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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 16, the phrase “the shaft part” should read “the shaft”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weidetz et al. (US 20070021029 A1), herein referred to as Weidetz.
Regarding claim 1, Weidetz discloses a top toy (see fig 4) comprising a shaft (12) including a constricted part (upper portion of 12 which includes each 34; see fig 4); and a trunk part (14) being connected to the shaft (see fig 4), the trunk part including a shaft support unit (top 60; see fig 4) and an elastically locking part (52; see fig 4), the shaft support unit having a shaft hole (see fig 4; hole through which 12 is inserted extends into top 60 of 14) to which the shaft is inserted, the elastically locking part configured to grip using elastic force the constricted part (see figs 3 & 4 and paragraph 0022), the shaft being movably configured in the shaft hole in an axial direction between a first position (position shown in fig 4) and a second position (position corresponding to shaft 12 being pushed upward such that rib 54 disengages from 34 and engages the surface of shaft 12 just below highest 34) higher than the first position in the axial direction, the shaft being held at the first position by the elastically locking part (see fig 4), the elastically locking part including a first sliding contact part (surface of 54 which engages shaft 12 as shaft 12 moves between the first and second positions), the shaft including a second sliding contact part (surface of shaft 12 between adjacent 34 as viewed in fig 4) being slidably in contact with the first sliding contact part when the shaft moves in the axial direction (see fig 3 for analogous contact), the elastically locking part being elastically deformed when the shaft is pushed to the second position in the shaft hole by an outside impact (see fig 3 for analogous deformation), the elastically locking part being configured to move the shaft part to the first position when the outside impact disappears (i.e., due to the elastic deformation of 52, the shaft will be urged back to the first position once force is removed from the shaft since 52 is biased to the position shown in fig 4).
Regarding claim 2, Weidetz discloses the top toy according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first siding contact part and the second sliding contact part is an inclined surface (see figs 3 & 4; rib 54 includes an inclined surface).
Regarding claim 4, Weidetz discloses the top toy according to claim 1, wherein the shaft is removably inserted in the shaft hole (see figs 3 & 4).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muraki et al. (JP 20200005880 A), herein referred to as Muraki.
Regarding claim 1, Muraki discloses a top toy (see fig 5) comprising a shaft (11, 15, 16) including a constricted part (15); and a trunk part (14, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20) being connected to the shaft, the trunk part including a shaft support unit (14) and an elastically locking part (17), the shaft support unit having a shaft hole (14a) to which the shaft is inserted (see fig 5), the elastically locking part configured to grip using elastic force the constricted part (see fig 5), the shaft being movably configured in the shaft hole in an axial direction between a first position (see fig 5(A)) and a second position (see fig 5(B)) higher than the first position in the axial direction, the shaft being held at the first position by the elastically locking part (see fig 5), the elastically locking part including a first sliding contact part (lowermost end of 17 as viewed in fig 5), the shaft including a second sliding contact part (lowermost surface of groove of 15 contacted by 17; see fig 5) being slidably in contact with the first sliding contact part when the shaft moves in the axial direction (compare figs 5(A) and 5(B)), the elastically locking part being elastically deformed when the shaft is pushed to the second position in the shaft hole by an outside impact (see fig 5(B)), the elastically locking part being configured to move the shaft part to the first position when the outside impact disappears (due to bias of 17).
Regarding claim 3, Muraki discloses the top toy according to claim 1, wherein the shaft includes a flange (16) below the constricted part, the flange abuts a lower surface of the shaft support unit when the shaft is in the second position (see fig 5(B)).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidetz et al. (US 20070021029 A1), herein referred to as Weidetz.
Regarding claim 5, Weidetz discloses the top toy according to claim 1, wherein the constricted part has a recess (34), and a part of the recess is fitted with the elastically locking part (see fig 4).
Weidetz does not explicitly disclose wherein the recess is divided by partitions in a circumferential direction.
However, Weidetz discloses that it would be obvious to modify the connection between 12 and 14 in a variety of ways (see paragraph 0023). Additionally, the connection between 12 and 14 would function equally well if sleeve 52 and grooves 34 were divided into partitions in a circumferential direction of the shaft and sleeve. Such a modification would introduce the benefit of eliminating relative rotation between the shaft and sleeve, allowing for easier rotation of the top with less energy loss during play (see fig 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide both sleeve 52 and grooves 34 of Weidetz into partitions in a circumferential direction, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses top toys relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights