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 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.
Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation "the clips" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from claim 10 which does not positively claim any “clips”.
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) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 1043880 to Thomsen.
In re claim 17, Thomsen teaches an air cannon comprising: a handle assembly comprising; a ring 1, 15; a handle 10, 14 extending from the ring; and a face plate 4 extending within the ring comprising a first opening smaller in diameter than the ring; a collapsible bladder 2 secured to the ring at a first end of the bladder; a coil 5 disposed about a circumference of the bladder within a bladder channel 3, the coil providing structural support to the bladder and the bladder providing restrictive support to the coil; wherein a first end of the coil is secured to the ring at the same position as the first end of the bladder (Fig. 1-7).
In re claim 18, Thomsen teaches the air cannon of claim 17 comprising a first configuration wherein the bladder and coil are expanded (Fig. 1-7).
In re claim 19, Thomsen teaches the air cannon of claim 18 comprising a second configuration wherein the bladder is collapsed and the coil is compressed (Pg 1 Ln 20-24.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1043880 to Thomsen in view of US 3793765 to Schatz.
In re claim 1, Thomsen teaches an air cannon comprising: a handle assembly 10 comprising a handle body 10, 14 and a ring 1, 15 at a proximal end of the handle body; a bag 2 comprising a first end and a second end, the first end of the bag securable to the ring (via 3); a coil 5 disposed about a circumference of the bag, the coil extending from the first end of the bag and the second end of the bag, wherein the first end of the coil and the bag engage the ring to secure the first end of the to the ring; a face plate 4.
Thomsen is silent as to a back pad connected to the second end of the bag.
Schatz teaches a toy assembly comprising a compressible spring 17 within a chamber 14 wherein there is a back pad 18 connected to the second end of the block 23 adjacent the spring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the second end of the bag as taught by Thomsen with the back pad as taught by Schatz in order to protect the spring, chamber and toy from damage when being played with since Thomsen already describes the use of the toy to be hit or struck. Repeated hitting or striking of the bag necessitates additional padding in order to protect the overall structure for longevity, with reasonable expectation of success.
In re claim 2, the modified reference teaches the air cannon of claim 1, and Thomsen teaches wherein the handle assembly comprises a single unitary piece (10 and ring as connected in figure 1 or handle 14 with ring 15 as shown in figure 5-7).
In re claim 3, the modified reference teaches the air cannon of claim 1, and Thomsen teaches wherein the ring 1, 15 comprises the face plate 4 wherein the face plate comprises an opening, the opening smaller in diameter than the ring.
In re claim 4, the modified reference teaches the air cannon of claim 1, and Thomsen teaches wherein the ring 1, 15 comprises a plurality of clips 7, 3, 17 for securing the first end of the bag and the first end of the coil within the interior of the ring (Fig. 1-7).
In re claim 5 the modified reference teaches the air cannon of claim 1, and Thomsen teaches wherein the ring 1, 15 comprises a circumferential channel 3 extending along the inner wall of the ring.
In re claim 6, the modified reference teaches the air cannon of claim 1, and Thomsen teaches wherein the bag is substantially tubular and comprises a void between the first send and the second (Fig. 1-7).
If it can be considered that Thomsen fails to teach wherein the bag is substantially tubular, let it be know that the chamber of Schatz is substantially tubular and such shape is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the bag as taught by Thomsen as being substantially tubular, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide alternatively shaped toys that resemble things like a hammer for hitting and making substantially different noises based on their shape, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
In re claim 7, the modified reference teaches the air cannon of claim 1, and Thomsen teaches wherein the bag is made from a substantially airtight material (Pg 1 Ln 20; Pg 2 Ln 67).
In re claim 8, the modified reference teaches the coil of claim 1 and Thomsen teaches further comprising: a first coil ring positioned toward the first end (Fig. 1-7 #5) and a second coil ring positioned toward the second end (Fig. 1-7 #5), wherein the coil, the first coil ring and second coil ring provide structural support to the bag 2.
In re claim 9, the modified reference teaches the coil of claim 8, and Thomsen further teaches wherein the first coil ring reversibly engages the ring (Fig. 1-7).
In re claim 10, Thomsen teaches an air blaster toy comprising: a handle assembly comprising; a ring 1, 15 ; a handle 10, 14 extending from the ring; and a face plate 4 extending within the ring comprising a first opening smaller in diameter than the ring; a bladder 2 secured to the ring at a first end of the bladder; a coil 5 disposed about a circumference of the bladder, a first end of the coil secured to the ring; and a second end of the bladder, the second end opposite the first end of the bladder (Fig. 1-7).
Thomsen is silent as to a back pad connected to a second end of the bladder.
Schatz teaches a toy assembly comprising a compressible spring 17 within a chamber 14 wherein there is a back pad 18 connected to the second end of the block 23 adjacent the spring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the second end of the bladder as taught by Thomsen with the back pad as taught by Schatz in order to protect the spring, chamber and toy from damage when being played with since Thomsen already describes the use of the toy to be hit or struck. Repeated hitting or striking of the bag necessitates additional padding in order to protect the overall structure for longevity, with reasonable expectation of success.
In re claim 11, the modified reference teaches the air blaster toy of claim 10, and Thomsen teaches wherein the handle assembly comprises a single unitary piece (Fig 1-4 as assembled meets the limitation; Fig 5-7 handle and ring one continuous piece ).
In re claim 12, the modified reference teaches the air blaster toy of claim 10, and Thomsen teaches wherein the ring 1, 15 comprises an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall comprising a plurality of clips 3, 7, 17 for securing the first end of the bag and the first end of the coil to the ring.
In re claim 13, the modified reference teaches the air blaster toy of claim 10, and Thomsen teaches wherein the plurality of clips reversibly engage the bladder and coil (Fig. 1-7 #3, 7, 17).
In re claim 14, the modified reference teaches the air blaster toy of claim 10, and Thomsen teaches wherein the bladder is substantially tubular and comprises a cavity between the first end and the second end (Fig. 1-7).
If it can be considered that Thomsen fails to teach wherein the bladder is substantially tubular, let it be know that the chamber of Schatz is substantially tubular and such shape is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the bladder as taught by Thomsen as being substantially tubular, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide alternatively shaped toys that resemble things like a hammer for hitting and making substantially different noises based on their shape, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
In re claim 15, the modified reference teaches the coil of claim 10 and Thomsen teaches further comprising: a first coil ring 5 positioned toward the first end and a second coil ring 5 positioned toward the second end, wherein the coil, the first coil ring and second coil ring provide structural support to the bladder (Fig. 1-7).
In re claim 16, the modified reference teaches the air cannon of claim 10, and Thomsen teaches wherein the bag is made from a substantially airtight material (Pg 1 Ln 20; Pg 2 Ln 67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 1043796, 1315851, 2423890, 9120026, 11566609.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DANIEL HUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-330.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-8004. 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.
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights