Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 19/051,840

CONFETTI-EXPELLING TOY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Priority
Feb 13, 2024 — provisional 63/553,101
Examiner
GART, MATTHEW S
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Jakks Pacific Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
12%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
Est. Remaining
32%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 12% of cases
12%
Career Allowance Rate
8 granted / 68 resolved
-48.2% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
77
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 68 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/25/2025 was considered by the Examiner. Drawings The drawings submitted on 2/12/2025 have been approved by the Examiner. 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. Ref U discloses the public sale of the Ami Amis Party Pal. The Ami Amis Party Pal walks, plays music, and pops confetti out of its party hat. The Ami Amis Pal is a confetti expelling toy, comprising: a housing; a confetti cavity within the housing, the confetti cavity in fluid communication with a blower wheel and an exit; a sieve positioned between the blower wheel and exit; a motion apparatus connected to the housing, the motion apparatus configured to cause the confetti expelling toy to traverse a surface. Additionally, the Ami Amis Pal is formed to resemble a four legged animal, with the motion apparatus having four legs, one or more motors, gearing, and linkages to cause the four legs to move and, thereby, move the toy. The Ami Amis Pal was publicly offered for sale as of September 11, 2023. 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) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dancing Crab in view of Parr US 2024/0189734. Referring to claims 1 and 2. Dancing Crab discloses a bubble expelling toy, comprising: a housing; a bubble cavity within the housing, the bubble cavity in fluid communication with a blower wheel and an exit; a sieve positioned between the blower wheel and exit; a motion apparatus connected to the housing, the motion apparatus configured to cause the bubble expelling toy to traverse a surface. Dancing Crab further discloses wherein the toy is formed to resemble a multi legged animal, with the motion apparatus having multiple legs, one or more motors, gearing, and linkages to cause the legs to move and, thereby, move the toy. Dancing Crab is a self-walking bubble machine that moves side-to-side on its eight moving legs. Dancing Crab also emits a continuous stream of bubbles blowing from its mouth. Dancing Crab does not disclose expelling confetti. However, Parr disclose the use of animated characters that can emit special effects. Parr discloses the use of special effects such as confetti and bubbles. Parr uses these effects interchangeably. See Parr paragraph 0003. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Dancing Crab’s bubble machine to dispense confetti instead of, or in addition to, bubbles, because both devices are entertainment/special-effect machines. The substitution of one known entertainment output medium, i.e., confetti, for another known entertainment output medium, i.e., bubbles, would have involved the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), when a known device is modified by substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable results, the claimed subject matter is obvious. Here, Dancing Crab already teaches the relevant machine architecture for producing a entertainment/special-effect. Using confetti as the projected material would have been a matter of obvious design choice because it merely changes the type of decorative output material while retaining the same general function of creating a visual entertainment effect. The modification would have predictably resulted in a machine that projects confetti outwardly from the housing using airflow. Dancing Crab does not explicitly disclose an animal with four legs. Dancing Crab discloses an animal with eight legs. Although Dancing Crab discloses an animal with eight legs rather than four legs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide four legs as a predictable design variation. The number of leg appendages is a matter of design choice depending on the desired animal appearance, cost, manufacturability, and aesthetic effect. Dancing Crab already teaches an animal-shaped toy having a body and leg appendages, and modifying the number of legs from eight to four would merely adapt the toy to represent a different animal form while using the appendages for their known purpose. Under KSR, selecting among known, predictable variations of a known structure is ordinarily obvious absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Accordingly, the limitation of an animal with four legs would have been obvious over Dancing Crab. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S GART whose telephone number is (571)272-3955. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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. /MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 12, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12670481
DYNAMICALLY LINKING MACHINE-READABLE CODES TO DIGITAL ACCOUNTS FOR LOADING OF APPLICATION DATA
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12626301
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENHANCED ELECTRONIC NETWORKED SETTLEMENT PROCESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12591873
CROSS-SERVICE TRANSACTIONS FOR PEER-TO-PEER (P2P) PAYMENT PLATFORMS
1y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12561739
METHOD TO ENABLE PARALLELIZATION AND INTEGRATION OF MICROSERVICES TO A HIGHLY PERFORMANT MONOLITH STRUCTURE
2y 9m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12443932
TRANSACTION CONTROL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, APPARATUS, AND METHOD
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
12%
Grant Probability
32%
With Interview (+19.7%)
3y 8m (~2y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 68 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month