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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the restriction of Group II (claims 6-8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction of claims 6-7 has been withdrawn. The restriction of claim 8 is moot as it has been cancelled
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.
Claim 3, 22, 24, and 27-28 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.
Applicant states, in independent claim 1, the limitation “a packet selected from the group consisting of: a sprinkle packet and a glitter packet.” Applicant states, in dependent claim 3, the limitation “the packet comprises one sprinkle packet and two glitter packets.” It is unclear how the singular packet in claim 1 can become three packets in claim 3. For this reason, claim 3 is indefinite as if fails to establish clear metes and bounds.
The term “custom refills” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “custom refills” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is being refilled and, as such, the limitation does not establish clear metes and bounds.
Applicant states, in independent claim 1, the limitation “a packet selected from the group consisting of: a sprinkle packet and a glitter packet.” Applicant states, in dependent claim 24, the limitation “the packet comprises sprinkles and glitter mix-ins.” It is unclear how the singular packet in claim 1, which can be either a sprinkle packet or a glitter packet, can become a singular mixed sprinkle glitter packet in claim 24. For this reason, claim 24 is indefinite as if fails to establish clear metes and bounds.
The term “aesthetic features” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “aesthetic features” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is considered an aesthetic feature as any feature of the device can be considered to be aesthetic. As such, no clear metes and bounds are established.
Concerning claim 28, see the rejection of claim 27.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanrio Characters 3D Sticker Maker (hereinafter Sanrio) in view of 3D Sticker Maker Unboxing ll by lovegamer.com. (hereinafter lovegamer) and further in view of 3D Sticker Machine DIY for Children by eazy.official (hereinafter eazy).
Concerning claim 1,
Sanrio discloses a kit comprising: a 3D sticker maker or a 3D card maker (3D sticker maker shown below);
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
sticker blisters (transparent portion of the 3D transparent cap shown below);
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
152
161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
sticker backgrounds (sticker sketch shown below);
PNG
media_image3.png
150
193
media_image3.png
Greyscale
gems (decorative jewelry shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
103
109
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sanrio does not clearly disclose double-sided sticker adhesives;
a packet selected from the group consisting of: a sprinkle packet and a glitter packet.
Lovegamer teaches double-sided sticker adhesives (adhesive shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
982
555
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the 3D sticker apparatus from lovegamer with the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio as both pertain to the making of 3D stickers using observably similar devices. Incorporating the mechanics of the 3D stickers and 3D sticker maker shown in lovegamer would make the device of Sanrio more entertaining to interact with and more effective in its operation.
Eazy teaches a packet selected from the group consisting of: a sprinkle packet and a glitter packet (sprinkle packet shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
977
553
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the 3D sticker apparatus from eazy with the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio as both pertain to the making of 3D stickers using observably similar devices. Incorporating the mechanics of the 3D stickers and 3D sticker maker shown in eazy would make the device of Sanrio more entertaining to interact with and more effective in its operation.
Concerning claim 2 and claim 4,
Sanrio does not disclose at least thirty sticker blisters, at least thirty sticker backgrounds, and at least thirty double-sided sticker adhesives.
Sanrio does not disclose two hundred fifty gems.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.) (MPEP 2144.04(vi)(a)).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the customer with a greater amount of sticker blisters, sticker backgrounds, double-sided sticker adhesives, and gems to provide them with enough material to enjoy the apparatus to its full extent. There is no new and unexpected result is produced by the quantity of the materials provided.
Concerning claim 21,
Sanrio discloses a themed kit (Hello Kitty theme shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 22,
Sanrio discloses custom refills (refills shown below. See 112b rejection above).
PNG
media_image7.png
743
965
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Sanrio does not disclose at least fifty custom refills.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.) (MPEP 2144.04(vi)(a)).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the customer with a greater number of refills to provide them with enough material to enjoy the apparatus to its full extent. There is no new and unexpected result is produced by the quantity of the materials provided.
Concerning claim 23,
Sanrio discloses blister tray (solid portion of the 3D transparent cap shown below).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
152
161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanrio Characters 3D Sticker Maker in view of 3D Sticker Maker Unboxing ll by lovegamer.com., further in view of 3D Sticker Machine DIY for Children by eazy.official, and further in view of US Publication 5887448 A to Gilbert et al. (hereinafter Gilbert).
Concerning claim 3,
Sanrio discloses one sprinkle packet.
Sanrio does not disclose two glitter packets.
Gilbert teaches glitter packets (Col. 5, ln 24-27; Col 6, ln 2-10; element 24; Figure 1; See 112b rejection above).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glitter packet described in Gilbert with the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio as both pertain to a toy kit. Using a glitter packet of Gilbert in substitution of or in conjunction with the sprinkle packet of Sanrio would allow for more customizability of the 3D sticker produced.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.) (MPEP 2144.04(vi)(a)).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the customer with a greater amount of sparkle and glitter packets to provide them with enough material to enjoy the apparatus to its full extent. There is no new and unexpected result is produced by the quantity of the materials provided.
Concerning claim 24,
Sanrio discloses one sprinkle packet.
Sanrio does not glitter packets.
Gilbert teaches glitter packets (Col. 5, ln 24-27; Col 6, ln 2-10; element 24; Figure 1; See 112b rejection above).
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.) (MPEP 2144.04(v)(b)).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate a glitter packet and sprinkle packet into a singular mixed packet in order to make a different aesthetic design. There is no new and unexpected result is produced by the integrate the two packets.
Claim(s) 5 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanrio Characters 3D Sticker Maker in view of 3D Sticker Maker Unboxing ll by lovegamer.com., further in view of 3D Sticker Machine DIY for Children by eazy.official, and further in view of US Publication 2024/0375422 A1 to Drape (hereinafter Drape).
Concerning claim 5,
Sanrio does not disclose instructions for using the 3D sticker maker or the 3D card maker.
Drape teaches instructions for using the 3D sticker maker or the 3D card maker (0026; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the instruction methodology of Drape with the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio as both pertain to a toy kit. Providing instructions for a toy kit, including in a wordless manner easier for kids to understand, would allow for a customer to operate the apparatus in a more informed manner.
Concerning claim 30,
Sanrio does not disclose wordless instructions that encourage artistic expression and fine motor skills.
Drape teaches wordless instructions that encourage artistic expression and fine motor skills (0026; Figure 6).
Claim(s) 6-7, 26-29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanrio Characters 3D Sticker Maker in view of 3D Sticker Maker Unboxing ll by lovegamer.com., further in view of 3D Sticker Machine DIY for Children by eazy.official, and further in view of US 6010257 A to Petteruti et al. (hereinafter Petteruti).
Concerning claim 6,
Sanrio does not disclose a top portion hingedly connected to a bottom portion;
Sanrio does not clearly disclose a mechanically actuated button that passes through the top portion and can be pressed at an elevation above a top surface of the top portion;
support structure(s) that allow for components of a 3D sticker to be assembled within the 3D sticker maker; and
an output in the bottom portion through which transports 3D stickers that are created as a result of pressing the mechanically actuated button from within the 3D sticker maker to outside the 3D sticker maker.
Petteruti teaches a top portion hingedly connected to a bottom portion (Col. 4, ln 15-19; Col 5, ln 20-25; Col. 6, ln 5-8; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hinge mechanism of the label printer from Petteruti with the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio as both pertain to a toy kit. Providing a hinge mechanism of Petteruti to the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio would allow the customer to more easily load the input to the apparatus, improving convenience.
Lovegamer teaches a mechanically actuated button that passes through the top portion and can be pressed at an elevation above a top surface of the top portion (button being pressed shown below);
PNG
media_image8.png
985
562
media_image8.png
Greyscale
support structure(s) that allow for components of a 3D sticker to be assembled within the 3D sticker maker (support structure shown below); and
PNG
media_image9.png
260
260
media_image9.png
Greyscale
an output in the bottom portion through which transports 3D stickers that are created as a result of pressing the mechanically actuated button from within the 3D sticker maker to outside the 3D sticker maker (output as a result of button press shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
985
562
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 7,
Sanrio discloses a base with a bottom wall that allows the 3D sticker to stand upright when laid flat on a flat surface (Bottom wall is considered to be the lowest support portion of the 3D sticker maker. Applicant may have intended to state that the base allows the 3D sticker maker to stand upright.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 26,
Sanrio does not disclose the 3D sticker maker comprises a hinge including a hollow sleeve and a pin that is slid through the hollow sleeve.
Petteruti teaches the 3D sticker maker comprises a hinge including a hollow sleeve and a pin that is slid through the hollow sleeve (Col. 4, ln 15-19; Col 5, ln 20-25; Col. 6, ln 5-8; Figure 4).
Concerning claim 27,
Sanrio discloses the 3D sticker maker comprises aesthetic features on the top portion and the bottom portion (3D sticker maker with aesthetic features shown below. See 112b rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 28,
Sanrio does not disclose removable aesthetic features.
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.") (MPEP 2144.04(v)(c)).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make features of the apparatus removable for greater modularity. There is no new and unexpected result is produced by the removable nature of the aesthetic features.
Concerning claim 29,
Sanrio discloses an output channel depicted as an open mouth (opening in the bottom of the 3D sticker maker is considered to a mouth, shown below).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 31,
Sanrio does not clearly disclose a biasing mechanism that returns the mechanically actuated button after being pressed.
Lovegamer teaches a biasing mechanism that returns the mechanically actuated button after being pressed (button press shown below is followed by the button returning).
PNG
media_image8.png
985
562
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 32,
Sanrio does not clearly disclose the support structure(s) comprise support fins within the bottom portion.
Lovegamer teaches the support structure(s) comprise support fins within the bottom portion (fins shown in the support structure shown below).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image9.png
260
260
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanrio Characters 3D Sticker Maker in view of 3D Sticker Maker Unboxing ll by lovegamer.com., further in view of 3D Sticker Machine DIY for Children by eazy.official, and further in view of US 4283011 A to Spector (hereinafter Spector).
Concerning claim 25,
Sanrio does not disclose foils
Spector teaches foils (Col. 3, ln 31-39; Figure 5)
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate foil of Spector with the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio as both pertain to stickers. Providing the foil of Spector to the 3D stickers from Sanrio would allow the customer to make more aesthetically pleasing and shiny stickers.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanrio Characters 3D Sticker Maker in view of 3D Sticker Maker Unboxing ll by lovegamer.com., further in view of 3D Sticker Machine DIY for Children by eazy.official, and further in view of US Publication 2011/0094328 A1 to Lee (hereinafter Lee).
Concerning claim 33,
Sanrio does not disclose washers or cushions positioned to protect the mechanically actuated button when pressed.
Lovegamer discloses a mechanically actuated button (button being pressed shown below)
PNG
media_image8.png
985
562
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches washers or cushions positioned to protect the mechanically actuated button when pressed (0022, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the 3D sticker apparatus from lovegamer with the 3D sticker apparatus from Sanrio as all pertain to the making of 3D stickers using observably similar devices. Incorporating the mechanics of the 3D stickers and 3D sticker maker shown in lovegamer would make the device of Sanrio more entertaining to interact with and more effective in its operation. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate button washer from Lee with the 3D sticker apparatus from lovegamer as both devices have a mechanically actuated button. Incorporating the washer, as shown in Lee, into the button of lovegamer would make the button more resistant to damage, especially helpful for a younger customer base.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner believes that Petteruti teaches a hinge which would be obvious to combine with Sanrio as the claims are currently written. This is because the output of a 3D sticker maker could reasonably be a flat sticker with a 3D design on top. Examiner notes that if the output of the maker is described as being something other than a flat sticker, the raised nature of the sticker is described sufficiently, and the hinge limitation is moved to independent claim 1, it may be a step in the correct direction for allowability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights