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
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims et al. (US 4,286,406) in view of Kaminkow et al. (US 4,968,031).
Sims teaches a stadium toy (Fig. 1) that includes: a field (20) which includes a floor (24) on which a toy top (32) runs around; a second acceleration rail (40) that extends along the entire outer edge (Fig. 1). However Sims fails to disclose a stadium that includes a movable part and step part as claimed.
Kaminkow teaches a similar invention to Sims that includes a moving part (24) that constitutes a portion of the floor (14); the movable part is configured to rise and lower with respect to the remaining part of the floor (Fig. 1) (column 3, lines 1-36); the movable part is configured to generate a step part (34) with the remaining part of the floor (Fig. 1); an output and retraction mechanism configured to move the movable part to output and retract the step part (column 3, line 51 – column 4, line 17); the step part (34) includes a first acceleration rail (sidewall of 34) that’s capable of engaging a toy top; wherein the rail output and retracts with the step part (34); wherein the movable part is in the center of the floor (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sims to include the movable/step part, as taught by Kaminkow, since combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify Sims/Kaminkow to change the shape to be circular in plane view, since it has been held that a mere change in shape involves routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 69, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims et al. in view of Kaminkow et al. and further in view of Muraki et al. (US 10,500,511).
Sims/Kaminkow discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the top toy includes a wheel.
Muraki teaches a top toy that includes a wheel (30) (Claims 4,6,7) in order to allow the spinning top to stably spin for a long time (column 2, lines 51-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sims/Kaminkow to include a top with a wheel, as taught bye Muraki, in order to provide stability for the top to spin for a long time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 Form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL K SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3460. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839 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.
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights