DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 remain pending. Claims 9-10 and 14-15 remain withdrawn. Claim 16 is canceled. Claims 11 and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 21 has been newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7, 11-12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muday et al. (US 6,990,762) in view of Powell et al. (US 5,502,908)
Regarding claim 1, Muday discloses a pet toy system (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, “base”, 4) including:
a blower fan (Fig. 1, “fan blades” 30) configured to blow air when in an on state (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 with flow/movement lines of butterfly/moth toys); and
an air outlet pipe (Fig. 1, cylinder at “upper base” 50 and at Fig. 3 “band” 82; shown acting as a short outlet pipe for the air blown by the fan); and
a pet toy (Fig. 1, “pet amusement device” 10) including:
a body (Fig. 1, “housing”, 60) having a movable element (Figs. 1 and 3-4, “flying objects or particles” 90); and
an air inlet pipe (Fig. 1, cylinder of “housing” 60; shown acting as a transparent pipe or chamber which receives air from the “upper base” 50 cylinder) configured to be coupled to the air outlet pipe of the housing (Fig. 1 shows cylinder of “housing” 60 secured or coupled to cylinder of “upper base” 50),
wherein the movable element is configured to be moved by air when the blower fan is in the on state (As shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4 by flow/movement lines of butterfly/moth toys).
Muday is silent on the pet toy being an interchangeable pet toy; the air inlet pipe configured to be removably coupled to the air outlet pipe of the housing.
However, in an analogous flying object display art, Powell discloses the pet toy (note, Muday is relied upon above for disclosing the intended use of a pet toy) being an interchangeable pet toy (Fig. 1 shows the inside of the display may be changed with another object); the air inlet pipe configured to be removably coupled to the air outlet pipe of the housing (Fig. 1 shows “display chamber” 14 is removably coupled to cylinder shaped “base section” 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muday to further include the pet toy being an interchangeable pet toy; the air inlet pipe configured to be removably coupled to the air outlet pipe of the housing, as taught by Powell, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, such as to change the butterfly/moth toys shown for a different cat toy like streamers to keep the cat’s interest, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 7, Muray discloses wherein the body of the interchangeable pet toy is at least partially transparent and includes an enclosed portion (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4), and wherein the movable element is disposed within the enclosed portion (Figs. 1 and 3-4 show “flying objects or particles” 90 in the enclosed space of the transparent portion).
Regarding claim 11, Muday teaches an interchangeable pet toy (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a body (Figs. 1 and 3-4, body of “pet amusement device” 10) having a movable object (Figs. 1 and 3-4, “flying objects or particles” 90); and
an inlet configured to receive moving air (Fig. 1, inlet at “plurality of apertures” 74),
wherein the movable object is configured to be moved by the moving air when the moving air is received in the inlet (As shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4 by flow/movement path lines of “flying objects or particles” 90).
Muray does not expressly disclose wherein the inlet is further configured to be removably attached to an outlet of a fan to receive the moving air.
However, in an analogous flying object display art, Powell teaches wherein the inlet is further configured to be removably attached to an outlet of a fan to receive the moving air (Fig. 1 shows “display chamber” 14 is removably coupled to cylinder shaped “base section” 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toy of Muray wherein the inlet is further configured to be removably attached to an outlet of a fan to receive the moving air, as disclosed by Powell, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, such as to change the butterfly/moth toys shown for a different cat toy like streamers to keep the cat’s interest, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 12, Muday teaches wherein the body of the interchangeable pet toy is at least partially transparent and includes an enclosed portion (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4), and wherein the movable object is disposed within the enclosed portion (Figs. 1 and 3-4 show “flying objects or particles” 90 in the enclosed space of the transparent portion).
Regarding claim 18, Muray teaches further comprising an air attachment configured to couple the inlet of the interchangeable pet toy to the outlet of the fan and to direct the moving air from the fan to the body of the interchangeable pet toy (“housing” 60 shown connected to “upper base” 50 such that moving air from the fan enters the inside of “housing” 60).
Regarding claim 19, Muray discloses a modular pet toy system (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a fan (Fig. 1, “fan blades” 30) configured to produce moving air when in an on state (As shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4 by flow/movement path lines of 90), the fan including an outlet (Fig. 1, cylinder at “upper base” 50 and at Fig. 3 “band” 82; shown acting as a short outlet pipe for the air blown by the fan); and
a pet toy (Fig. 1, “pet amusement device” 10), the pet toy including:
a body (Fig. 1, “housing”, 60) having a movable object (Figs. 1 and 3-4, “flying objects or particles” 90); and
an inlet (Fig. 1, cylinder of “housing” 60; shown acting as a transparent pipe or chamber which receives air from the “upper base” 50 cylinder) configured to be attached to the outlet of the fan and configured to receive the moving air (Fig. 1 shows cylinder of “housing” 60 secured or coupled to cylinder of “upper base” 50 such that air enters the “housing” 60),
wherein the movable object is configured to be moved by the moving air when the moving air is received in the inlet (As shown in Figs. 1 and 3-4 by flow/movement lines of butterfly/moth toys 90).
Muray does not expressly disclose a plurality of interchangeable pet toys; an inlet configured to be releasably attached to the outlet of the fan.
However, in an analogous flying object display art, Powell discloses the pet toy (note, Muday is relied upon above for disclosing the intended use of a pet toy) being an interchangeable pet toy (Fig. 1 shows the inside of the display may be changed with another object); the inlet configured to be releasably attached to the outlet of the fan (Fig. 1 shows “display chamber” 14 is removably coupled to cylinder shaped “base section” 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muday to further include the pet toy being an interchangeable pet toy; the inlet configured to be releasably attached to the outlet of the fan, as taught by Powell, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, such as to change the butterfly/moth toys shown for a different cat toy like streamers to keep the cat’s interest, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 20, Muray discloses wherein the movable object comprises an attractant or lure configured to entice a pet to play when the movable object is moved by the moving air (Figs. 1 and 3-4, “flying objects or particles” 90 are lures).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muday et al. (US 6,990,762) in view of Powell et al. (US 5,502,908) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Floyd et al. (US 2016/0270371 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Muray teaches wherein the housing further comprises: a power source configured to power the blower fan (Fig. 1, “batteries”, 11).
Muray as modified by Powell does not expressly disclose a mode assembly configured to control a plurality of modes of the blower fan; and a speed control assembly configured to control the speed of the blower fan.
However, in an analogous pet toy art, Floyd discloses a mode assembly configured to control a plurality of modes of the blower fan (“Pet toy 10 can be activated by switch 15 accessible by a user on the outer surface of pet toy 10, ideally at or about bottom region 3 which in turn activates controller 16. To enable a pet owner to simply activate pet toy 10 and allow his or her pet to use it without supervision, as a preferred embodiment, timer 17 is included which will interrupt power to motor 19 after the passage of a predetermined period of time.”, Para. [0016]); and a speed control assembly configured to control the speed of the blower fan (“To also increase the attention grabbing and maintaining attributes of pet toy 10, integrated circuit 18 can be included to intermittently interrupt the energizing of motor 19 from power source 14 which enhances the cat's interest as it will ponder why the circulating attractants stop their haphazard motion within the sphere and restart randomly.”, Para. [0016]; thus can control the fan speed from 0% to 100% speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muray to further include a mode assembly configured to control a plurality of modes of the blower fan; and a speed control assembly configured to control the speed of the blower fan, as taught by Floyd, with a reasonable expectation for success, to enhance the cat’s interest and allow the pet to use the toy without supervision, as discussed by Floyd, Para. [0016].
Regarding claim 3, Floyd further teaches wherein the plurality of modes of the blower fan includes a fast mode, a slow mode (“Pet toy 10 can be activated by switch 15 accessible by a user on the outer surface of pet toy 10, ideally at or about bottom region 3 which in turn activates controller 16. To enable a pet owner to simply activate pet toy 10 and allow his or her pet to use it without supervision, as a preferred embodiment, timer 17 is included which will interrupt power to motor 19 after the passage of a predetermined period of time.”, Para. [0016]; thus fast mode is power on to fan motor and slow mode is power off to fan motor with timer after a predetermined amount of time), and a random burst mode (“To also increase the attention grabbing and maintaining attributes of pet toy 10, integrated circuit 18 can be included to intermittently interrupt the energizing of motor 19 from power source 14 which enhances the cat's interest as it will ponder why the circulating attractants stop their haphazard motion within the sphere and restart randomly.”, Para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muray wherein the plurality of modes of the blower fan includes a fast mode, a slow mode, and a random burst mode, as taught further taught by Floyd, with a reasonable expectation for success, to enhance the cat’s interest and allow the pet to use the toy without supervision, as discussed by Floyd, Para. [0016].
Regarding claim 4, Muray discloses wherein the power source comprises one or more batteries (Fig. 1, “batteries”, 11).
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muday et al. (US 6,990,762) in view of Powell et al. (US 5,502,908) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, further in view of Ootsuta et al. (US 2003/0089008 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Muday as modified by Powell does not expressly disclose wherein the housing further comprises a motion sensor configured to detect motion and control an operation of the blower fan based thereon.
However, in an analogous flying object display art, Ootsuta discloses wherein the housing further comprises a motion sensor configured to detect motion (Fig. 1, “optical sensor”, 90) and control an operation of the blower fan based thereon (as discussed in Paras. [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muday wherein the housing further comprises a motion sensor configured to detect motion and control an operation of the blower fan based thereon, as disclosed by Ootsuta, with a reasonable expectation for success, to save energy when the toy or display is not being used or viewed.
Regarding claim 8, Muday as modified by Powell does not expressly disclose wherein the enclosed portion of the body of the interchangeable pet toy includes a globe or box-like structure and is silent on wherein the movable element comprises a piece of fabric, such that when the blower fan is in the on state, the piece of fabric is configured to be moved by air within the globe or box-like structure.
However, in an analogous flying object display art, Ootsuta discloses wherein the enclosed portion of the body of the interchangeable pet toy includes a globe or box-like structure (Figs. 1-5 is one type of box-like structure and Figs. 6-8 is expressly disclosed as a rectangular box-like structure) and wherein the movable element comprises a piece of fabric, such that when the blower fan is in the on state, the piece of fabric is configured to be moved by air within the globe or box-like structure (“A wing surface of the lightweight flying object 30 is made with very light paper or nonwoven fabric with weight of 30 g or less per unit area.”, Para. [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muday wherein the enclosed portion of the body of the interchangeable pet toy includes a globe or box-like structure and wherein the movable element comprises a piece of fabric, such that when the blower fan is in the on state, the piece of fabric is configured to be moved by air within the globe or box-like structure, as disclosed by Ootsuta, with a reasonable expectation for success, it would have been an obvious matter of preference to make the different portions of the toy of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, such as a box-like shape or a globe shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material, such as the fabric of Ootsuta, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as providing a lightweight flying object of Ootsuta capable of being suspended by fans of Muray, as a matter of obvious preference. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 17, Muday as modified by Powell does not expressly disclose wherein the housing further comprises a motion sensor configured to detect motion and control an operation of the blower fan based thereon.
However, in an analogous flying object display art, Ootsuta discloses wherein the housing further comprises a motion sensor configured to detect motion (Fig. 1, “optical sensor”, 90) and control an operation of the blower fan based thereon (as discussed in Paras. [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muday wherein the housing further comprises a motion sensor configured to detect motion and control an operation of the blower fan based thereon, as disclosed by Ootsuta, with a reasonable expectation for success, to save energy when the toy or display is not being used or viewed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muday et al. (US 6,990,762) in view of Powell et al. (US 5,502,908) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Spielberger et al. (US 2006/0150451 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Powell further discloses wherein the air outlet pipe of the housing is configured to releasably engage the air inlet pipe of the interchangeable pet toy to the air outlet pipe of the housing (Fig. 1 shows that the pipe 20 is releasably engaged to the base and top cap using a press fit).
Muday as modified by Powell does not expressly disclose a clip mechanism.
However, in an analogous wobbling fan toy art, Spielberger discloses a clip mechanism (“Additionally and/or alternatively, the balloon-like structure 22 may be connected to the base 28 via one or more fasteners, such as screws, glue, clips, bolts, adhesive, and the like.”, Para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muday to further include a clip mechanism, as disclosed by Spielberger, with a reasonable expectation for success, since this type of fastener was an art-recognized equivalent for connecting components of toys together.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muday et al. (US 6,990,762) in view of Powell et al. (US 5,502,908) as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Ootsuta et al. (US 2003/0089008 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Muday does not expressly disclose wherein the enclosed portion of the body of the interchangeable pet toy includes a globe or box-like structure and is silent on wherein the movable element comprises a piece of fabric, such that when the blower fan is in the on state, the piece of fabric is configured to be moved by air within the globe or box-like structure.
However, in an analogous flying object display art, Ootsuta discloses wherein the enclosed portion of the body of the interchangeable pet toy includes a globe or box-like structure (Figs. 1-5 is one type of box-like structure and Figs. 6-8 is expressly disclosed as a rectangular box-like structure) and wherein the movable element comprises a piece of fabric, such that when the blower fan is in the on state, the piece of fabric is configured to be moved by air within the globe or box-like structure (“A wing surface of the lightweight flying object 30 is made with very light paper or nonwoven fabric with weight of 30 g or less per unit area.”, Para. [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Muday wherein the enclosed portion of the body of the interchangeable pet toy includes a globe or box-like structure and wherein the movable element comprises a piece of fabric, such that when the blower fan is in the on state, the piece of fabric is configured to be moved by air within the globe or box-like structure, as disclosed by Ootsuta, with a reasonable expectation for success, it would have been an obvious matter of preference to make the different portions of the toy of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, such as a box-like shape or a globe shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material, such as the fabric of Ootsuta, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as providing a lightweight flying object of Ootsuta capable of being suspended by fans of Muray, as a matter of obvious preference. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muday et al. (US 6,990,762) in view of Powell et al. (US 5,502,908) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Austin et al. (US 6,149,495).
Regarding claim 21, Muday as modified by Powell does not expressly disclose wherein the air inlet pipe is disposed on a side surface of the body of the interchangeable pet toy.
However, in an analogous amusement device art, Austin discloses wherein the air inlet pipe is disposed on a side surface of the body of the interchangeable pet toy (Fig. 1 shows both the “intake port” 35 and “exhaust” 29 disposed on side surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pet toy of Muday wherein the air inlet pipe is disposed on a side surface of the body of the interchangeable pet toy, as taught by Austin, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention such as the air intakes and outlets to direct confetti or toys elsewhere, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Muday discloses a housing in the shape of a translucent pipe or cylinder, thus Muday discloses “a housing including… an air outlet pipe” as required by claim 1. See claim 1 and 11 rejections above.
Further, Muday discloses a housing including a short pipe or cylinder shaped run 50 providing air to the translucent pipe or cylinder section. Thus, Muday further discloses “a housing including:… an air inlet pipe”. See claim 1 and 11 rejections above.
While Muday does not expressly disclose wherein the inlet is further configured to be removably attached to an outlet of a fan to receive the moving air, in an analogous flying object display art, Powell teaches wherein the inlet is further configured to be removably attached to an outlet of a fan to receive the moving air (Fig. 1 of Powell shows “display chamber” 14 is removably coupled to cylinder shaped “base section” 18). See claim 1 and 11 rejections above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toy of Muray wherein the inlet is further configured to be removably attached to an outlet of a fan to receive the moving air, as disclosed by Powell, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, such as to change the butterfly/moth toys shown for a different cat toy like streamers to keep the cat’s interest, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
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 STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
