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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loscalzo
(US4804349).
Regarding claim 1, Loscalzo shows a traveling toy for figure play comprising: a traveling toy body (12) comprising a bottom portion (20) and a wall portion (40) erected upright from the bottom portion, the bottom portion and the wall portion defining a storage space; and at least one chair toy (42) comprising a backrest portion (68) and a seat portion (44), the at least one chair toy being configured to be stored in the storage space, wherein the chair toy is configured to be stored in the storage space such that a seat surface (outer edge of seat where 42 is pointing below) of the seat portion and an inner wall surface (see annotated figure 3 below) of the wall portion face each other and the backrest portion protrudes outward from the wall portion (figure 1 shows 42 extending outward from the inner surface).
Regarding claim 2, Loscalzo shows the traveling toy for figure play according to claim 1, wherein a direction in which the backrest portion protrudes outward from the wall portion is a horizontally perpendicular direction to an advancing direction of the traveling toy body. Please note that the backrest has a thickness, width and height so it protrudes in all directions. Also please note that “an advancing direction” is not given any reference. The toy can be moved in all directions.
Regarding claim 5, Loscalzo shows the traveling toy for figure play according to claim 1, wherein the chair toy is configured to be installed on the storage space such that the seat surface extends horizontally. See annotated figure 3 below. The seat has a horizontal component. Please note horizontal has not been given a frame of reference.
6. The traveling toy for figure play according to claim 1, wherein the wall portion comprises a
seat support member (14) protruding from the inner wall surface, the seat support member being
configured to contact a lower surface of the seat portion (see figure 1 where the seat contacts edge 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
614
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loscalzo alone.
Regarding claim 3, Loscalzo shows the traveling toy of claim 2 and further teaches at least two chairs (42) as shown in the figures. Loscalzo shows a few arrangements of the chairs but fails to explicitly show the backrests extending opposite directions when stored. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to turn the chairs of Loscalzo a multiple of ways including backrests facing each other in order to provide more variety in play. Turning the seats any different direction would lead to predictable results and numerous different arrangements.
Regarding claim 4, Loscalzo shows a table toy (figure 4) with top plate 68. Loscalzo doesn’t show the table in a recessed portion of the bottom but one skilled in the art, for the reasoning stated above in claim 3, would find this modification obvious. 42 is both a table and chair and includes multiples and is fully capable and intended to be played with and arranged in multiple ways by the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Loscalzo and related prior art fails to show a chair having leg members where in one state the chair support member and seat surface are in contact and a second state where the seat portion between the legs is in contact with a different surface of the chair support member. Relevant art such as US10071320 shows removable seats, US 4477999 shows a removable chair and US 3124386 shows a chair with legs that is stowed but in a different manner than what is claimed in claim 6. The examiner can find no reason to combine or modify the references of record to create applicant’s device without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Previously held claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Loscalzo’s seating surface does not face an inner wall surface of the wall portion and the back portion is not configured to protrude outward from the side wall, examiner respectfully disagrees. The seating surface is considered the whole seat portion and therefor does “face” an inner wall. A portion of the seat faces the wall. As for the back portion, examiner notes again that no frame of reference is given and therefor the back portion can be considered to protrude outward from the side wall. It does not require contact between the back portion and wall.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISTINA ROSE FULTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights