Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/696,641

TOY SPINNING TOPS AND LAUNCHING DEVICES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Examiner
HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Melissa & Doug LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 1067 resolved
-23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1111
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1067 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 3 the “a” before “lower portion” should be replaced with a “the” since the feature was previously disclosed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim should conclude with a period. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 the “a” before “lower portion” should be replaced with a “the” since the feature was previously disclosed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5 the “a” before “lower portion” should be replaced with a “the” since the feature was previously disclosed. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schustrin (2966004) and Zander (1552531). Schustrin discloses a launch system for toy spinning tops (Figs. 1) having a plurality of spinning tops (Fig. 1) and a bench (2) with a plurality of launch dies (1) each formed as a block of material having a hole extending therethrough (Fig. 1). Each of the spinning tops includes a main body (26) with an upper portion and a lower portion, a vertical axis and a spinning tip (24) extending from the lower portion (Fig. 4). The main body of each spinning top is configured to be received in a respective one of the launch die holes and below each die a bottom surface forms a catch ring with a flexible wing element (22) that engages the spinning top for holding it in place prior to launch (Fig. 1, column 2 lines 6-15). A plunger (6) is configured for pushing the spinning tops through the launch dies to launch the tops (Figs. 1-2). Schustrin discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the upper and lower portions of the main body having a two-dimensional shape with at least one corner point configured such that the two-dimensional shape is rotationally shifted about the vertical axis to create a number of helical threads dependent on the number of corner points that can be received in the holes of the dies. Zander discloses a spinning toy system wherein a spinning top includes a body portion (11) that is symmetrical about a vertical axis and has upper and lower portions each defining a two-dimensional shape such as a square with corner points that are rotationally shifted in multiples of 180 degrees to define helical threads extending from the corner points between the upper and lower portions (Figs. 1 & 4). A die (16) with a hole therethrough is configured with an inner surface (21) shaped to correspond with the helical thread of the body portion of the spinning top for driving the top to rotate at it passes downwardly through the die (page 1 lines 27-51). The die and body can further be configured to take a variety of coordinated shapes (Figs. 3 & 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Zander to modify and shape the body of Schustrin to define helical threads and to shape the hole of the die for receiving the threads for the predictable results of providing enhanced rotational characteristics to the top that further provide a more visually dynamic rotation effect. Claim(s) 7-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schustrin and Zander as applied above and further in view of Licht (WO2020157148A1). Schustrin and Zander disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the holes of the launch dies having helical threads that correspond to and receive a respective helical thread of the spinning tops. Licht discloses a spinning toy having a body that is configured with helical threads and a launcher with a hole therethrough that is configured on an inside surface thereof with corresponding helical threads for receiving the helical threads of the toy for imparting rotation to the toy as it is moved through the hole of the launcher (Figs. 14A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Licht to modify the die holes of Schustrin and Zander to include a corresponding helical thread for the predictable result of configuring the holes to provide the necessary rotational effects to the spinning tops thereby enabling a simplified and more durable launching mechanism to be created (page 1 line 25 – page 2 line 6). Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schustrin, Zander and Licht as applied above for claim 16 and further in view of Weidetz (2007/0021029). Schustrin, Zander and Licht disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of each of the spinning tops having a different shape. Weidetz discloses a toy top system wherein a plurality of toy tops can be provided and each of the tops has a different shape (Fig. 6 & paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to give each of the spinning tops a different shape for the predictable result of providing enhanced versatility and functionality since the different tops can have different spin behaviors and cause enhanced interactions between the different tops should they contact each other after launch (paragraph 35). Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schustrin, Zander, Licht and Weidetz as applied above and further in view of Long (8814625). Schustrin, Zander, Licht and Weidetz disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of each die configured to correspond with a respective one of the differently shaped tops and the tops and dies being color coded. Long discloses a device having differently shaped receptacles adapted to receive correspondingly shaped toys that are further color coded (Fig. 1, column 3 line 60 - column 4 line 8). Although, Long does not disclose a spinning top and launch dies, it does teach providing coordination between toy elements and receptacles that are also color coded to provide enhanced play value and functionality by providing additional learning capabilities. 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 /NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569779
BUBBLE-BLOWING TOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551813
Modular Block System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544683
DRAG RACING STABILITY MANAGEMENT FOR A MODEL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528023
COMBINATION ARTICLES OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPRISING COMPLEMENTARY ACTION FIGURE AND RECONFIGURABLE CASE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12496532
REMOVABLE STRUCTURE OF SIMULATED APPEARANCE OF MUZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+30.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1067 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month