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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The supplied application record identifies two Information Disclosure Statement submissions filed January 16, 2025.
Priority
The application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/622,527, filed January 18, 2024, under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the phrase "the suspendable object is coupled slidably and illuminated from the light pipe" is grammatically awkward and does not clearly state the intended sliding relationship. The phrase should be rewritten to state the intended relationship directly, for example, "the suspendable object is slidably coupled with [identified structure] and illuminated by the light pipe," if that wording accurately reflects the intended subject matter and is supported by the original disclosure.
Claim 8 recites "defines a hole at top the upper clear dome portion" and should be corrected to grammatically complete language such as "defines a hole at a top of the upper clear dome portion."
Claim 10 recites "defines a hole at top the upper clear dome portion" and should be corrected to grammatically complete language such as "defines a hole at a top of the upper clear dome portion."
Claim 16 recites the phrase beginning "wherein the fluid capsule apparatus are lowered and suspended ... " and should be rewritten for grammatical clarity while preserving the originally disclosed structural relationships. In particular, "when receiving fluid to the suspendable object" is grammatically incomplete.
Claim 17 recites the phrase "the upper clear dome portion of the fluid capsule apparatus defines plural holes at top the upper clear dome portions" and inconsistently shifts between singular and plural terminology. The claim should expressly state whether each capsule has a respective upper opening or whether a single structure defines multiple openings.
Claim 18 recites "wherein the actuating the toy target seal devices causes" and should be corrected to "wherein actuating the toy target seal devices causes."
Claim 19 recites "defining a hole at top the upper clear dome portion" and "at the hole at top the upper clear dome portion" and should be corrected to grammatically complete language, such as "at a top of the upper clear dome portion," if that wording accurately reflects the intended subject matter.
Claim 20 recites "directed in the fluid capsule apparatus" and should be clarified, for example to "directed into the fluid capsule apparatus," if supported. Claim 20 also refers to "the suspendable object," whereas claim 19 introduces "an object." Consistent terminology should be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe et al. (US 20040198139 A1, "Atobe") in view of Wang (US 5264267 A).
Regarding claim 1, Atobe teaches a toy having the claimed fluid-capsule and buoyant-object structure. Atobe teaches that "the liquid container section ... is constituted by the container main body 11 and the upper face of the base section 12" ([0018]; Figs. 1-2). Atobe therefore teaches an upper container portion and a lower base portion that together form a liquid-containing capsule. Atobe further teaches that "the upper end ... is closed in a domed shape" and that "the upper face of the base section 12 is fixed in a watertight fashion ... to the open end" of the container main body ([0020]; Figs. 1-2). The domed upper region reads on the claimed upper clear dome portion, and the base section reads on the claimed lower base portion. Atobe teaches that the container has a transparent section so that movement of the figure can be seen and that "desirably the whole body thereof is transparent" ([0021]). Atobe further teaches that the liquid may be water ([0022]). Atobe teaches a figure object within the liquid container, stating that the figure "is accommodated inside the liquid container section," has "a lower specific gravity than the liquid," and "may float on the surface of the liquid" ([0024]). Atobe also explains that the figure returns upward due to buoyancy when the opposing magnetic force is released ([0008], [0048]-[0051]). Thus, Atobe teaches a suspendable object inside a fluid capsule for which fluid buoyancy raises or supports the object. Atobe does not teach the claimed seal device comprising both a toy target and a deformable plug end. Claim 1 does not require that this seal device seal the fluid capsule; that relationship is first expressly recited in claim 10.
Wang teaches an enclosed-liquid child-amusement article having a conventional cap-over-resilient-stopper seal structure. Wang teaches a transparent sealed chamber filled with water and floating objects and states that "A resilient stopper is inserted into the open end of the handle and it, in turn, is covered by a plastic cap" (Abstract; see also claims 5-6; Fig. 3). Thus, Wang expressly teaches a seal assembly having a resilient plug/stopper and an overlying cap.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation "toy target" does not positively require any particular target geometry, impact surface, projectile interaction, mounting arrangement, or other target-specific structure. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art by structure, and an intended use does not distinguish an otherwise structurally suitable apparatus. See MPEP § 2114. Wang's plastic cap therefore reads on the broadly recited toy target, while Wang's resilient stopper reads on the seal deformable plug end. Wang's disclosure expressly concerns a transparent liquid-filled novelty for the amusement of children. These structural and functional similarities make Wang substantially more analogous to Atobe's liquid-containing toy than the previously applied secondary reference. See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Atobe and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Atobe further teaches that the figure is indirectly coupled to the lower base. Atobe states that swinging plates 33, 34 "are provided on the upper face of the base section 12" and are rotatably supported there ([0027]). Atobe further states that "the figure object 2 is linked to the magnetic members 31, 32 by means of respective threads 41, 42," with those magnetic members mounted on the movable ends of the base-supported swinging plates ([0033]). Because claim 2 does not require direct coupling, this mechanical chain reads on the claimed coupling to the lower base.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Atobe and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Atobe further teaches that the figure object is tethered in the fluid capsule. Atobe states that the figure is "linked to the magnetic members 31, 32 by means of respective threads 41, 42 forming line members" ([0033]) and that the line members may be thin transparent material or "fishing line" ([0035]). These line members restrain the otherwise buoyant figure and therefore read on the claimed tether.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wang's known cap-over-resilient-stopper closure technique to Atobe's liquid-container toy so that the toy includes the claimed seal device while retaining Atobe's transparent liquid-display and buoyant-object operation. Under the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., the scope and content of the prior art include Atobe's transparent, domed liquid toy having a buoyant figure and Wang's transparent liquid-filled child-amusement article having an open fill end closed by a resilient stopper with an overlying plastic cap; Atobe supplies the fluid capsule, base, liquid, and buoyant object and also supplies the additional coupling and tether limitations of claims 2 and 3, while the material difference for claim 1 is the seal device comprising a broadly recited toy target and a deformable plug end. Wang is analogous art because it concerns an enclosed transparent liquid amusement article and addresses the closely related problem of closing a liquid-filled article with a resilient stopper and cap. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). The references reflect ordinary mechanical design skill in transparent liquid amusement articles, molded plastic caps, resilient stoppers, and buoyancy-operated moving objects, and no objective evidence bearing on obviousness for this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because Atobe is a liquid-containing amusement device, Wang demonstrates the cap-over-resilient-stopper closure technique in a comparable liquid-filled child-amusement article, and a person of ordinary skill could have applied that conventional closure technique to Atobe using ordinary molded-part and resilient-stop fit methods. The predictable result would be a liquid toy having a conventional cap/plug seal assembly in which the cap is structurally capable of serving as the broadly recited toy target and the resilient stopper provides the deformable plug end, without changing Atobe's buoyancy principle. Wang's demonstrated sealed-liquid construction provides a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396-97 (2007).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White et al. (US 20100288777 A1, "White").
Regarding claim 4, Atobe and Wang teach the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, but do not teach the claimed post-guided sliding relationship. Atobe and Michelet teach the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, but do not teach the claimed post-guided sliding relationship. White teaches a liquid-level mechanism in which a buoyancy-driven element moves vertically relative to an elongated shaft. White teaches a "helical, rotating indicator shaft 161" within indicator tube 151 and a magnetic ring 166 that is prevented from rotating while "being allowed to freely move in the vertical direction" ([0047]; Fig. 16). In another embodiment, "coffee enters the interior of the tube 151 [and] causes a float 173 to rise or fall," while the float's central slot engages helical shaft 171 ([0048]; Fig. 17). White therefore teaches a liquid- responsive moving member guided relative to an elongated shaft/post.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Atobe, Wang, and White teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the guided relationship explained above. White expressly teaches a "helical, rotating indicator shaft 161" ([0047]) and, in the alternate embodiment, teaches that a float rises or falls while its central slot "acts on the helical shaft 171 to rotate it" ([0048]; Fig. 17; claim 8). White therefore teaches the known helical-coupling principle by which relative axial movement between a follower and a helical shaft is converted to rotation. White allows the liquid-responsive member to translate while the helical shaft rotates, whereas claim 5 recites the helical post coupled to the base and the suspendable object rotatably coupled with that post. The operative distinction is which cooperating member is stationary and which member rotates while the same relative helical motion is preserved.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply White’s known shaft guidance and helical-motion techniques to the Atobe/Wang liquid toy by mounting an elongated post at the lower base, slidably coupling the buoyant figure to the post for claim 4, and using the known helical post/follower relationship to produce rotation for claim 5. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include Atobe/Wang’s liquid toy/target combination and White’s liquid-responsive shaft and helical-motion mechanisms; the differences are the base-mounted post that guides the buoyant object and, for claim 5, the helical coupling that converts relative axial motion to rotation. White is pertinent to the problem of constraining and converting liquid-level-driven vertical movement, and the references reflect ordinary skill in shafts, sliding followers, and helical motion-conversion mechanisms; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because the Atobe/Wang combination is a liquid-responsive device with a vertically movable member, White demonstrates guidance and helical motion conversion in a comparable liquid-responsive moving-member environment, and applying the same ordinary mechanical interfaces would predictably constrain vertical travel and produce rotation without changing the buoyancy principle, thereby providing a reasonable expectation of success. For claim 5, fixing the helical post while allowing the cooperating follower/object to rotate preserves the same relative helical motion, consistent with the fact-specific reasoning of In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A), rather than as a per se rule. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yongsheng (CN 111642474 A).
Regarding claim 6, Atobe and Wang teach the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above but do not teach the recited lower illumination source, light pipe, and sliding/illumination relationship. Yongsheng teaches an illuminated, water-associated float mechanism including a light-guide float tail, a light-guide lower counterweight foot, and a lower counterweight illuminator (claims 16-18; Figs. 11-12). Claim 16 specifically teaches that "a sliding floating foot is connected on the light guide floating tail ... in a sliding way." Yongsheng further teaches that the lower illuminator couples light into the light-guide counterweight foot, connector, and light-guide tail so that light is conducted upward through the elongated light-guiding structure (claims 16-18). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 6 requires a light pipe, a sliding coupling, and illumination, but does not expressly require that the light pipe itself be the sole mechanical guide.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yongsheng's illuminated sliding-guide technique to Atobe's buoyant figure by mounting the lower illuminator and elongated light-guide structure at Atobe's lower base and coupling the figure to a sliding follower on or associated with the light guide. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include Atobe's buoyant figure in a transparent liquid capsule and Yongsheng's illuminated water-associated float assembly having a lower illuminator, light-guide structure, and sliding follower; the material difference is the claimed lower illumination/light-pipe/sliding arrangement. Yongsheng is reasonably pertinent to the engineering problem of guiding and illuminating a vertically movable, water-associated body, and the references reflect ordinary skill in simple sliding interfaces, buoyant members, and basic light-guide structures; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because Atobe/Wang provides the base liquid toy with a visible buoyant object, Yongsheng demonstrates a lower illuminator, elongated light guide, and sliding follower in a comparable water- associated moving-body structure, and routine mechanical coupling and optical alignment would predictably yield a guided, illuminated moving object. The low- complexity interfaces demonstrated by Yongsheng provide a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claims 7, 10-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang and further in view of Tanimura (US 4032141 A).
Regarding claim 7, Atobe and Wang teach the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above but do not teach a bottom opening through which fluid is allowed to flow. Tanimura teaches that "the bottom member 18 of the enclosure 10 is provided with an opening 20" and that tube 38 communicates with that opening (col. 1, Description of the Preferred Embodiment; Figs. 1-2). Tanimura further teaches fluid passing through the bottom opening during operation.
Regarding claim 10, Atobe and Wang teach the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Tanimura teaches a liquid enclosure whose "top member 12 [has] a hole 14 through which the liquid may be poured and a stopper 16" (col. 1, "Description of the Preferred Embodiment"; Fig. 1). Wang teaches the more specific known closure structure of a resilient stopper inserted into an opening with a plastic cap mounted over the stopper (Abstract; claims 5-6; Fig. 3). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth for claim 1, Wang's cap reads on the toy target and its resilient stopper reads on the seal deformable plug end.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 10 as explained above. Tanimura further teaches bottom opening 20 in the lower portion of the liquid enclosure, with a fluid path extending through that opening (col. 1, Description of the Preferred Embodiment; Figs. 1-2). Thus, the combination teaches both the top target/plug closure and the lower fluid opening.
Regarding claim 19, Atobe teaches providing a liquid capsule having a domed upper portion, lower base portion, liquid, and a buoyant figure as set forth in the quoted disclosures for claim 1 ([0018], [0020]-[0024]). Tanimura teaches defining a top filling hole and positioning removable stopper 16 at that hole (col. 1; Fig. 1). Wang teaches a resilient stopper inserted into an opening with a plastic cap mounted over the stopper (Abstract; claims 5-6; Fig. 3); under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cap reads on the toy target and the resilient stopper reads on the seal deformable plug end. Atobe teaches raising the figure by fluid buoyancy ([0024], [0048]-[0051]). The combined teachings therefore supply each recited method step.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atobe's liquid toy with Tanimura's lower fluid opening for claim 7 and, for claims 10-11 and method claim 19, to substitute Wang's cap-over-resilient-stopper closure for Tanimura's generic top stopper so that the top opening is closed by the claimed target/deformable-plug seal structure. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include Atobe's buoyant liquid toy, Tanimura's liquid toy having top and bottom fluid openings and a removable top stopper, and Wang's liquid-filled child-amusement article having a resilient stopper with an overlying plastic cap; the material difference for claim 7 is the lower fluid opening, while the material difference for claims 10-11 and 19 is using the target/plug structure at the top opening as the removable fluid-retaining closure, with claim 11 additionally requiring the lower opening. Wang is pertinent to the problem of sealing a liquid-filled amusement article and the references reflect ordinary mechanical skill in toy containers, removable plugs/stoppers, liquid ports, and molded plastic caps; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. For claim 7, the modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because Tanimura demonstrates a lower fluid port in a comparable liquid toy and forming the same port in Atobe's lower base would predictably permit fluid flow through the bottom without changing the buoyancy principle. For claims 10-11 and 19, the modification is supported by the KSR rationale of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, MPEP § 2143(I)(B), because Tanimura supplies the known top-hole/removable-stopper arrangement, Wang supplies a known resilient stopper with an overlying cap, and substituting Wang's cap-over- stopper assembly for Tanimura's generic stopper would predictably provide a fluid- retaining closure having the claimed target-cap/deformable-plug structure. Ordinary resilient-stop sizing and molded-cap mounting provide a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-18.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenwen (CN 203861900 U).
Regarding claim 8, Atobe and Wang teach the apparatus of claim 1 but do not teach introducing liquid through a top opening by a syringe pump. Wenwen teaches seven transparent sealed hollow toy bodies and states that "a rubber plug is embedded into the upper surface of each hollow body," with liquid introduced by syringe needle through the plug (Abstract; Fig. 2; claim 1). Thus, Wenwen teaches the known technique of providing an upper access/sealing structure in a transparent toy liquid body and receiving the fluid-delivery portion of a syringe through that upper structure to introduce liquid. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a syringe pump includes its needle or nozzle as the fluid-delivery portion of the pump, and "received" does not require the entire syringe barrel to enter the opening.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Atobe's upper clear dome with an upper filling hole and apply Wenwen's syringe-filling technique so that the needle/nozzle portion of the syringe pump is received at the opening to introduce a controlled quantity of liquid. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include Atobe's transparent liquid toy and Wenwen's transparent sealed toy bodies having upper access structures filled by a syringe; the material difference is the claimed upper-dome filling hole receiving the syringe pump to introduce fluid. Wenwen is in the same general field of liquid-containing toys and addresses the same filling problem, and the references reflect ordinary skill in syringe filling,
elastomeric access plugs, and molded toy containers; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because Atobe/Wang provides the base liquid toy, Wenwen demonstrates upper syringe-fill access in comparable transparent toy liquid bodies, and forming an appropriately sized upper opening/access structure in Atobe would predictably permit controlled filling without disassembly. Wenwen demonstrates operability of the technique and therefore supplies a reasonable expectation of success. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, receipt of the syringe pump at the hole encompasses receipt of its fluid-delivery needle/nozzle; the claim does not require the entire syringe barrel to enter the opening. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 5284274 A, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 9, Atobe and Wang teach the apparatus of claim 1 but do not teach the claimed lower bellows-pump filling structure. Lee teaches refillable water capsules for action toys. In the embodiment of Figs. 6A- 6C, Lee teaches "a bellows-type capsule 112 ... including a rigid portion 114, a bellows portion 116 and an orifice 118" (Figs. 6A-6C). Lee explains that the bellows are compressed, orifice 118 is submerged, and expansion of the bellows draws water into the capsule (Figs. 6A-6C; description of the bellows-type capsule). Lee therefore teaches a liquid toy capsule in which a bellows pump and a lower fluid opening/orifice cooperate directly to introduce liquid into the capsule.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atobe's lower base to incorporate Lee's bellows-and-orifice filling arrangement, with the bellows pump coupled at or received by the lower opening so that expansion of the bellows draws liquid through the bottom opening into the capsule. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include Atobe's liquid toy and Lee's refillable liquid toy capsule having a bellows portion and fluid orifice used together for filling; the material difference is the bellows pump received at a lower-base opening to introduce liquid. Lee is in the same field of refillable liquid action toys and directly addresses filling a toy capsule, and the references reflect ordinary skill in molded liquid capsules, bellows pumps, and simple fluid openings; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because Atobe/Wang provides the base liquid toy, Lee demonstrates an integrated bellows-and-orifice filling technique in a comparable refillable toy capsule, and routine molding and fluid-connection methods would predictably permit the bellows to draw liquid through the lower opening into Atobe's capsule. Lee's working refillable toy capsule provides a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang and further in view of Tanimura, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Weistrop (US 3665638 A).
Regarding claim 12, the Atobe/Wang/Tanimura combination teaches the fluid capsule, top target closure, and lower fluid opening of claim 11 but does not expressly teach an outer housing in which the fluid-responsive object is visible when raised and obscured when lowered. Weistrop teaches that exact toy-display technique. Weistrop's hydraulically actuated toy moves a visual effect "between a concealed position within said toy and a visible position extending above the top of said toy" (claim 1). In the plant embodiment, the addition of water raises a float-supported simulated plant so that the flower becomes visible, while lowering the float conceals the flower (claim 2; Figs. 1a-1b). The description further teaches cylindrical shroud 20 and flower-pot/body structure surrounding and concealing the fluid-driven mechanism (col. 2; Figs. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 12 as set forth above. Weistrop further teaches lower drainage from fluid-containing structures through the lower region of a common housing. In the plural embodiment, "each cylinder is provided with a drain port 66 on its lower surface and drain tubes 68 connect cylinder drain ports 66 with a common fluid outlet pipe 70" (col. 4; Fig. 2a). The same embodiment teaches planter box 60 as a common concealing outer structure (col. 4; Fig. 2a) . Figure 2a shows the drain/outlet structure routed through the lower portion of that structure. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the lower pass-through/outlet of the concealing structure reads on a lower housing opening through which fluid from the capsule is allowed to flow and be expelled.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Weistrop's known concealing-housing and lower-drain-routing techniques to the Atobe/Wang/Tanimura liquid toy so that fluid-driven vertical movement determines whether the buoyant figure is visible or obscured and the capsule's lower drain remains routed through a lower opening of the surrounding housing. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include the claim-11 liquid toy structure and Weistrop's hydraulically actuated children's toy having a concealing outer structure, a fluid-responsive object that changes between concealed and visible positions, and lower drain routing; the material differences are the surrounding reveal/conceal housing of claim 12 and the lower housing pass-through for capsule fluid of claim 13. Weistrop is in the same field of fluid-actuated children's toys and addresses the same visual-effect and drainage problems, and the references reflect ordinary skill in housings, buoyancy/float mechanisms, and simple drain routing; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because the Atobe/Wang/Tanimura combination is the base fluid-responsive toy, Weistrop demonstrates the same conceal/reveal and drain-routing techniques in a comparable fluid-driven toy, and ordinary enclosure and pass-through construction would predictably yield the claimed visible/obscured states and lower fluid outlet without changing the underlying fluid operation. Weistrop's demonstrated structure provides a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang and further in view of Weistrop.
Regarding claim 14, the quoted Atobe disclosures applied to claim 1 are incorporated here: Atobe teaches the liquid capsule formed by container main body 11 and base section 12 ([0018]), the domed upper portion and lower base ([0020]), transparency ([0021]), liquid ([0022]), and the buoyant figure inside the capsule ([0024], [0048]-[0051]). The quoted Wang disclosures applied to claim 1 are likewise incorporated: Wang teaches a resilient stopper inserted into an open end with a plastic cap mounted over the stopper (Abstract; claims 5-6; Fig. 3). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Wang's cap reads on the toy target and the resilient stopper reads on the seal deformable plug end.
Weistrop supplies the additional housing and reveal/conceal relationship. Weistrop's claim 1 recites a visual effect moving "between a concealed position within said toy and a visible position extending above the top of said toy," and claim 2 recites the float-supported simulated plant moving from concealed to fully visible with liquid- level change (claims 1-2; Figs. 1a-1b). The combined teachings therefore account for each positive limitation of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 14 as set forth above. Weistrop further teaches a plural fluid-toy assembly. Weistrop further teaches a plural fluid-toy assembly. Weistrop's plural embodiment uses "a plurality of cylinders" and "a like number of float pistons" in a common simulated flower-bed structure (claim 7; col. 4; Fig. 2a). Each cylinder has a respective fluid-responsive visual object. Wang teaches the individual cap-over- resilient-stopper target/seal structure under the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth above. Providing a corresponding target/plug component for each of the plural fluid units repeats the same known target/seal component for each unit. The specific facts are analogous to In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), only to the extent claim 15 adds a plurality of corresponding units without reciting a new cooperative interaction created by that numerical duplication. Each duplicated target/plug and fluid unit performs the same individual function. No critical number or unexpected cooperative result is identified in the supplied record.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Atobe’s buoyancy responsive liquid capsule and figure, Wang’s cap-over-resilient-stopper seal structure, and Weistrop’s conceal/reveal housing to form the apparatus of claim 14, and to repeat the resulting known unit in a common playset as recited by claim 15. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include Atobe’s buoyant transparent liquid toy, Wang’s liquid-filled child-amusement article having a resilient stopper and overlying cap, and Weistrop’s conceal/reveal housing and plural fluid-responsive toy units; the differences from claim 14 are combining the known target/plug seal component and known conceal/reveal housing with Atobe’s liquid toy, while claim 15 further adds a plurality of corresponding capsule/object/target-seal units in a common playset. Wang is analogous to the claimed liquid-amusement structure for the reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1, and the references reflect ordinary skill in modular consumer-toy construction, simple housings, resilient closures, and repeating identical toy mechanisms; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP § 2143(I)(A), because the applied references collectively supply the recited elements, the elements can be joined by ordinary toy-housing and modular mounting methods while each retains its established function, and the predictable result is a reveal/conceal target toy and plural-unit playset with a reasonable expectation of success. For claim 15, the numerical repetition does not require a new operating principle, consistent with the fact- specific reasoning of In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), where no critical number or unexpected cooperative effect is shown. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-18.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang and further in view of Weistrop, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Greenwood (US 20210387105 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Atobe, Wang, and Weistrop teach plural fluid capsule apparatuses, respective fluid-responsive objects, a common supporting/concealing playset structure, and plural target/plug components as set forth for claim 15. The combination does not expressly teach a carrier/rack that is lowered with the plural capsules into a lower fluid-receiving portion for collective filling.
Greenwood teaches collective filling of plural toy water capsules while they remain retained by a carrier. Greenwood states that Figure 36 "illustrates a bucket full of fluid and a submersible mesh bag containing empty assembled capsules being lowered into [the] bucket" ([0029]) and Figure 37 shows the carrier and capsules submerged so the capsules fill with water ([0030]). Greenwood further explains that the assembled capsules remain in the carrier during submersion and become filled (discussion associated with Figs. 33-37; [0047]).
Weistrop supplies a common support structure for plural liquid units, while Greenwood supplies the known technique of retaining plural toy capsules in a common carrier and lowering that carrier into a fluid-receiving lower receptacle. As best understood in view of the grammatical objection to claim 16, the recited "rack" broadly requires a support/carrier for the plural capsules and the recited lower portion requires a lower fluid-receiving portion of the playset; the claim does not specify a particular rack material, lattice geometry, rigidity, or a distinct structural boundary between every recited upper/lower region. Weistrop's common plural-unit support reads on the capsule-support/rack function, and Greenwood's carrier-above/bucket-below arrangement supplies the relative upper support and lower fluid-receiving relationship during the filling operation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the plural-unit support of the claim-15 combination removable/lowerable and apply Greenwood's collective submersion-filling technique so that several liquid capsules remain organized in the support while the support and capsules are lowered relative to a lower fluid- receiving portion for filling. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include the plural claim-15 playset and Greenwood's submersible carrier holding plural toy water capsules while the carrier is lowered into a bucket for collective filling; the material difference is making the plural-capsule support lowerable relative to a lower fluid-receiving portion during filling. Greenwood is in the same field of toy water capsules and directly addresses organized collective filling, and the references reflect ordinary skill in carriers, racks/supports, buckets/receptacles, and manual submersion of toy capsules; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because the claim-15 combination is the base plural liquid-toy playset, Greenwood demonstrates a comparable plural water-capsule system in which a carrier retains the capsules while being lowered into a lower fluid receptacle, and ordinary removable-support construction would predictably keep the capsules organized and suspended by the support during filling. Greenwood's demonstrated plural-capsule filling arrangement provides a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang and further in view of Weistrop and Greenwood, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wenwen.
Regarding claim 17, the claim-16 combination teaches the plural capsule/rack/playset structure but does not expressly teach using a syringe pump through respective upper openings to fill the plural capsules. Wenwen teaches seven transparent sealed hollow toy bodies and states that "a rubber plug is embedded into the upper surface of each hollow body," with different colored liquids introduced into the respective bodies by syringe needle through the plugs (Abstract; Fig. 2; claim 1). Wenwen therefore expressly demonstrates plural transparent toy bodies, respective upper filling/access locations, and syringe filling of each body.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plural capsules of the claim-16 combination with respective upper filling openings and apply Wenwen's syringe-filling technique at those openings. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include the claim-16 plural liquid-capsule playset and Wenwen's plural transparent toy liquid bodies having respective upper syringe-fill access structures; the material difference is the plural upper holes and syringe-pump filling relationship. Wenwen is in the same general field of sealed transparent toy bodies and directly addresses plural syringe filling, and the references reflect ordinary skill in syringe filling, elastomeric access structures, and plural toy-container manufacture; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because the claim-16 combination is the base plural liquid-toy system, Wenwen demonstrates respective upper syringe-fill access points in a comparable plural toy-container system, and forming corresponding upper openings/access structures would predictably permit controlled syringe filling of each capsule while leaving the remaining playset structure unchanged. CN '900 demonstrates operability across multiple toy bodies and provides a reasonable expectation of success. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, receipt of the syringe pump at the hole encompasses receipt of its needle/nozzle portion, and the claim does not require the entire syringe barrel to enter each hole. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang and further in view of Weistrop, Greenwood, and Wenwen, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rickenbach et al. (US 20120214381 A1, "Rickenbach").
Regarding claim 18, the claim-17 combination teaches the plural liquid-capsule playset, respective target/plug structures, carrier/rack, lower fluid-receiving portion, and upper syringe-fill openings, but does not expressly teach actuating and removing the target/seal structures from the upper capsule holes to cause fluid release into the lower portion of the playset. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation carried forward from claim 1, Wang's plastic cap and resilient stopper provide the recited target/seal structure; claim 18 does not require projectile impact or any particular manner of actuation.
Rickenbach teaches an aquatic toy reservoir with "a plurality of substantially co- planar bottom release holes, and a top control aperture" (Abstract; Figs. 1-4). Rickenbach further teaches that sealing the top control aperture retains the water when the reservoir is lifted, and that "[w]hen the control aperture is unsealed, water in the reservoir flows out through the release holes" (Abstract; see also claims 1-2). Thus, Rickenbach supplies documentary evidence of the causal fluid- control technique: a top seal retains liquid against lower release openings, and removal of that top seal admits air and allows the liquid to discharge.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure each fluid capsule of the claim-17 combination with Rickenbach's known top-control/bottom-release technique and use the already-present Wang cap/resilient-stopper target/seal structure as the removable top control closure so that actuating and removing that closure unseals the upper opening and causes fluid to discharge through the lower release path into Greenwood's lower fluid-receiving portion. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include Wang's cap-over-resilient-stopper closure structure, Rickenbach's aquatic toy in which unsealing an upper control aperture causes water to discharge through lower openings, and Greenwood's lower receptacle for plural water capsules; the material difference is configuring the inherited target/seal structure as the removable top control closure so that its actuation/removal causes fluid release into the lower playset. Rickenbach is in the same field of water-play toys and directly addresses controlled retention and release of water, Wang is reasonably pertinent to liquid-container closure structure, and the references reflect ordinary skill in vent-controlled gravity drainage, resilient stoppers, removable closures, and toy water reservoirs; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by the KSR rationale of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, MPEP § 2143(I)(D), because the claim-17 combination is a known plural liquid-capsule playset lacking the defined actuation-responsive release mechanism, Rickenbach supplies an applicable technique in which sealing an upper control aperture retains liquid and unsealing it releases liquid through lower openings, and Wang supplies the cap-over-resilient-stopper closure structure already used as the target/seal component in the base combination. Applying the known technique would predictably convert target/seal removal into fluid release, and the demonstrated closure and fluid-control structures provide a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atobe in view of Wang and further in view of Tanimura, as applied to method claim 19 above, and further in view of Lin (GB 2357830 A, "Lin").
Regarding claim 20, the claim-19 combination teaches providing the liquid capsule, defining the upper hole, positioning the target/deformable-plug seal at the hole, and raising the object with fluid, but does not expressly teach the claimed lower-base illumination step. Lin teaches a transparent liquid-containing ornament having a bottom base connected beneath the transparent liquid container. Lin states that the bottom base "defines an inner space large enough for accommodating ... a light emitting means 32" and teaches the light-emitting means projecting light upward into the transparent liquid container (Abstract; claim 1; Figs. 1, 3-4). Lin further teaches floating decorative articles 73 within the liquid environment (description of Fig. 3; claim 2). Thus, Lin teaches a lower/base-mounted light source directing illumination upward into a transparent liquid container containing a floating object.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place Lin's known lower/base- mounted light source in the lower base of the claim-19 fluid capsule and direct the light upward into the transparent capsule so that the suspendable object in the illuminated liquid region is illuminated. Under Graham, the scope and content of the prior art include the claim-19 liquid-toy method and Lin's transparent liquid ornament having a lower base containing a light source that projects light upward into a liquid container with floating decorative articles; the material difference is providing illumination from inside the lower base and directing it into the fluid capsule so the suspendable object is illuminated. Lin is reasonably pertinent to the optical problem of illuminating movable objects within a transparent liquid container and uses substantially the same base/container spatial relationship, and the references reflect ordinary skill in low-voltage decorative lighting, transparent liquid containers, and basic optical placement; no objective evidence bearing on this ground is identified in the supplied record. The modification is supported by using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, MPEP § 2143(I)(C), because the claim-19 combination is the base transparent liquid toy with a fluid-raised object, Lin demonstrates lower-base illumination directed upward into a transparent liquid region containing floating articles, and routine placement of the light source beneath the transparent liquid volume would predictably illuminate the object in the light path. Lin's demonstrated arrangement provides a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights