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 filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
Applicant argues that “a packet” as recited in original claim 1 does not refer to a singular packet, and thus, original claim 3 and 24 is not indefinite (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 5-6). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Original claim 1 recites “a packet selected from the group consisting of: a sprinkle packet and a glitter packet.” Markush claims recite a list of alternatively usable members. The claim recites a Markush group (MPEP 2117), and, as written, can be either a sprinkle packet or a glitter packet, not both. For this reason, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant argues that the rejection of original claim 28 is moot, in light of the amendment to claim 27 (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 6). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Original claim 28 still recites “the aesthetic features” limitation. For this reason, the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. Additionally, as amended “the aesthetic features” limitation lacks antecedent basis and a new ground of rejection is appropriate.
Concerning the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant states that they are not able to retrieve the screenshots concerning the “Sanrio 3D Sticker Maker” (hereinafter Sanrio) through the link provided in the 1449 (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 8). Applicant’s concerns are noted, however active and accessible webpage URL(s) have been previously provided to allow additional access. If Applicant encounters difficulty, Examiner cordially invites Applicant to an Interview to view the prior art through Examiner’s screen via a video call.
Applicant states that the NPL references provided are difficult to read due to their lower resolution. Applicant also states that they are uncertain of the date of publication of “lovegamer.com.” (hereinafter lovegamer) and “eazy.official” (hereinafter eazy) NPL references (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 8-9). Examiner respectfully submits the publication date for both the aforementioned NPL references are visible in the attached document and by accessing the URL of the YouTube videos provided and checking the description. If Applicant encounters difficulty, Examiner cordially invites Applicant to an Interview to view the prior art and the original, uncompressed NPL files through Examiner’s screen via a video call.
Applicant states that the YouTube shorts do not have text and/or audio in a language other than English (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 9). However, Examiner does not rely on the text and/or audio of the video as the basis for any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Examiner relies only on the video itself. As such, an English-language translation of the text and/or audio is not necessary.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 13). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In regards to original claim 1, Sanrio, lovegamer, and eazy all disclose an apparatus which are used to create 3D stickers. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate lovegamer and eazy with Sanrio to improve the functionality of such an apparatus to deliver a more multifaceted and enjoyable experience to someone interacting with the toy.
Applicant states “the specific quantities recited in claim 2 ("at least thirty sticker blisters, at least thirty sticker backgrounds, and at least thirty double-sided sticker adhesives") and claim 4 ("two hundred fifty gems") are not mere duplications but rather represent a complete kit system. The kit includes thirty sticker blisters, thirty sticker backgrounds, thirty double-sided sticker adhesives, one sprinkle packet, two glitter packets, and two hundred fifty gems as a coordinated set of components. See Applicant's specification, as originally filed, at [0028]” (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no new and unexpected result produced by the number of parts of the claimed kit disclosed in Applicant’s specification.
Applicant states “regarding claim 21, which recites "wherein the kit is themed," kits can be themed, such as an undersea theme or a safari theme. See Applicant's specification, as originally filed, at [0070]. The Office has not established how the combination of disparate references would result in a themed kit as claimed” (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 13-14). As broadly claimed, the Hello Kitty theme of Sanrio’s apparatus alone meets the limitation of a themed kit (see rejection below), requiring no further motivation to combine additional references for the aforementioned limitations.
Applicant states “regarding claims 22 and 23, which recite "at least fifty custom refills" and "blister trays" respectively, kits that include the 3D stickers can include over fifty custom refills to create a wide variety of vibrant 3D stickers, including fifty separate sets of sticker blisters, backgrounds, and blister trays, plus sprinkles and glitter mix-ins. See Applicant's specification, as originally filed, at [0070]. The combination of references fails to teach this integrated refill system” (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The refills are clearly disclosed in the product description of Sanrio. Claim 23 does not depend on claim 22, in the claims provided on 2/2/2026 and 6/8/2026, thus claim 23 does not incorporate the refill limitation of claim 22. Sanrio alone discloses the limitations of claims 22-23, requiring no further motivation to combine additional references for the aforementioned limitations (see rejection below).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 14). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In regards to original claim 3 and 24, both Sanrio and Gilbert disclose a toy kit that uses a particulate substance for aesthetic purposes. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particulate substance from Sanrio with the particulate substance of Gilbert to improve the experience for someone interacting with the toy and allow for more creative expression. Concerning claim 24, there is no indication that a packet containing sprinkles and glitter mixed together is structurally different than two separate packets containing sprinkles and glitter respectively.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 14-15). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In regards to original claims 5 and 30, both Sanrio and Drape pertain to a toy kit that would be used by children. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide easy to follow, wordless instructions as discloses in Drape to aid the younger audience of Sanrio in the proper operation of the apparatus, who would otherwise likely experience difficulty doing so.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 15-17). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In regards to original claims 6-7, 26-29, and 31-32, both Sanrio and Petteruti pertain to printing of stickers. 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 of Petteruti into the apparatus of Sanrio to allow for easier loading of materials into the sticker maker. Applicant states that the combination of the references fails to disclose the aspects of the aforementioned claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the aspects are provided properly in the previous Office Action and as outlined below.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 17-18). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In regards to original claim 25, both Sanrio and Spector pertain to a toy kit that have stickers. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the foils of Spector with the apparatus of Spector to allow for the outputted stickers to be more visually pleasing, increasing the enjoyment gained by one operating it.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 18-19). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In regards to original claim 33, both Sanrio and Lee contain buttons. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the button of Sanrio with the washer of Lee with the apparatus to protect the button from breaking apart, improving integrity. As broadly claimed, the combination of Sanrio and Lee meets the limitation of protection as claimed.
Due to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/8/2026, the rejection of original claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 6). No new rejection of amended claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is applied.
Due to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/8/2026, the rejection of original claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot (Remarks, 6/8/2026, pg. 6). No new rejection of amended claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is applied.
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, 24, and 28 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.
Concerning claim 3,
Claim 3 fails to establish clear metes and bounds, as the limitation “the packet comprises one sprinkle packet and two glitter packets” is considered indefinite. 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.
Concerning claim 24,
Claim 24 fails to establish clear metes and bounds, as the limitation “the packet comprises sprinkles and glitter mix-ins” is considered indefinite. 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.
Concerning claim 28,
The term “aesthetic features” in claim 28 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "aesthetic features.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 (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 in view of 3D Sticker Maker Unboxing ll by lovegamer.com. and further in view of 3D Sticker Machine DIY for Children by eazy.official.
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)(b)).
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 a supplemental kit for refilling components of said kit, the supplemental kit comprising at least fifty refills selected from the group consisting of: sticker blisters; sticker backgrounds; double-sided sticker adhesives; sprinkles; glitter; and gems. (refills shown below).
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)(b)).
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)(b)).
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 features mimicking emojis on the top portion and the bottom portion (3D sticker maker shown below has hearts and cats on its design, which are well known emojis).
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the emoji design constitutes an aesthetic design change (MPEP 2144.04(i)). The emoji design does not have a mechanical function, and dos not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. For the aforementioned reason, it would be obvious to add features mimicking emojis to a product.
Concerning claim 28,
Sanrio discloses aesthetic features (3D sticker maker with aesthetic features shown below. See 112b rejection above).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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