DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, the phrase “comprises an other one” should read “comprises another one”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 14, the limitations are already recited in lines 8-13 of claim 10. Claim 15 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ciampitti et al. (US 20120264349 A1), herein referred to as Ciampitti.
Regarding claim 1, Ciampitti discloses a plush toy (see figs 3 & 7), comprising: a strap receiving portion (portion of 10b covered by 22 in fig 6) provided on a surface of the plush toy (see fig 7); a strap (22) integrated with the plush toy (at 22a); and a fastener assembly (24a, 24b, 24c) having a first element (at least portion of 24a located on 10b) provided on the strap receiving portion and a second element (at least portion of 24a located on 22) provided on the strap, wherein the strap is configured to be fastened across an item or through an opening of the item, and secured to the strap receiving portion, via the fastener assembly, such that the plush toy is secured to the item (see fig 11 and paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 2, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein the first element and the second element are configured to engage to secure the strap to the strap receiving portion, and wherein the first element and the second element are configured to disengage to unsecure the strap from the strap receiving portion (see figs 6, 7, & 11 and paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein the strap is sewn (at 22a; see paragraph 0035) or glued to the plush toy to integrate the strap with the plush toy.
Regarding claim 4, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein the fastener assembly comprises a hook and loop closure (i.e., Velcro; see paragraph 0035) including a hook element and a loop element, the first element comprises one of the hook element or the loop element, and the second element comprises an other one of the hook element or the loop element (see fig 7).
Regarding claim 5, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein the strap receiving portion is provided on a rear surface of the plush toy (see fig 7).
Regarding claim 6, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein a length of the strap is equal to a length of the strap receiving portion, and wherein a width of the strap is equal to a width of the strap receiving portion such that the strap conceals the fastener assembly when the first element and the second element are engaged (compare figs 6 & 7).
Regarding claim 7, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein a width of the strap exceeds a width of the fastener assembly such that the strap conceals the fastener assembly when the first element and the second element are engaged (compare figs 6 & 7).
Regarding claim 8, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein the fastener assembly comprises a snap fastener including a socket element and a stud element, the first element comprises one of the socket element or the stud element, and the second element comprises another one of the socket element or the stud element (Ciampitti teaches an alternative use of snaps which would include a socket element and a stud element; see paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 9, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 1, wherein the fastener assembly comprises a magnetic fastener including a fixed element and a moveable element, the first element comprises one of the fixed element or the moveable element, and the second element comprises another one of the fixed element or the moveable element (Ciampitti teaches an alternative use of magnets which would include a fixed element [on 10b] and a moveable element [on 22]; see paragraph 0035).
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5 above, with Ciampitti further disclosing the plush toy comprising a front surface (see fig 1) and a rear surface (see fig 7) opposite the front surface.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claims 6 and 7 above.
Regarding claim 12, Ciampitti discloses the plush toy of claim 10, wherein the second element is provided on a first end (leftmost end of 22 as viewed in fig 7) of the strap, wherein a second end (rightmost end of 22 as viewed in fig 7) of the strap, opposite the first end of the strap, is coupled to the strap receiving portion, and wherein the second end of the strap is sewn (see paragraph 0035) or glued to the strap receiving portion.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 8 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciampitti et al. (US 20120264349 A1), herein referred to as Ciampitti.
Regarding claims 16-20, Ciampitti does not explicitly disclose a method as claimed. However, given the structure of the plush toy disclosed by Ciampitti (per the rejection of claims 1-15 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method as claimed to use the plush toy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses plush toys relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights