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 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) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almich (2015/0243184). Almich discloses a stuffed comfort device (Fig. 1) having a plush doll body with anthropomorphic features (paragraph 10), an internal pocket (114) defined in the body and separated from a filled interior volume of the body by a lining (Fig. 2, paragraphs 11-12) with an opening (124) along an outer surface of the body to make the internal pocket accessible from the outer surface of the body (Fig. 1) and a plush symbolic medical item (118) fixedly and non-removably tethered to the internal pocket by a flexible and inextensible member such as ribbon that attaches between the pocket and the symbolic item to allow the item to be placed in and removed from the internal pocket to a fixed distance adjacent the doll body (Fig. 1, paragraph 11). Almich discloses the basic inventive concept with the exceptions of the symbolic item relating to a particular chronic medical condition, the symbolic item being sized to occupy substantially the entirety of the internal pocket when placed therein and the tether having a length to allow the symbolic item to be removed no more than five inches from the body. In regard to the symbolic item relating to a chronic medical condition, the examiner notes that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). In regard to the size of the symbolic item, the examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the symbolic item larger so as to take up substantially the entirety of the internal pocket since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component and changes in size have been held to be obvious unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In regard to the length of the tether only allowing the symbolic item to extend five inches from the body, the examiner notes that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions and a device having the relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almich as applied above and further in view of Brant (10272348). Almich discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the pocket opening located on a rear portion of the outer surface of the body. Brant discloses a plush or stuffed toy with a pocket (12) having an opening thereto (20) in a rear portion of an outer surface of the stuffed toy (Figs. 1A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the opening of Almich on a rear portion of the plush doll as taught by Brant since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts which has been held to be obvious unless a new or unexpected result is produced. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See 2012/0003897, 2009/0081921, 2008/0302308, 2005/0079791, 6755712, 5807112 and 4197670.
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