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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim requires the claws to “face opposite” but does not distinguish a reference point. Face opposite of each other? Of the shaft? Clarification is required. Claim 3 also requires the first and second engagement parts to be “provided at least in a pair of symmetrical positions sandwiching the shaft center.” This limitation is unclear as it seems to require EACH engagement part to be made up of 2 sections. This is not shown in the figures or disclosed in the spec. In the spec the first and second engagement parts are at an angle to each other around the shaft, they do not appear to require pairs.
Claim 7 requires at least a portion of the first and second engagement part to “be in communication” across a circumferential direction of the shaft. This is unclear and is not clarified by the specification.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weidetz (US 2007/0021029).
Regarding claim 1, Weidetz shows a top toy comprising a trunk part (14); and a shaft (12) having first (top groove 34 figure 4)and second (a different groove 34 than the top groove 34 in figure 4) engagement parts on an outer periphery thereof, the shaft extending in an axial direction; the trunk part having a shaft hole (figure 4; hollow sleeve 52) formed in a rotational center thereof, the shaft being inserted in the shaft hole when the shaft is assembled with the trunk part (figure 4, the trunk part including a first claw (54) in the shaft hole, the second engagement part being configured lower than the first engagement part in the axial direction, the first claw projecting inside the shaft hole (figure 4), and being configured to selectively lock with the first engagement part or the second engagement part by a prescribed urging force (figure 4), and the trunk part and the shaft being engaged when the first claw is locked with either the first engagement part or the second engagement part.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidetz (US 2007/0021029) alone.
Regarding claim 2, Weidetz shows a the top toy according to claim 1, wherein the trunk part includes an upper trunk part (top surface) and a lower trunk part (lower stem part), the upper trunk part, the lower trunk part, and the shaft hole is formed on the lower trunk part. Weidetz does not expressly disclose that the upper/lower and shaft are disassembled by an impact from a collision with another top toy. Weidetz does recognize that tops often collide with one another, and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that Weidetz is fully capable of disassembling by contact. Please note that the claim does NOT require EACH part to disassemble from one another nor does it limit the type of contact force.
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)(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) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bando (US 2024/0252935)
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Bando shows a top toy comprising a trunk part (32, 33); and a shaft (20) having first (24) and second engagement (23) parts on an outer periphery thereof, the shaft extending in an axial direction; the trunk part having a shaft hole (33a) formed in a rotational center thereof, the shaft being inserted in the shaft hole when the shaft is assembled with the trunk part, the trunk part including a first claw (320b) in the shaft hole, the second engagement part being configured lower than the first engagement part in the axial direction, the first claw projecting inside the shaft hole, and being configured to selectively lock with the first engagement part (23 engages 320b) or the second engagement part by a prescribed urging force, and the trunk part and the shaft being engaged when the first claw is locked with either the first engagement part or the second engagement part.
Regarding claim 3, Bando shows the top toy according to claim 1, wherein the trunk part includes a second claw (second 320b) in the shaft hole, the first and second claws face opposite sandwiching a center line of the shaft hole (fig 8), the first engagement part is provided at least in a pair at symmetrical positions sandwiching a shaft center, and the second engagement part is provided at least in a pair at symmetrical positions sandwiching the shaft center (as best understood the first and second engagement parts are symmetric about the center shaft), and the position at which the first engagement part is provided and the position at which the second engagement part is provided are displaced at a prescribed angle in the circumferential direction (the first and second parts are displaced along and around the shaft).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando alone.
Regarding claim 2, Bando shows a the top toy according to claim 1, wherein the trunk part includes an upper trunk part (32) and a lower trunk part (33), the upper trunk part, the lower trunk part, and the shaft hole is formed on the lower trunk part. Bando does not expressly disclose that the upper/lower and shaft are disassembled by an impact from a collision with another top toy. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that Bando is fully capable of disassembling by contact. Please note that the claim does NOT require EACH part to disassemble from one another nor does it limit the type of contact force.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are 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.
The prior art shows a shaft with first and second engagement parts but fails to show a flange including recesses and projections and the trunk including recesses and projections that correspond with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA ROSE FULTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights