously operable water gun of claim 1 as rejected above.
Spector fails to teach:
Wherein the housing further comprises snap connectors configured such that the pool noodle releasably couples to the housing when the pool noodle is inserted onto the housing, the snap connectors further comprise spring loaded retractable connectors.
Further, Orlowski teaches:
A similar water discharging toy (500) having a housing (512/585) having a pump (520) and discharge outlet (580) and a buoyant foam floating portion (506/508), wherein the floating foam portions and the housing/pump are connected using numerous known means, such as integral melting, flue, snap fasteners, screw fastening, frictional retainers, and other mechanical means ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Spector to have formed the floating outer toy with a removable coupling, such as snap connectors with spring-loaded retractable connectors to more securely hold the outer portion of the toy to the inner portion of the toy during use while allowing easy disconnection when needed as this is common and known in the art as taught by Orlowski ([0039]).
Further, though Spector doesn’t specifically teach the pool noodle being releasably coupled to the housing using means such as snap connectors with spring loaded retractable connectors, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have releasably coupled the pool noodle to the housing in order to allow the housing and/or pool noodle to be replaced or exchanged if broken or to be used separately as 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) and as each of the releasable couplings are known equivalents in the art and the selection of any of the known equivalents to produce the same functional removable relationship is merely a matter of obvious design choice. Further, Orlowski teaches that releasable couplings, such as threaded fasteners, snap fasteners, frictional retaining means, and other mechanical method (of which spring-loaded retractable connectors would be considered covered by this), are known and commonly used equivalent fastening means in the art.
In Reference to Claims 10-12
Spector teaches:
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6, wherein the housing further comprises a ribbed exterior surface configured to receive a foam noodle (the housing 11 has protrusions on the left and right ends of the top surface that act as “ribs” and the lower protruding handle/trigger guard also acts as a “rib” that frictionally retains the foam/pool noodle outer 10 on the housing during use, Fig. 1).
Spector fails to teach:
Wherein the housing further comprises snap connectors configured such that the pool noodle releasably couples to the housing when the pool noodle is inserted onto the housing, the snap connectors further comprise spring loaded retractable connectors or ribbed exterior surface configured to receive a foam noodle.
Further, Orlowski teaches:
A similar water discharging toy (500) having a housing (512/585) having a pump (520) and discharge outlet (580) and a buoyant foam floating portion (506/508), wherein the floating foam portions and the housing/pump are connected using numerous known means, such as integral melting, flue, snap fasteners, screw fastening, frictional retainers, and other mechanical means ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Spector to have formed the floating outer toy with a removable coupling, such as snap connectors with spring-loaded retractable connectors or ribbed surfaces to more securely hold the outer portion of the toy to the inner portion of the toy during use while allowing easy disconnection when needed as this is common and known in the art as taught by Orlowski ([0039]).
Further, though Spector doesn’t specifically teach the pool noodle being releasably coupled to the housing using means such as snap connectors with spring loaded retractable connectors or ribbed surfaces, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have releasably coupled the pool noodle to the housing in order to allow the housing and/or pool noodle to be replaced or exchanged if broken or to be used separately as 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) and as each of the releasable couplings are known equivalents in the art and the selection of any of the known equivalents to produce the same functional removable relationship is merely a matter of obvious design choice. Further, Orlowski teaches that releasable couplings, such as threaded fasteners, snap fasteners, frictional retaining means, and other mechanical method (of which spring loaded retractable connectors or ribbed surfaces would be considered covered by this), are known and commonly used equivalent fastening means in the art.
In Reference to Claims 19-20
Spector teaches:
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6 as rejected above.
Spector fails to teach:
Wherein a foam layer extending along the surface of the intake conduit or a foam layer extending along the surface of the discharge conduit.
Further, Orlowski teaches:
A similar water discharging toy (500) having a housing (512/585) having a pump (520) and discharge outlet (580 on cap 510) and a buoyant foam floating portion (506/508), wherein the inlet/outlet conduits may include a soft material, such as foam, to provide a buoyant soft outer surface, [0004], [0024], [0027]. [0040]-[0041], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Spector to have formed the floating outer toy conduit surfaces with soft foam along the surface in order to provide a soft buoyant cover for the toy which is common and known in the art as taught by Orlowski ([0004], [0024], [0027]. [0040]-[0041], [0049]).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Coffey US Pat. No. 7,927,175.
In Reference to Claims 13 and 17
Spector teaches:
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6 as rejected above.
Spector fails to teach:
A control panel configured such that a user can control the continuously operable water gun between a range of predetermined configurations and angles between the surface of the water at an inlet and the axis of the firing of the discharge conduit at which the discharge conduit discharges water from or a rechargeable battery.
Further, Coffey teaches:
A similar water discharging toy (10, Fig. 1-7) having a pump (62) with an inlet (61) and outlet (20b) in the housing and a floatation member (40) positioned about the housing, a control panel configured such that a user can control the continuously operable water gun between a range of predetermined configurations and angles between the surface of the water at an inlet and the axis of the firing of the discharge conduit at which the discharge conduit discharges water from (control head 22 has numerous controlling spray user controls, such as spray select dial 31, to allow a user to control the water gun between predetermined configurations/firing options, Fig. 1-2, Col. 2 line 48 – Col. 3 line 21, Col. 4 lines 20-43) or a rechargeable battery (battery 65 rechargeable via charging port 59, Col. 5 lines 21-36, or rechargeable batteries via solar panels 80, or a removable charging/docking station 82).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Spector to have formed the toy with electronically powered features, such as a battery, electric pump, and control panel, in order to allow the device to be electrically powered making it easier to use and allow for more spraying options as both motorized and hand actuated pumps and firing means are known in the water gun toy art and a control panel and rechargeable battery allow for more spraying options making the toy more fun and easier for the user to operate as taught by Coffey (Col. 1 lines 5-59, Col. 2 line 48 – Col. 3 line 21, Col. 4 lines 20-43, Col. 5 lines 21-36).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zimmerman et al. US Pat. No. 6,364,219.
In Reference to Claims 15-16
Spector teaches:
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6 as rejected above.
Spector fails to teach:
A dual-fire or tri-fire nozzle.
Further, Zimmerman teaches:
A similar water discharging toy (Fig. 1-7s) having a pump with an inlet and outlet in the housing, the outlet having a changeable nozzle, including a spray nozzle (Fig. 7a/c/d/k/etc.), a dual-fire nozzle (ex. Fig. 7h/i/s), and a tri-fire nozzle (ex. Fig. 7m/r).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Spector to have formed the outlet with different nozzle configurations, such as spray, dual, and tri, in order to change the spray effect of the toy during use making it more fun to use as is known in the art and as taught by Zimmerman (Col. 2 lines 40-44, Col. 6 line 65 – Col. 7 line 35).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Johnson US Pat. No. 9,033,191.
In Reference to Claim 18
Spector teaches:
The continuously operable water gun of claim 6 as rejected above.
Spector fails to teach:
Wherein the water pump further comprises a water filtration system.
Further, Johnson teaches:
A similar water discharging toy (Fig. 1-10) having a pump with an inlet and outlet in the housing, the pump including a filtration system (filters form a filtration system for the pump to prevent contaminants from entering the pump, Col. 5 lines 50-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Spector to have formed the pump with a filtration system in order to prevent potentially damaging contaminants from entering the pump during use as is known in the art and as taught by Johnson (Col. 5 lines 50-66).
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, Mann (10,935,341), Liberatore (9,782,011, 10,238,984), Coffey (7,927,175), Wong (8,490,831), Orlowski (7,571,837, 8,123,077), Diffey (7,331,839), Lee (7,264,522), Goldmeier (7,052,347), Sanso (6,482,058), O’Rourke (6,027,393), Tager (5,167,554), Allen (5,009,413), Combs (4,932,912), and Yount (2,801,850) teach similar water gun toys.
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