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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A and Species B is the same embodiment and clarifying replacement sheets/drawings have been provided. This is found to be persuasive. Thus, Species A and Species B is elected and considered the same species.
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species C and Species D, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muday et al. (US 6,990,762).
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).
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7, 16, 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 16, 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 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 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.
Conclusion
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