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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baumann (US 12390742).
Regarding claim 1, Baumann shows an expandable toy, comprising: a top shell (see figure below for labeled components); a first expandable component connected to the top shell; a center shell connected to the first expandable component; a second expandable component connected to the center shell; a bottom shell connected to the second expandable component; and wherein each of the first and second expandable components are selectively transitionable between a contracted state (fig 3) and an expanded state (fig 4), such that when in the contracted state, the first expendable component is concealed within the top shell and center shell (fig 3), while the second expandable component is concealed within the center shell and bottom shell (fig 3).
Regarding claim 2, the expandable toy as set forth in Claim 1, wherein the top shell and center shell are shaped to matingly engage with one another to nest together. Figure 3 shows the shells stacked adjacent where each outer edge mates up against an opposing outer edge. Please note that “nest” via Merriam -Webster is defined as “to pack compactly together.”
Regarding claim 3, the expandable toy as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the center shell and bottom shell are shaped to matingly engage with one another to nest together. Figure 3 shows the shells stacked adjacent where each outer edge mates up against an opposing outer edge. Please note that “nest” via Merriam -Webster is defined as “to pack compactly together.”
Regarding claim 5, the expandable toy as set forth in Claim 1, wherein the center shell and bottom shell are shaped to matingly engage with one another to nest together. Figure 3 shows the shells stacked adjacent where each outer edge mates up against an opposing outer edge. Please note that “nest” via Merriam -Webster is defined as “to pack compactly together.”
PNG
media_image1.png
648
648
media_image1.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) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Morrison (US 3645038).
Baumann shows the expandable toy as claimed in claim 1 and 3 above but fails to explicitly state the composition of fold 130. Baumann does state that each fold is “a concentric ring extending around the entire perimeter of the toy” which could be considered a tube and they are of accordion shape but does not explicitly disclose that these expandable components (folds 130) are “accordion pop tubes.” Morrison shows accordion pop tubes are well known attachment means in the toy art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the folds of Baumann from accordion pop tubes as taught by Morrison in order to provide more variety in play where the tube “will retrain substantially any axial or angular position it is placed in” (col 4, lines 1-3 of Morrison).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2623329 shows a telescoping doll
US 4699601 shows a telescoping block toy
US 5310380 shows an adjustable toy having a top, center and bottom separated by accordion tubing
US 2023/0159222 shows a collapsible container (figure 17) that reads on the claimed language as written.
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 571-272-7376. 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