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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan et al. (US 10,034,459 B1), hereinafter Scanlan, in view of Connelly (US 5,279,513).
Regarding claim 1, Scanlan discloses a pet toy comprising:
a handle (handle 2, fig. 1);
at least one light source disposed in the handle (light pointer 14, fig. 3);
a shaft (boom 7, fig. 1) extending from the handle (as shown in fig. 1, boom 7 extends from the handle 2);
a cord (line 5, fig. 1) attached to the shaft (Col. 2, lines 39-40, “the cat-attracting toy is attached to the boom with a line 5”; as shown in fig. 1); and
a toy assembly coupled to the cord (as shown in fig. 1, the feather clump 3 is attached to the line 5).
While Scanlan discloses at least one light source disposed in the handle, Scanlan does not
appear to specifically disclose a transparent or semitransparent shaft, the shaft including one or more optical strands which abut the at least one light source and are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source.
However, Connelly is in the field of an illuminated toy sword (Abstract) and teaches at least one
light source disposed in the handle (Col. 10, lines 66-68, “light source means mounted in said handle for emitting focused light of variable intensity”. See also Col. 1, lines 47-50); transparent or semitransparent shaft (sword blade 76, fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 7-10, “[s]word blade 76 is made of a thermoplastic material that is not opaque, so that the light radiating from light sword 70 can cause sword blade 76 to become substantially uniformally illuminated”), the shaft including one or more optical strands (translucent light rod 70, fig. 1) which abut the at least one light source and are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source (Col. 1, lines 47-50, “[t]he toy light sword includes a handle and a light source supported therein. A light rod is optically coupled to the light source”. See also, Col. 10, lines 5-11, “light source means mounted in said handle for emitting focused light, elongated light pathway means extending from said handle and having a first end and a second end, said first end being optically coupled to said light source means for providing a pathway for said focused light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scanlan with the transparent or semitransparent shaft, and the one optical strand which abuts the at least one light source as taught by Connelly, in order to engage and stimulate the pet through interactive play.
Regarding claim 9, Scanlan in view of Connelly discloses the invention in claim 1, and modified Scanlan further disclose wherein a portion of each of the one or more optical strands are disposed in the handle (as modified above, and as shown in figs. 2-4, a portion of the translucent light rod 70 is disposed in the handle).
Regarding claim 11, Scanlan in view of Connelly discloses the invention in claim 1, and Scanlan further discloses generating light in accordance with two or more operational modes (Col. 2, lines 56-57, “Switch 12 may be a click-on, click-off switch”; as shown in fig. 5), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more optical strands are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source in accordance with two or more operational modes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of modified Scanlan to be operated by a switch as taught by Scanlan, in order to turn the device on and off with convenience.
Regarding claim 17, Scanlan discloses a pet toy comprising:
a handle (handle 2, fig. 1) including at least one user input device (see switch 12 in fig. 5);
at least one light source disposed in the handle (light pointer 14, fig. 3);
a cord (line 5, fig. 1) attached to a distal end of the shaft opposite the handle (Col. 2, lines 39-40, “the cat-attracting toy is attached to the boom with a line 5”; as shown in fig. 1); and
a toy assembly coupled to the cord (as shown in fig. 1, the feather clump 3 is attached to the line 5).
While Scanlan discloses at least one light source disposed in the handle, Scanlan does not
appear to specifically disclose a transparent or semitransparent shaft, the shaft including one or more optical strands which abut the at least one light source and are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source.
However, Connelly is in the field of an illuminated toy sword (Abstract) and teaches at least one
light source disposed in the handle (Col. 10, lines 66-68, “light source means mounted in said handle for emitting focused light of variable intensity”. See also Col. 1, lines 47-50); transparent or semitransparent shaft (sword blade 76, fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 7-10, “[s]word blade 76 is made of a thermoplastic material that is not opaque, so that the light radiating from light sword 70 can cause sword blade 76 to become substantially uniformally illuminated”), the shaft including one or more optical strands (translucent light rod 70, fig. 1) which abut the at least one light source and are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source (Col. 1, lines 47-50, “[t]he toy light sword includes a handle and a light source supported therein. A light rod is optically coupled to the light source”. See also, Col. 10, lines 5-11, “light source means mounted in said handle for emitting focused light, elongated light pathway means extending from said handle and having a first end and a second end, said first end being optically coupled to said light source means for providing a pathway for said focused light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scanlan with the transparent or semitransparent shaft, and the one optical strand which abuts the at least one light source as taught by Connelly, in order to engage and stimulate the pet through interactive play.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of
Connelly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riding (US 8,997,695 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Scanlan in view of Connelly discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not
appear to specifically disclose wherein the toy assembly includes a body and a loop coupled to the body.
However, Riding is in the field of a casting pet toy (Abstract) and teaches wherein the toy assembly includes a body and a loop coupled to the body (pet lure 28 has a body 36 and an attachment loop 38 extending from the body, figs. 5 & 6A-6F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feather clump of Scanlan such that it had a body and a loop coupled thereto as taught by Riding, in order to form an attachment connection between the cord and the pet toy body.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of
Connelly and Riding as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0196676 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 5, Scanlan in view of Connelly and Riding discloses the invention in claim 4, and further discloses a body (as modified above in claim 4), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the body includes an additional light source.
However, Kim is in the field of a pet toy (Abstract) and discloses wherein the body includes an [additional] light source (Para. [0011], “attachment 11 can include feathered bundles while attachment can contain attractants such as catnip, bells, electric sound generators, crackle fabrics and lights to enhance a pet's interest”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scanlan such that there was an additional light source in the toy assembly as taught by Kim, in order to enhance the pet’s interests (Kim: Para. [0011]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of
Connelly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 2008/0266833 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Scanlan in view of Connelly discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more optical strands are arranged within the shaft so as to form a recurring pattern or shape.
However, Thomas is in the field of a rigid light-passing body (Abstract) and teaches optical strands that form a recurring pattern or shape (see spiral configuration of strand 18 arranged within the tubular portion 12, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical strands of modified Scanlan such that they form a recurring pattern or shape as taught by Thomas, in order to provide a more aesthetically pleasing cat toy design.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan et al. (US 10,034,459 B1) in view of Connelly (US 5,279,513), and Kim et al. (US 2008/0196676 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Scanlan discloses a pet toy comprising:
a handle (handle 2, fig. 1);
at least one light source disposed in the handle (light pointer 14, fig. 3);
a cord attached to the shaft (flexible extension 62, fig. 6); and
a toy assembly coupled to the cord (as shown in fig. 6, the distal end of the extension 62 connects to a plush element 60).
Scanlan does not appear to specifically disclose a transparent shaft extending from the handle, the shaft including one or more optical strands which abut the at least one light source and are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source; Furthermore, Scanlan does not appear to specifically disclose the toy assembly including at least one additional light source.
However, Connelly is in the field of an illuminated toy sword (Abstract) and teaches at least one
light source disposed in the handle (Col. 10, lines 66-68, “light source means mounted in said handle for emitting focused light of variable intensity”. See also Col. 1, lines 47-50); transparent or semitransparent shaft (sword blade 76, fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 7-10, “[s]word blade 76 is made of a thermoplastic material that is not opaque, so that the light radiating from light sword 70 can cause sword blade 76 to become substantially uniformally illuminated”), the shaft including one or more optical strands (translucent light rod 70, fig. 1) which abut the at least one light source and are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source (Col. 1, lines 47-50, “[t]he toy light sword includes a handle and a light source supported therein. A light rod is optically coupled to the light source”. See also, Col. 10, lines 5-11, “light source means mounted in said handle for emitting focused light, elongated light pathway means extending from said handle and having a first end and a second end, said first end being optically coupled to said light source means for providing a pathway for said focused light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scanlan with the transparent or semitransparent shaft, and the one optical strand which abuts the at least one light source as taught by Connelly, in order to engage and stimulate the pet through interactive play.
Kim is in the field of a pet toy (Abstract) and teaches wherein the toy assembly including at least one [additional] light source (Para. [0011], “attachment 11 can include feathered bundles while attachment can contain attractants such as catnip, bells, electric sound generators, crackle fabrics and lights to enhance a pet's interest”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feather clump of Scanlan with the attachment body and light attractant as taught by Kim, in order to enhance the pet’s interests (Kim: Para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 16, Scanlan in view of Connelly and Kim discloses the invention in claim 12, and Scanlan further discloses wherein the handle includes two or more user input devices (Col. 2, lines 56-57, “Switch 12 may be a click-on, click-off switch”; as shown in fig. 5).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlan et al. in view of Connelly as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Crane et al. (US 2019/0014746 A1), hereinafter Crane.
Regarding claim 18, Scanlan in view of Connelly discloses the invention in claim 17, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more optical strands are configured to radiate light generated by the at least one light source in accordance with two or more operational modes.
However, Crane is in the field of a pet toy with laser light (Abstract) and teaches [generating light] by the at least one light source in accordance with two or more operational modes (Para. [0017], “[t]he laser light may include different colors and different patterns of projected light. For example, the laser light source may have one or more pre-programmed sequences enabling the pet owner to select from a desired light color, a desire projected light pattern, and a desired sequence of activation and deactivation of the light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scanlan such that the laser light source may include different colors and different patterns of projected light as taught by Crane, in order to provide mental and physical stimulation for the animal.
Regarding claim 19, Scanlan in view of Connelly and Crane discloses the invention in claim 18, and Scanlan further discloses wherein the user input device (switch 12, fig. 5) is configured to change an operational mode of the two or more operation modes of the pet toy (Examiner notes, as set forth above in claim 18, the two operational modes may include a change in colors and/or different patterns of projected light. The switch is operating the laser light source and therefore operating the two operation modes of the pet toy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights