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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 repeats the limitations from claim 2 but depends from 10 which essentially depends from 2 already. It is unclear if applicant intends to claim these limitations a second time (a second pressure sensor for example) or if claim 11 should depend from claim 1, not claim 10? Appropriate correction is required. 12-14 are rejected for dependency.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (JP 2024016794).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi shows a toy comprising: a space defining member (11) that defines a specified space (top space within 11; figure 6 shows depression from outside into the space); and a detector (module 2) provided outside the specified space ( 2 is in 12 and not in the space) and configured to detect a pressure change within the specified space in response to deformation of at least a part of the space defining member (abstract: “The voice module 2 includes a pneumatic sensor 21 for detecting an internal pressure change of the housing body 11 due to deformation of the housing body 11”).
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carsello (US 2021/0205721).
Regarding claim 1, Carsello shows a toy comprising: a space defining member (102) that defines a specified space (104); and a detector (110) provided outside the specified and configured to detect a pressure change within the specified space in response to deformation of at least a part of the space defining member ([0016]).
Regarding claim 2, the toy according to claim 1, wherein the detector includes a displacement member (“flexible diaphragm” the airflow sensor can include a flexible diaphragm that moves (e.g., vibrates, flexes) in response to a pressure change; [0016]) that changes a position in response to a pressure change in the specified space, and a pressure sensor (120), and the pressure sensor detects an amount of change in pressure applied to the pressure sensor by the displacement member in response to displacement of the displacement member [0016].
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) 3-11, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsello as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Prieto (US 2023/0129592).
Regarding claim 3, Carsello shows the toy according to claim 2, but does not show contact between the space defining member and the displacement member. Prieto shows this to be known in the toy art. Prieto shows wherein the displacement member (203) is provided in contact with the space defining member (201, 204) and is configured to be displaced in a predetermined direction in response to the deformation of the at least a part of the space defining member [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Prieto and apply them to Carsello. Replacing one displacement member with another is well known in the art leading to predictable results. Carsello’s device would work equally as well if there was contact between the displacement member and space defining member as taught by Prieto.
Regarding claim 4, Carsello in view of Prieto as applied in claim 3, wherein the detector further includes a biasing member that biases the displacement member in a direction away from the pressure sensor. Carsello’s diaphragm is made of flexible material and is biased away from the sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Carsello in view of Prieto shows the toy according to claim 3, wherein the displacement member (diaphragm) is apart from (there is space) the pressure sensor when the space defining member is not deformed, and is configured to come into contact (as modified by Prieto) with the pressure sensor when the at least a part of the space defining member is deformed and the pressure in the specified space increases.
Regarding claim 6, Carsello in view of Prieto shows the toy according to claim 2, Carsello fails to show a first sheet member. Prieto shows this is known in the toy art. Prieto shows the space defining member includes a first sheet member having elasticity (201), and the first sheet member coordinates with the displacement member (please note that “coordinates with” only requires the members to work together within the same system. Direct contact is not claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Carsello in view of Prieto shows the toy according to claim 2, Carsello fails to show a first sheet member. Prieto shows this to be well known in the toy art. Prieto shows a first sheet (201) having elasticity. Carsello shows a second sheet member having elasticity (102), the second sheet member constitutes at least a part of an outer shell of the toy, and the first sheet member is configured to elastically deform to come into contact with the displacement member (Prieto; 203) in response to elastic deformation of the second sheet member (outer shell 204; Prieto). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the module of Prieto (figure 2) in the device of Carsello where the outer shell (second sheet 102) as combined would contact first sheet of Prieto (201) to activate the device. Replacing one pressure sensing means with a known equivalent is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art. Using the Prieto device in the Carsello toy allows for more protection of the pressure module [0003- Prieto].
Regarding claim 8-9, Carsello in view of Prieto show the toy according to claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for the first sheet member to have a larger elastic deformation response to a pressure change than the second sheet member. The second sheet member is the outer shell of the toy and one skilled in the art would recognize the need for it to be thicker than the first sheet member therefor giving the first sheet member a larger elastic deformation response since it is thinner. Relative sizes are within the level of ordinary skill and it would have been obvious to make the outer shell thicker to withstand play overtime.
Regarding claim 10, Carsello in view of Prieto show the toy according to claim 9, wherein the second sheet member has a bulging shape (Carsello outer shell 102) when an internal air pressure of the specified space is at essentially atmospheric pressure, and is configured to be elastically deformable by pressure from the outside.
Regarding claim 11, Carsello in view of Prieto shows the toy according to claim 10 (see 112 above), Carsello shows wherein the detector includes a displacement member (“flexible diaphragm” the airflow sensor can include a flexible diaphragm that moves (e.g., vibrates, flexes) in response to a pressure change; [0016]) that changes a position in response to a pressure change in the specified space, and a pressure sensor (120), and the pressure sensor detects an amount of change in pressure applied to the pressure sensor by the displacement member in response to displacement of the displacement member [0016], but fails to show the toy further comprises: an accommodating member. Prieto shows this is known in the toy art. Prieto show an accommodating member (space in 103) that accommodates the pressure sensor, and a holding member (top flat portion of 203) that holds the second sheet (201) member on the accommodating member, the second sheet member is provided such that the second sheet member covers the accommodating member, and the holding member is attached to the accommodating member constricting the accommodating member via the second sheet member.
Regarding claim 15, Carsello shows the toy according to claim 2 but fails to show a pressing portion in contact with the space defining member. Carsello as modified above with the displacement member of Prieto shows wherein the displacement member includes a pressing portion (201) in contact with the pressure sensor (202) and a contact portion (204) in contact with a part of the space defining member, and an area of the pressing portion is smaller than an area of the contact portion. See motivation above for using Prieto’s displacement member in Carsello.
Regarding claims 16-17, Carsello in view of Prieto shows the toy according to claim 7, wherein a first area of a portion of the second sheet member (102; fig 1a of Carsello) is thinner than another area and is recessed inwardly into the specified space. Carsello shows the toy in 1A having an outer shell 102 that is thinner on the smooth areas than where the fins are. Paragraph 0012 describes how the outer shell can have a variety of shapes to include selected shapes that would affect the volume of the enclosed space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the outer shell any variety of shapes and thicknesses as a matter of design choice.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 18-20 are 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. Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to show the holding member includes a first constricting abutment portion capable of constricting at least a boundary portion between the first seal portion and the second seal portion. The examiner can find no reason to modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight. Claims 13-14 depend from 12.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art Takahashi briefly discloses a valve but the valve does not serve the same purpose as the claimed valve in applicant’s device. The examiner can find no reason to combine or modify reference of record in order to create applicant’s device without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
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