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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Application effective fili9ng date: 5/15/2024
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) 1-10, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiner U.S. Patent 6,325,695.
Referring to claim 1. Weiner discloses a stuffed toy comprising: a body including a head and a trunk; and a holder located in the trunk, the holder being configured to hold a heat storage member (See Figure 1).
Referring to claim 2. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to claim 1, wherein the head excludes the holder for the heat storage member (See Column 2, “The heating pad 3 is preferably located within the inner cavity of the stuffed animal, adjacent to the underside of the outer covering corresponding to the chest and belly of the stuffed animal.”).
Referring to claim 3. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 2, wherein the head and the trunk are integrated in one piece to represent a character (See Figure 1).
Referring to claim 4. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 3, wherein the head has a first thickness, and the trunk has a second thickness less than the first thickness. Weiner discloses in column 1 a teaching that the appearance of the stuffed animal has the appearance of a household pet such as a dog or cat. The Examiner notes, the head of a household cat is usually the widest part of their anatomy, which serves as an evolutionary measuring tool. A typical adult cat’s head width is roughly 1:25 to 1:4 the width of its body. Therefor the stuffed animal as disclosed in Weiner would read on the limitation wherein the head has a fist thickness, and the trunk has a second thickness less than the first thickness.
Referring to claim 5. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 4, wherein the head includes an elastic member (See Column 2, “A preferred embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 1. The heated stuffed animal has a soft body having an outer covering 1 which is constructed from conventional soft materials made from synthetic or natural fibers. Examples of synthetic materials are rayon, polyester, Dacron, etc. Natural fibers are cotton.”), and the trunk includes a hollow space (See column 2, “inner cavity”).
Referring to claim 6. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 5, wherein the elastic member comprises cotton (See Column 2, “A preferred embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 1. The heated stuffed animal has a soft body having an outer covering 1 which is constructed from conventional soft materials made from synthetic or natural fibers. Examples of synthetic materials are rayon, polyester, Dacron, etc. Natural fibers are cotton.”).
Referring to claim 7. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 6, wherein the trunk comprises a stretchy material (See Column 2, “A preferred embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 1. The heated stuffed animal has a soft body having an outer covering 1 which is constructed from conventional soft materials made from synthetic or natural fibers. Examples of synthetic materials are rayon, polyester, Dacron, etc. Natural fibers are cotton.”).
Referring to claim 8. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 7, wherein the head and the trunk exhibit different elasticities in the body with the heat storage member held in the holder. (See Column 3, “…the ballast material 4 is preferably sand which is contained in a sealed pouch or a plurality of sealed pouches within the inner cavity of the stuffed animal.”). The Examiner notes, the ballast material would cause the trunk of Weiner to feel more dense and not as elastic as the head.
Referring to claim 9. The stuffed toy according to Claim 8, wherein the trunk exhibits less resilience to surface deformation than the head in the body with the heat storage member held in the holder (See Column 3, “…the ballast material 4 is preferably sand which is contained in a sealed pouch or a plurality of sealed pouches within the inner cavity of the stuffed animal.”). The Examiner notes, the ballast material would cause the trunk of Weiner to feel more dense and not as elastic as the head.
Referring to claim 10. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 9, wherein the holder allows the heat storage member held in the holder to change in position (See column 2, “The heating pad 3 may be anchored to the inside of the outer covering to maintain its position and assure sufficient contact with the inside of the outer covering to enable a maximum heat transfer through the outer covering.”).
Referring to claim 14. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 1, wherein the trunk and the heat storage member are deformable in the body with the heat storage member held in the holder when the trunk is grasped (See Abstract, “Soft Body”).
Referring to claim 15. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 1, wherein the heat storage member held in the holder serves as a base for the body while the body is standing alone. The examiner notes, when the cavity in Weiner is filled, the resulting stuffed toy would be denser and aid the stuffed toy to remain in an upright position. When the cavity is empty, Weiner’s stuffed toy would be harder to prop. This is consistent with the specification as original filed in the instant application, that discloses that filling a cavity results in the stuffed toy to stand more stably.
Referring to claim 16. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 1, wherein the trunk includes an open end through which the heat storage member is insertable into the holder (Fig. 1).
Referring to claim 17. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 16, wherein the trunk includes a closure configured to close the open end, and the body with no heat storage member in the holder and with the closure closed is incapable of standing alone. The examiner notes, when the cavity in Weiner is filled, the resulting stuffed toy would be denser and aid the stuffed toy to remain in an upright position. When the cavity is empty, Weiner’s stuffed toy would be harder to prop. This is consistent with the specification as original filed in the instant application, that discloses that filling a cavity results in the stuffed toy to stand more stably.
Referring to claim 18. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 17, wherein as long as the heat storage member is held in the holder, the trunk is capable of standing alone. The examiner notes, when the cavity in Weiner is filled, the resulting stuffed toy would be denser and aid the stuffed toy to remain in an upright position. When the cavity is empty, Weiner’s stuffed toy would be harder to prop. This is consistent with the specification as original filed in the instant application, that discloses that filling a cavity results in the stuffed toy to stand more stably.
Referring to claim 19. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 18, wherein the trunk has an outer surface comprising a raised surface material, and the holder has an inner surface comprising a non-raised surface material (Fig. 1).
Referring to claim 20. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 19, wherein the trunk transfers heat more easily than the head. (FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the heated stuffed animal which is a preferred embodiment of the invention identified as "LAPDOG" by the inventor, showing in broken lines the electric heating pad and ballast disposed within the inner cavity of the animal which features are hidden in use.)
The Examiner notes, due to the placement of the heating element the trunk would be transferring the heat and not the head.
Referring to claim 21. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 20, wherein the inner surface of the holder is configured as an uneven surface (See Column 4, “The heated stuffed animal may further contain within the inner cavity a fire-resistant stuffing material. The fire-resistant material is preferably fiberglass stuffing..”).
Referring to claim 22. Weiner discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 21, wherein the uneven surface is a mesh structure surface (See Column 4, “The heated stuffed animal may further contain within the inner cavity a fire-resistant stuffing material. The fire-resistant material is preferably fiberglass stuffing..”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 11-13 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiner U.S. Patent 6,325,695 in view of Smoot 2012/0088428.
Referring to claim 11. Weiner does not disclose, but Smoot discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 1, wherein the body includes a coupling portion coupling the head to the trunk and is bendable at the coupling portion (Smoot, paragraph 0044).
Weiner and Smoot are analogous because both are directed to stuffed toys or plush animal figures having a body and head structures. Smoot improves the ability of the toy to assume different positions. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), when a skilled artisan is able to improve one known device by applying a known technique from another similar device, and the application of the technique would yield predictable results, the combination is obvious. Here, Smoot’s teaching is a known structural feature used in stuffed toys to improve playability and at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the toy of Weiner to have included this feature.
Referring to claim 12. Smoot further discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 11, wherein the body with the heat storage member held in the holder and bent at the coupling portion is capable of returning to an unbent state (Smoot, Fig. 2a and 2b).
Weiner and Smoot are analogous because both are directed to stuffed toys or plush animal figures having a body and head structures. Smoot improves the ability of the toy to assume different positions. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), when a skilled artisan is able to improve one known device by applying a known technique from another similar device, and the application of the technique would yield predictable results, the combination is obvious. Here, Smoot’s teaching is a known structural feature used in stuffed toys to improve playability and at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the toy of Weiner to have included this feature.
Referring to claim 13. Weiner further discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 12, wherein the body with the heat storage member held in the holder and bent at the coupling portion exhibits greater resilience than the body with no heat storage member in the holder and bent at the coupling portion (See Column 3, “…the ballast material 4 is preferably sand which is contained in a sealed pouch or a plurality of sealed pouches within the inner cavity of the stuffed animal.”). The Examiner notes, the ballast material would cause the trunk of Weiner to feel dense and would aid in resilience.
Referring to claim 23. Weiner does not disclose, but Smoot discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 22, wherein the holder is configured to hold the heat storage member in a bent state (Smoot, Fig. 2a).
Weiner and Smoot are analogous because both are directed to stuffed toys or plush animal figures having a body and head structures. Smoot improves the ability of the toy to assume different positions. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), when a skilled artisan is able to improve one known device by applying a known technique from another similar device, and the application of the technique would yield predictable results, the combination is obvious. Here, Smoot’s teaching is a known structural feature used in stuffed toys to improve playability and at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the toy of Weiner to have included this feature.
Referring to claim 24. Weiner does not disclose, but Smoot discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 23, wherein the trunk has a rectangular shape in front view (Smoot, [0036], “In the depicted embodiment, the hollow body 102 is formed in a substantially cylindrical shape having ends 112. However, shapes other than cylindrical, such as cubic shapes, triangular shapes, body-like shapes, and any other shapes that serve a dual purpose of forming a hollow body of the soft toy apparatus and providing a suitable storage container are also contemplated.”).
Weiner and Smoot are analogous because both are directed to stuffed toys or plush animal figures having a body and head structures. Smoot improves the ability of the toy to assume different positions. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), when a skilled artisan is able to improve one known device by applying a known technique from another similar device, and the application of the technique would yield predictable results, the combination is obvious. Here, Smoot’s teaching is a known structural feature used in stuffed toys to improve playability and at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the toy of Weiner to have included this feature.
Referring to claim 25. Weiner does not disclose, but Smoot discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 24, wherein the head includes an inner portion communicating with an inner portion of the trunk (Smoot, Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b).
Weiner and Smoot are analogous because both are directed to stuffed toys or plush animal figures having a body and head structures. Smoot improves the ability of the toy to assume different positions. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), when a skilled artisan is able to improve one known device by applying a known technique from another similar device, and the application of the technique would yield predictable results, the combination is obvious. Here, Smoot’s teaching is a known structural feature used in stuffed toys to improve playability and at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the toy of Weiner to have included this feature.
Referring to claim 26. Weiner does not disclose, but Smoot discloses the stuffed toy according to Claim 25, wherein the body includes a retainer located on the head, the retainer being configured to be attached to another object (Smoot, Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b).
Weiner and Smoot are analogous because both are directed to stuffed toys or plush animal figures having a body and head structures. Smoot improves the ability of the toy to assume different positions. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), when a skilled artisan is able to improve one known device by applying a known technique from another similar device, and the application of the technique would yield predictable results, the combination is obvious. Here, Smoot’s teaching is a known structural feature used in stuffed toys to improve playability and at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the toy of Weiner to have included this feature.
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
Prosecution Insights