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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, filed 6/6/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/6/2024 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language (ex. “The invention discloses…”. 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.
Claim Notes/Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (MPEP 608.01(m), 37 CFR 1.75(i)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of “characterized in that” is more commonly used in foreign/European applications, however this phrase is not generally used in the US patents for claims as it is causes potential clarity problems in the claim language as one could interpret that it unclear as to if the claims are positively requiring the following limitation(s). More typical terms are “further comprising”, “including”, or “wherein” when introducing more structural limitations or features or further defining a previously introduced limitation. For the purposes of examination, “characterized in that” is being interpreted as synonymous with “including”, “containing”, or “comprising”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “integrally-connected structure”, which is a little unclear in terms of interpretation as generally integral and connected can mean different things (integral parts can be formed in one piece, connected being two pieces secured to one another, however integral is not limited to one piece and is generally broadly interpreted as connected means using fastening, welding, or the like to form a functionally integral connection), wherein connected is functionally integrally connected as the parts remain together/connected during use forming an integrally-connected structure. This limitation doesn’t necessarily need to be changed as the specification and drawings appear to show that “integrally-connected” is meant to be interpreted as connected via threaded fastening such that they are connected during use or functionally integrally connected, but it is noted that “integrally-connected” is considered the same as “connected” in this context as the relationship between the connecting parts in this invention are threaded means, which are functionally integrally connected, and not mechanically integral (one piece).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the half-shell rubber body” in line 2. This could more clearly read “the other of the two half-shell rubber bodies” to match the description of the respective body described previously that the screw hole is located.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation “the other end” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, “the other half-shell rubber body” could more clearly read “the other of the two half-shell rubber bodies” in line 4.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “open edge positions of the half-shell rubber bodies” is unclear as it appears to be defining an edge of the open end of each body, but it is unclear what exactly an “open edge position” would define. It would seem a limitation along the lines of “open edges” or “open edge portions” might be clearer to better define the structure of the open ends.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear what the limitation “shapes of other parts are the same or different” is attempting to claim. First, it is unclear what “other parts” is limited to or intending to reference and therefore this limitation is indefinite. Second, “are the same or different” does not have a purpose as any two things are either the same or different and therefore this does not actually define anything,
Regarding Claim 8, in line 2, “the other half-shell rubber body” could more clearly read “the other of the two half-shell rubber bodies” to match the description of the respective body described previously that the screw hole is located.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the half-shell rubber body” in line 2. Though the screw hole is previously defined in only one of the half-shell bodies above, this could more clearly read “the other of the two half-shell rubber bodies” to match the description of the respective body described previously that the screw hole is located.
Therefore, claims 3-6 are also rejected as they depend from a rejected claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu US Pub. No. 2024/0286054 in view of Du US Pub. No. 2024/0325829.
In Reference to Claim 1
Liu teaches:
A multi-style water filling toy balloon (water filling toy water ball/balloon, Fig. 1-6, notably 4-6), characterized in that: the multi-style water filling toy balloon comprises an adjusting rod (vertical guide rod 3 allows for a positionally adjustable relationship between the shell bodies 1/2) and two half-shell rubber bodies (pair of half shell bodies 1/2 formed of soft silica gel material (rubber), [0015], [0018], [0030]-[0034]), one end of the adjusting rod is connected to an inner wall of one of the half-shell rubber bodies (first/bottom end 303 of rod 301 connects to an inner wall 202 of the bottom shell body 2, [0030]-[0031]), the other end of the adjusting rod is provided with a connecting part (second end 303 of rod 301 has a fastening part 303/304 that connects to a matching connecting part 101/103 on the top shell body 1, Fig. 4-6, [0030]-[0035]), the other half-shell rubber body is provided with a hole matching the connecting part (matching connecting hole/part receives the matching connecting part 101/103 on the top shell body 1, Fig. 4-6, [0030]-[0035]), and the connecting part is inserted into the hole so that the two half-shell rubber bodies cover each other to form a hollow whole shell (the matching connecting hole/part receives the matching connecting part 101/103 on the top shell body 1 to connect the bodies 1/2 to one another to form a hollow ball shell body, Fig. 1, 4-6, [0030]-[0036]).
Liu fails to teach:
The other end of the connecting rod having a threaded part and the other half-shell rubber body having a screw hole matching the threaded part.
Further, Du teaches:
A similar water ball toy being formed of two flexible silicone/rubber ([0069]) matching half-shell bodies (1500/1600) that are removably connected to one another, one of the bodies having a raised ring with an external screw thread (1550) and the other body having recessed ring with internal screw threads on the interior/hole (1630) to allow the bodies to be fixed via screw fitting the threaded part with the screw threads, [0068]-[0070], and other items may be connected to the half-shell bodies via threaded connection (ex. 1510 to 1500, Fig. 3, [0061])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Liu to have used a different connecting/fastening means between the rod and the bodies as Liu teaches that different connecting means may be used (Fig. 1-3 vs. 4-6 show different connecting means, [0030]-[0035] that result in the same connected bodies forming a hollow water holding ball shell and Du teaches that screw fitting using respective threaded portions is well-known and commonly used removable connection/fastening means in the art and is an equivalent fastening means to those taught by Liu as well as other similar types of fastening, all of which may interchangeably be used to form the same connectable shell water toy as taught by Du ([0068]-[0070], [0061]). The selection or substitution of any of these known equivalent fastening means to create a removably connection between the shell bodies is merely a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art as discussed by Du.
Further, though Liu teaches that the bodies are formed of silica/silicone and not specifically rubber, the claims do not necessary require that the bodies are formed of rubber specifically. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the bodies of Liu and other similar flexible water toys of rubber as they are generally formed of similar flexible rubber like materials (silicone, rubber, silica, etc., Du: [0053], Liu [0015]) and it has been held to have 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 this case, the bodies being rubber, silicone, silica, or any other similar flexible material is merely a matter of obvious design choice and Du teaches that rubber and other similar materials may be used in forming the shell bodies ([0053]). Further, the application provides some materials used to form the rubber bodies so it is not clear that the bodies are actually formed of rubber, but more rubber-like in performance/flexibility, and not that the bodies are literally formed of actual rubber (paragraph [0036] describes that the “rubber bodies” may be formed of soft silicone, soft PVC or PP materials which are taught by Liu and Du).
In Reference to Claim 2
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 1, characterized in that: open edge positions of the half-shell rubber bodies are provided with turning edges extending along a center-of-sphere direction of the half-shell rubber bodies (Liu: the bottom body 2 has a fastening portion 201 at the open end which engages a respective turning edge 102 at the open end of the top body 1, Fig. 3-6).
In Reference to Claim 3
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 2, characterized in that: reinforcing ribs are provided at positions where the half-shell rubber bodies are connected with the turning edges (Liu: uniformly distributed reinforcing ribs arranged on an inner wall of the lower shell 2 at a position where the bodies 1 and 2 are connected via turning edges 102/201, Fig. 2-4, [0030])).
Though Liu only specifically talks about the lower body having reinforcing ribs, this would still meet the claimed limitations as the claim only requires reinforcing ribs provided at positions where the half-shell rubber bodies are connected with the turning edges, which is shown and taught as discussed above. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included reinforcing ribs on the upper shell in order to make the top shell and connected ball to have been slightly more rigid and therefore more securely connect the bodies together during use (less flexible to better hold/retain shape and water therein) and as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8).
In Reference to Claim 4
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 1, characterized in that: reinforcing protruding strips are provided on inner walls of at least one of the half-shell rubber bodies (Liu: the bottom 2 may include uniformly distributed reinforcing ribs arranged on an inner wall (appearing as a thicker bottom shell)), Fig. 3, [0030]).
Though Liu only specifically talks about the lower body having reinforcing ribs, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included reinforcing ribs on the upper shell in order to make the top shell and connected ball to have been more rigid and more securely connect the bodies together during use and as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8).
In Reference to Claim 5
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 1, characterized in that: the adjusting rod and the half-shell rubber bodies are of an integrally-connected structure (Liu: during use, the two connected bodies and rod 1/2/3 form an integrally-connected structure, Fig. 1, 3, [0009], [0011]).
Further, though Liu teaches the water ball parts forming an integrally-connected structure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the shell bodies and rod together as an integrated unit as it has been held that forming in one piece and article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).
In Reference to Claim 6
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 1, characterized in that: one end of the adjusting rod is provided with a connector, and the inner wall of one of the half-shell rubber bodies is provided with an insertion hole matching the connector (Liu: the first end 303 of rod 301 is shaped with an enlarged connecting end to form a connector with a matching clamping seat/slot 202 matching the rod end to connect the lower end of the rod to the lower shell body, while the upper end 303/304 of the rod also has an enlarged connecting end to form a connector with a matching clamping aperture 101 and/or seat 103 to connect the rod to the upper shell body, Fig. 1-6, [0030]-[0035]).
In Reference to Claim 7
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 1, characterized in that: shapes of openings of the two half-shell rubber bodies are the same, and shapes of other parts are the same or different (Liu: the bodies 1 and 2 have openings in the open ends that are similarly shaped to match to create a ball when coupled (first shell 1 and second shell 2 are matching hemispheroids, [0030], and may include slightly different interior shapes (the bottom 2 may include uniformly distributed reinforcing ribs arranged on an inner wall (appearing as a thicker bottom shell)), Fig. 3, [0030]).
In Reference to Claim 8
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 1, characterized in that: a connecting seat is provided at a center position of an inner wall of the other half-shell rubber body, and the screw hole is located on the connecting seat (Liu: the inner wall of aperture 101 (threaded as modified above) acts as a connecting seat for the connecting end 303/304, wherein the inner wall may further include a seat 103 on the inner surface to receive the connecting end of the rod therein, Fig. 5).
In Reference to Claim 9
Liu as modified by Du teaches:
The multi-style water filling toy balloon according to Claim 1, characterized in that: the screw hole penetrates through the half-shell rubber body (Liu: the screw hole 101 in the upper shell 1 may extend fully through the body 1, Fig. 4, [0030]-[0035]).
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, Xiong (11,786,835), Ma (CN20232139555X), Greenwood (11,358,072), Pance (5,975,983), Rudell (4,991,847), and Kraft (4,212,460) teach similar flexible water holding refillable break apart 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