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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 before the second instance of “step part” the “a” should be replaced with a “the” for clarity and in line 9 the phrase “the sliding contact surface having a diameter increasing as extending upwardly in the axial direction” would be clearer as “the sliding contact surface increases in diameter upwardly along the axial direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9 the phrase “the sliding contact surface having a diameter increasing as extending upwardly in the axial direction” would be clearer as “the sliding contact surface increases in diameter upwardly along the axial direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 the phrase “the gear is tapered with a diameter expanding facing downward” would be clearer as “the gear is tapered to increase in diameter downwardly along the axial direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 an “a” should be inserted before “smooth” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 the phrase “is tapered with a diameter expanding as extending downward” would be clearer as “is tapered to increase in diameter downwardly along the axial direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 the phrase “any of” should be omitted for clarity since only one claim is provided for dependency. 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 3, 4-5 and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 discloses that when the toy stands upright and when the rotor and acceleration rail are engaged “a first length from a point where the rotating shaft abuts a floor to a top end of the step part is greater than a second length from a bottom end of the landing part to a bottom end of the ride-over part” which is unclear since the landing part of the rotating shaft is the lowest part of the rotating shaft so it is unclear how in an upright position any other point of the rotating shaft could abut a floor or how an interaction between the top and field can be used for defining the first length especially since the specification discloses that when the rotor is engaged with the rail it is actually lifted off the floor at an angle so it is unclear how the first length is actually being determined. Furthermore the components of the field are not actually required by the claim based on its dependency from claim 2 and as such dimensional relationships of the toy top based on features of the field are unascertainable.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the guide rail" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to the acceleration rail.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the gear" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) as being anticipated by Honda (FR2955781A1). Honda discloses a top toy set having a field (Fig. 1) with a step part (7) and an acceleration rail (8) configured on the step part that can include smooth and rack surfaces (detailed description section) and a toy top (Fig. 4) having a rotating shaft extending in an axial direction, a rotor for engaging the acceleration rail in the form of a roller gear (14) concentric with the rotating shaft, a ride-over part (12) configured on the rotating shaft above the rotor having an axially symmetrical sliding contact surface on the bottom thereof that increases in diameter upwardly along the axial direction and a landing part (13) on a bottom of the rotating shaft (Fig. 4).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda as applied above and further in view of Gaines (WO2013/016317A2). Honda discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of a length from a floor to a top end of the step part of the field being greater that a length between a bottom end of the landing part to a bottom end of the ride-over part. Gaines discloses a top toy set having a field with a floor and a step part rail with a top end (25) defining a first length therebetween (Fig. 4) that is greater than a distance between a landing part (11) and a bottom end of a ride-over part of a toy top when the toy top is upright and engaged with the step part rail (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a length of the field portion greater than a portion of the toy top for the predictable result of configuring the field and toy top to enhance the guide capabilities of the rail as the top moves over the floor.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda as applied above for claims 4 and 6. Honda discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the roller gear being tapered to increase in diameter downwardly along an axial direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to taper the roller gear of Honda since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape and changes in shape have been held to be obvious unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda as applied above for claim 2 and further in view of KR200443220Y1. Honda discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the landing part being made of rubber. KR200443220Y1 discloses a toy top with a landing part (10) formed of rubber for durability and enhanced frictional contact of the top with a surface (description of embodiments paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of KR200443220Y1 to use rubber for the landing part for the predictable result of using a material that enhances durability and frictional contact for improved performance.
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