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 § 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) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101528795 to Oh in view of US 6929553 to Diemert.
In re claim 1, Oh teaches a toy combination swing and wheeled vehicle, comprising: a toy vehicle comprising: a vehicle body (wheelchair, abstract) configured to (capable of) carry a toy figurine and having left and right opposite sides (generic wheel chair), and a toy swing set (Figure 1) comprising a swingset base 100, 200 and a swing 300 supported by the swingset base to hang above a play surface, with the swing free to swing with respect to the play surface, the swing comprising a swing compartment 310 with a floor 320 and opposite side walls 330 and defining an interior sized to accommodate the toy vehicle, and a ramp 360 rotatably coupled to a front edge of the floor and pivotable between a closed position in which the ramp extends across an entrance to the swing compartment (figure 1-2), and an open position in which the ramp extends downward toward the play surface (Fig. 1-2); wherein the ramp comprises an inner end facing the front edge of the floor and that is elevated with respect to the front edge of the floor when the ramp is in the open position (Fig 1-2).
Oh teaches that a standard wheelchair (abstract) is used in the combination swing and wheeled vehicle. However, Oh is silent as to the particulars of the wheeled vehicle.
Diemert teaches a wheeled vehicle 12 comprising a vehicle body configured to (capable of) carry a toy figurine and having left and right opposite sides, and at least two wheels rotatably mounted to the body, including a left wheel mounted at the left side of the body and a right wheel mounted at the right side of the vehicle body, the left and right wheels defining an overall track width of the vehicle (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the wheeled vehicle as taught by Oh with at least two wheels rotatably mounted to the body including a left and right wheel as taught by Diemert in order to provide a stable self standing wheelchair to allow the vehicle to remain upright and move freely when needed.
In re claim 2, the modified reference teaches the toy combination swing and wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein the left and right wheels include a front wheel that is disposed adjacent the front edge of the floor with the wheeled vehicle disposed within the swing compartment, the front wheel having a wheel diameter (Diemert Figure 2).
In re claim 6, the modified reference teaches the toy combination swing and wheeled vehicle of claim 1, the wheeled vehicle comprises four wheels, two wheels being right wheels and two wheels being left wheels (Diemert Figure 2).
In re claim 7, the modified reference teaches the toy combination swing and wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein the toy vehicle has a form of a wheelchair (Oh abstract and Diemert Fig 2).
In re claim 8, the modified reference teaches the toy combination swing and wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein the play surface is horizontal (Oh Fig 2); and when the swingset is configured such that when the swingset is resting on the play surface (Oh Fig 2), the ramp engages the play surface in its open position (Oh Fig 2).
In re claim 11, the modified reference teaches the toy combination swing and wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein the swingset base 100, 200 comprises a rod 220 and two components for receiving the rod 210; and the swing swings about the axis of the rod (Oh).
In re claim 12, the modified reference teaches the toy combination swing and wheeled vehicle of claim 7, wherein the swing defines two through holes 210, through which the rod can pass (Oh).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN203244762, GB 2402629
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
