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Claims 1-14, filed 5/21/2024, are pending with claims 1-9 being withdrawn from consideration as elected. Claims 10-14 are currently being examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/20/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of group II (claims 10-14) in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden to examine all of the claims. This is not found persuasive because the elected claims and non-elected claims contain different limitations that require separate and divergent consideration. Further, as previously discussed, if any of the examined claims are deemed allowable, any withdrawn claims requiring the same allowable subject matter will be rejoined and therefore the examination of both inventions at this point is unnecessary and burdensome as they can simply be rejoined when or if allowable subject matter is identified.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (ClaymatesUSA (www.claymatesuse.com). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they appear to be screenshots or photocopies of images which are generally dark and unclear and are difficult to see the details of the invention. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language (ex. “The invention relates…”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “tassles” should likely read “tassels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “decorative articles” and “one or more flexible attachment devices” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “decorative articles” being disclosed as fabric, paper, fur, hair, foil, cloth, tissue paper, and the like materials ([0017], [0020], [0021], claim 13).
The “one or more flexible attachment devices” being disclosed as pipe cleaners, string, rubber bands, cords, wire, cloth, tassles, [0003], [0006], [0008], [0017], [0020], [0021], claim 12).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “of decorative articles” should likely read “of the one or more decorative articles”, in lines 8-9, “using a flexible attachment devices” should likely read “using one of said flexible attachment devices”, in line 10, “into one or said two grooves” should likely read “at least one of said at least two circumferential grooves”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3-4, “to accommodate a flexible attachment device that is pressed at least partially into the grooves” should likely read “to accommodate one of the one or more flexible attachment devices that is pressed at least partially into one of the first and second grooves”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “The method of claim 10, flexible attachment device is” should likely read “The method of claim 10, wherein the one or more flexible attachment devices is”. Further, “tassles” should likely read “tassels”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein, said decorative articles” should likely read “wherein said one or more decorative articles”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-14 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 10 recites the limitation “the detachable attachment” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11-14 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 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyner US Pat. No. 1,223,508.
Meyner teaches:
In Reference to Claim 10
A method of decorating a 3-dimensional figure (method of decorating/arranging parts of a 3d figure, Fig. 1-3, page 1, line 14 – page 2 line 35), comprising:
a) providing i) one or more decorative articles (repositionable/attachable decorative articles (ex. hats, limbs, wings, etc.)), ii) one or more flexible attachment devices (flexible ends 21 allow attachment of the provided articles to the body circumferential grooves/sockets 12/16/19/etc.); and iii) a 3-dimensional figure comprising a torso comprising an upper end and a lower end, a head mounted through a neck to said upper end of said torso, the torso increasing in width from the neck to said lower end (the torso/body 11 may be arranged with smaller end at the neck 22 of the head 13 and the larger width end at the lower end (right/top portion of Fig. 3)), with a lower body extending below the torso a connector mounted on a base (legs/feet 20/23 attach via a connector 21 to the lower end of the torso/body 11, Fig. 1), the torso comprising at least two circumferential grooves to permit the detachable attachment of decorative articles (the body/torso has a plurality of aligned sockets 15/16, arranged about the circumference of the body to allow detachable attachment of any of the decorative articles to the torso/body via connectors 21 being frictionally/flexibly retained within the sockets, wherein each respective row of sockets may form a substantially continuous socket, pages 1, lines 78-90); and
b) detachably attaching one of said decorative articles to said figure using a flexible attachment device, wherein said flexible attachment device is at least partially pressed into one or said two grooves, thereby securing said decorative article to said figure so as to create an attached decorative article (any of the decorative articles (hat, arms, wings, etc.) are detachably attached via flexibly/frictionally retaining ends 21 which are pressed/inserted into a respective chosen socket 16 or grooves (substantially continuous socket 16 on row(s) 15 as described above) as desired to decorate the main body/torso as desired, page 1, lines 8 – page 2 line 36).
In Reference to Claim 11
The method of claim 10, wherein said at least two circumferential grooves comprise a first groove positioned on said upper end of the torso and a second groove positioned on said lower end of the torso, said first and second grooves dimensioned to accommodate a flexible attachment device that is pressed at least partially into the grooves (upper and lower rows 15 forming two circumferential grooves positioned about the body 11 near upper and lower ends of the torso/body, each dimensioned to accommodate a flexible attachment end 21 of a decorative article therein as discussed above (pages 1, lines 78-90), Fig. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 14
The method of claim 10, further comprising c) detaching said attached decorative article by releasing said flexible attachment device from said groove (decorative articles (ex. 26/17/etc.) are detachable from the torso/body by releasing the ends 21 from the respective sockets/grooves 16 so they may be replaced or repositioned as desired, Fig. 1-3, claim 3, 5).
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.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Claim(s) 10-11 and 13-14 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 Pampliega US Pub. No. 2013/0052912.
In Reference to Claim 10
Pampliega teaches:
A method of decorating a 3-dimensional figure (method of decorating/arranging parts of a 3d figure, Fig. 1-6, [0017]-[0026]), comprising:
a) providing i) one or more decorative articles (body/torso 12 is provided with numerous attachable body portions 22/24/14/16 and numerous decorative articles (ex. 26, 28, 30, 34)), ii) one or more flexible attachment devices (each attachable portion/decorative article includes a flexible attachment device that mates with attachment groove means 21 on the torso/body, the decorative article attachment device being any type of releasable fastener (shown as hook and loop but may also be hook and eyelet, buttons, snap fit, magnetic, or any other desired type, [0021]-[0022]); and iii) a 3-dimensional figure comprising a torso comprising an upper end and a lower end (body/torso 12 having an upper end by heads 22/24 and a lower end by legs 16, Fig. 1), a head mounted through a neck to said upper end of said torso (head 22/24 is mounted at a respective neck area 18/20 at the top end of the torso, Fig. 1-6), the torso increasing in width from the neck to said lower end (the body/torso is generally shaped wider than the upper neck portions to a generally wider lower end), with a lower body extending below the torso a connector mounted on a base (lower end of torso 12 has connectors 20 to attach legs 16 or any other attachable part thereto), the torso comprising at least two circumferential grooves to permit the detachable attachment of decorative articles (at least two fastening means portions 21 (as well as 20) extend around a circumference of the torso 12 to provide an attachment means that releasably connects with the flexible attachment devices, wherein the fastening portions may broadly be considered grooves as they may be formed as hook and loop, hook and eyelet, buttons, snap fit, magnetic, screw, on, or any other desired type of fastener (groove and flexible attachment devices are generally a snap or friction fit as described here, [0019], and which would widely be considered as disclosed by “or any other desired type of fastener” to one having ordinary skill in the art)); and
b) detachably attaching one of said decorative articles to said figure using a flexible attachment device, wherein said flexible attachment device is at least partially pressed into one or said two grooves, thereby securing said decorative article to said figure so as to create an attached decorative article (body portions and/or decorative items (ex. clothing 26/28/30/34) have their fastening means pressed into the respective fastening means 20/21 on the body/torso to releasably secure the decorative items to the toy body, Fig. 1-6, [0017]-[0026]).
Further, though the body of Pampliega appears to teach the claimed shape limitation as it is larger at the bottom end than at either of the neck attachment areas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the torso/body to have increased in width from the top end to the bottom end as this is a known and common shape in the art and as the shape of the body is merely a matter of obvious aesthetic design choice and does not change the function of the device in any meaningful way and it has been held that The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)) and it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In Reference to Claim 11
Pampliega teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein said at least two circumferential grooves comprise a first groove positioned on said upper end of the torso and a second groove positioned on said lower end of the torso, said first and second grooves dimensioned to accommodate a flexible attachment device that is pressed at least partially into the grooves (first vertical attachment means/groove 21 is positioned at an upper end of the torso, and the second horizontal attachment means/groove 21 is positioned closer to a bottom of the torso).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exact arrangement of the fastening means on the body to have been generally horizontally disposed (not claimed) at upper and lower portions of the torso as Pampliega teaches that the fastening means may be modified in number and/or position ([0019], [0021]) and it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In this case, the arrangement of fastening means is merely a matter of obvious design choice to allow the user to attach the decorative articles as desired.
In Reference to Claim 13
Pampliega teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein, said decorative articles are selected from the group consisting of fabric, paper, fur, hair, foil, cloth and tissue paper (the doll and components (including decorative articles 26/28/30/34) may be formed of any desired materials, such as fabric, plastic, plaster, wood, metal, or any other desired material, [0018], and doll clothing is known in the art to be generally formed of fabric and similar materials as claimed).
In Reference to Claim 14
Pampliega teaches:
The method of claim 10, further comprising c) detaching said attached decorative article by releasing said flexible attachment device from said groove (the decorative articles 26/28/30/34 and body parts are removable from the body fastening portions 20/21 by releasing the respective fastening portions of the decorative articles from respective fastening portions of the body as described above, Fig. 1-6, [0021]-[0025]).
Alternatively and/or additionally, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pampliega as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lambrakis US Pub. No. 2014/0094084.
In Reference to Claim 12
Pampliega teaches:
The method of claim 10, (wherein said one or more) flexible attachment device(s) is selected from the group consisting of rubber bands, string, cords, wire and pipe cleaners (the flexible attachment devices may be any type of releasable fastener (of which rubber bands, string, cords, wire, and pipe cleaners all are known types of releasable fasteners), such as hook and loop, hook and eyelet, buttons, snap fit, magnetic, screw-on, or any other desired type and the type is not critical as they are all equivalents for providing the desired detachable relationship, [0019], [0021]-[0022]).
Further, Lambrakis teaches:
A similar toy doll with removably attachable decorative articles (tools, clothing, body features, etc., Fig. 1-7), wherein the decorative articles may be releasably secured using fastening material on the body and on the decorative article or by using rubber bands ([0045]).
The flexible attachment means may broadly be considered rubber bands (snap fit), a string (hook and loop), wire (hook and eyelet), or cord, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the flexible attachment device to have been specifically one of rubber bands, string, cords, wire and pipe cleaners, as these are known and commonly used attachment means in the art and the selection of any known equivalent attachment means to provide detachable attachment of an article to a body would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as Pampliega teaches that any similar attachment means may be used ([0019], [0021]-[0022]) and is not critical to the invention and as rubber/elastic bands are known and commonly used attachment means for decorative items in the art taught by Lambrakis ([0045]). and 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, 86 USPQ 416). In this case, the flexible attachment means being formed of known materials of rubber bands, string, cords, wire and pipe cleaners is merely a matter of obvious design choice and Pampliega teaches that any known or similar fastening means may be used, of which rubber bands, string, wire, cord, and pipe cleaners would be considered to be similar fastening means.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyner as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lambrakis US Pub. No. 2014/0094084.
In Reference to Claim 12
Meyner teaches:
The method of claim 10, (wherein said one or more) flexible attachment device(s) is selected from the group consisting of rubber bands, string, cords, wire and pipe cleaners (the attachment ends 21 may broadly be considered a short cord or string as these options do not have significant inherent structural definitions).
Further, Lambrakis teaches:
A similar toy doll with removably attachable decorative articles (tools, clothing, body features, etc., Fig. 1-7), wherein the decorative articles may be releasably secured using fastening material on the body and on the decorative article or by using rubber bands ([0045]).
The flexible attachment means may broadly be considered rubber bands (snap/frictional fit), a string, wire, or cord, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the flexible attachment device to have been specifically one of rubber bands, string, cords, wire and pipe cleaners, as these are known and commonly used attachment means in the art and the selection of any known equivalent attachment means to provide detachable attachment of an article to a body would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as Meyner teaches that any similar attachment means may be used (page 1 lines 62-111) and the exact fastening means is not critical to the invention and rubber/elastic bands are known and commonly used attachment means for decorative items in the art taught by Lambrakis ([0045]). 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, 86 USPQ 416). In this case, the flexible attachment means being formed of known materials of rubber bands, string, cords, wire and pipe cleaners is merely a matter of obvious design choice and Meyner teaches that any known or similar fastening means may be used, of which rubber bands, string, wire, cord, and pipe cleaners would be considered to be similar fastening means.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyner as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Pampliega US Pub. No. 2013/0052912.
In Reference to Claim 13
Meyner teaches:
The method of claim 10 as rejected above.
Further, Pampliega teaches:
A similar method of claim 10 as described above, wherein, said decorative articles are selected from the group consisting of fabric, paper, fur, hair, foil, cloth and tissue paper (the doll and components (including decorative articles 26/28/30/34) may be formed of any desired materials, such as fabric, plastic, plaster, wood, metal, or any other desired material, [0018], and doll clothing is known in the art to be generally formed of fabric and similar materials as claimed).
Though Meyner doesn’t specifically detail the materials used for the decorative articles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed a decorative article of fabric, paper, fur, hair, foil, cloth, or tissue paper as these are well-known and commonly used materials in forming decorative articles for toy dolls in the art as taught by Pampliega ([0018]) and 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, 86 USPQ 416).
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, Owen (2023/0008144), Tigan (8,506,345), Han (8,282,439), Sills (2008/0020673), Shepherd (6,422,871), Sisler (6,280,283), Bloom (5,746,639), Landi (5,607,338, Fig. 7-8), Bennett (5,299,968), Famiflietti (4,990,120), Manger (4,979,924), Wilson-Diehl (4,671,514), Fogarty (4,414,774), Crowell (4,122,628), Strongin (4,070,790), Whetzel (3,889,414), Goldfarb (3,782,027), and Koch (1,364,881) teach similar changeable toy dolls using similar materials and methods.
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
Prosecution Insights