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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (CN 202320769008.9).
However, it is noted that this application does not have support for the newly presented claimed subject matter in previously filed parent applications and therefore this application is not afforded the earlier priority dates of the parent applications as this subject matter is new. The priority date of the subject matter of claim 1 and as shown in new figures 14-18 is afforded the filing date of this application (4/30/2025).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21, filed 4/30/2025, are pending and are currently being examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language (ex. “The present application relates to…”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, in lines 10-11 it is unclear what exactly “a first surface and a second surface arranged oppositely arranged” is attempting to define, and in lines 16-17 it is unclear what exactly “arranged crosswise, and a cross position corresponds to the magnetic member” is attempting to define. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-21 are therefore rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen US Pub. No. 2025/0186899.
Chen teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
A toy water ball (10, Fig. 1-18), comprising:
at least two shells that are enclosable to form a water storage cavity (pair of shells 12 enclosable to form a water cavity therein, Fig. 1-2, [0046]), each of the shells comprising:
a mounting frame (annular magnet mounting frame 18), a magnetic member (magnetic assembly 30) and a water pocket (water pocket formed within the hollow shells 12/16),
the water pocket being connected to the mounting frame, the magnetic member being sealed in the mounting frame (the water pocket is formed within shell housings 16 wherein mounting frame 18 is connected to each shell housing to seal the respective magnetic member 30 therein, Fig. 1-4, 10-11, etc.);
wherein when the shells are enclosed to form the water storage cavity, magnetic members at corresponding positions on mounting frames of adjacent shells attract each other, so that adjacent mounting frames abut each other (the closed shells halves form a water storage cavity 22 between the respective water pockets formed on the inside surface of each shell 16, the mounting frame 18 abutting one another so that the respective magnetic assemblies hold the shells in the closed position, Fig. 1, 10-11, [0047]-[0057]);
the mounting frame comprises a first surface (bottom surfaces of 26 which hold the magnet members therein (mounting surface 29, [0064], Fig. 5) and a second surface (top surfaces of 26 facing the opposite shell form the sealing surface between the shells when closed) arranged oppositely arranged; the magnetic member is not exposed on the second surface (the mounting frame 18 has a second (sealing) surface facing the opposite shell (upper surfaces of 26) and a first opposite surface holding the magnetic member (opposite surface of 26/41 in mounting trough 291, ex. Fig. 5) between the frame and the shell so that the magnetic member is not exposed on the second/sealing surface, ex. Fig. 10-11);
a first connecting rib and a second connecting rib, that cross over a side of the magnetic member close to the first surface to connect the mounting frame surrounding the magnetic member, are provided on the first surface (the mounting surface 29 on the first side of the mounting frame as a first connecting rib 291 which extends in a first direction and second connecting ribs 293 that extend horizontally/perpendicularly relative to the first direction, both of which hold the magnetic member and surround the magnetic member 31 within fixing cases 41 therein, Fig. 4-6, 10-11); and
the first connecting rib and the second connecting rib are arranged crosswise, and a cross position corresponds to the magnetic member (the first connecting rib 291 which extends in a first direction and second connecting ribs 293 that extend horizontally/perpendicularly (crosswise) relative to the first direction, both of which hold the magnetic member and surround the magnetic member 31 within fixing cases 41 therein, Fig. 4-6, 10-11).
In Reference to Claim 2
The toy water ball according to claim 1, wherein both the mounting frame and the water pocket are made of flexible materials (the frame and shells may be formed of silicone or other elastic materials which is a generally flexible, [0016], [0018], [0053]-[0054]).
In Reference to Claim 5
The toy water ball according to claim 1, wherein the mounting frame is provided with an accommodation groove for accommodating the magnetic member, and the accommodation groove has a notch and a groove bottom; the mounting frame further includes a limiting baffle, and the limiting baffle is arranged at the notch of the accommodation groove, and is opposite to the groove bottom of the accommodation groove (magnetic members are held within cases 41, which are held within accommodation grooves 291 having a bottom surface with pegs 294, side surfaces, and limiting baffles/notches 293 with the limiting baffle of the fixing case 41 that hold the opposite surface of the magnetic member in place against the bottom surface, Fig. 5, [0064]-[0066]).
In Reference to Claim 6
The toy water ball according to claim 5, wherein in a length direction of the accommodation groove, the limiting baffle is arranged at a middle position of the notch of the accommodation groove, so that a middle position of the magnetic member is covered by the limiting baffle, and two ends of the magnetic member are exposed from the notch of the accommodation groove (the fixing case 41 covers the middle area of the magnet with the ends exposed from the notch (Fig. 5 shows the fixing case covering the middle but not the corners/ends)).
In Reference to Claim 9
The toy water ball according to claim 1, wherein an inner ring of the mounting frame is provided with a warped edge, when the adjacent mounting frames abut each other, corresponding warped edges of the adjacent mounting frames fit each other under pressure (warped edges/flanges 28 fit against each other under pressure to improve the seal between the respective shell mounting portions, Fig. 11, [0056]).
In Reference to Claim 11
The toy water ball according to claim 1, wherein an edge of the magnetic member is provided with a round chamfer (the magnetic members 31 have rounded/chamfered edges, Fig. 8, 11).
In Reference to Claim 12
The toy water ball according to claim 5, wherein an adhesive layer is provided between the magnetic member and the accommodation groove (the magnetic members may have an adhesive layer between the fixing case 41 which is also between the groove 291 and the magnet, [0069]).
In Reference to Claim 13
The toy water ball according to claim 1, wherein when the water pocket is connected to the mounting frame, a covering layer is formed on the mounting frame, and a total thickness of the covering layer and the mounting frame is greater than or equal to 2.3 mm (the mounting frame forms a cover layer to protect the magnet therein, the thickness of the cover layer 26 is 5-10 times that of the flange, which is .3-.43mm, so the thickness of the cover layer may be 4.3mm, which is more than 2.3mm, [0056]).
In Reference to Claim 14
The toy water ball according to claim 1, wherein the first connecting rib, the second connecting rib and the mounting frame are integrally formed; and the magnetic member is covered between the second surface and a combined structure of the first connecting rib and the second connecting rib which are arranged crosswise (the magnetic member 31 is held within fixing case 41, which is held within the connecting ribs of the accommodation groove 291/293, which is integrally molded together during formation of the mounting frame and water ball, [0017], [0054], [0069]-[0072], [0074]).
In Reference to Claim 15
The toy water ball according to claim 14, wherein among the first connecting rib and the second connecting rib, at least the first connecting rib protrudes from the first surface (the ribs 293 protrude from the first surface of the mounting frame, Fig. 5).
In Reference to Claim 16
The toy water ball according to claim 15, wherein the mounting frame is annular, and the first connecting rib extends along a circumferential direction of the annular mounting frame on the first surface (each mounting frame 18 is annular, wherein the parts formed within the frame (ribs, etc.) all extend along a circumferential direction of the frame on the first magnet holding surface, Fig. 2-3).
In Reference to Claim 17
The toy water ball according to claim 16, wherein there are multiple magnetic members; the multiple magnetic members are arranged at intervals within the mounting frame; each magnetic member is provided with a corresponding first connecting rib and a corresponding second connecting rib; adjacent first connecting ribs corresponding to adjacent magnetic members are connected to each other, forming an annular connecting rib; or, there are multiple magnetic members; the multiple magnetic members are arranged at intervals within the mounting frame; and each magnetic member is provided with a corresponding first connecting rib and a corresponding second connecting rib; adjacent first connecting ribs corresponding to adjacent magnetic members are not connected to each other (the entire mounting frame has multiple magnets placed around the circumference placed in respective mounting grooves and ribs as discussed above and fixing cases and are connected to one another via respective portions 42/292, Fig. 3-6).
In Reference to Claim 18
The toy water ball according to claim 14, wherein both the first connecting rib and the second connecting rib are flush with the first surface (the connecting ribs form a flush first surface when assembled, ex. Fig. 11/13).
In Reference to Claim 21
The toy water ball according to claim 1, wherein the water pocket is connected to the first surface of the mounting frame and covers the first connecting rib and the second connecting rib of the mounting frame (the connecting ribs are held within the mounting frame, the water pocket is formed adjacent to/in connection with the water pocket 16/22, Fig. 10-11).
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 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du US Pub. No. 2024/0325829.
In Reference to Claim 10
Chen teaches:
The toy water ball according to claim 1 as rejected above.
Chen fails to teach:
A light-emitting assembly, wherein the light-emitting assembly is arranged inside the shells, and the light-emitting assembly comprises a lamp bead, a controller, a vibration sensor, and a battery for powering the lamp bead, the controller and the vibration sensor; the controller controls the lamp bead to work when the vibration sensor detects vibration.
Further, Du teaches:
A similar water ball toy formed of two connected shells (1000, Fig. 1-14), wherein the toy comprises a light-emitting assembly, wherein the light-emitting assembly is arranged inside the shells, and the light-emitting assembly comprises a lamp bead, a controller, a vibration sensor, and a battery for powering the lamp bead, the controller and the vibration sensor; the controller controls the lamp bead to work when the vibration sensor detects vibration (the water ball toy may include a built-in lighting assembly having a light bead, a controller, a vibration sensor, and a battery to provide an emitted light feature to the toy powered by the battery and selectively operated using the vibration sensor and controller, [0083]-[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Chen to have further included a lighting assembly within the toy in order to increase the aesthetics of the toy, especially at night making it more interesting and aesthetically pleasing to play with as is known in the art and as taught by Du ([0090]).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen as applied to claim 15 above.
In Reference to Claim 19
Chen teaches:
The toy water ball according to claim 15, wherein a height of a protrusion of the first connecting rib from the first surface is greater than or equal to 0.1mm; and a width of the first connecting rib is greater than or equal to 1mm (the connecting rib 293 or 41 appears to extend above the first surface 29 in a protrusion-like manner, wherein it appears it would be at least .1mm in height and 1mm in width, Fig. 5, as the thickness of flange 28 is preferably .3-.43mm and the thickness of 26 is about 5-10x (or 1.5mm-4.3mm) ([0056]) and the width appears to be close to be smaller than the mix thickness of 26).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the rib to have been at least .1mm in height and 1mm in width as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) and it has been held discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). In this case, the prior art appears to teach the same or close to the same dimensions as the claims and modification of the dimensions to have specifically been that of the recited dimensions would not change or affect the device in any meaningful way and therefore this modification would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 20
Chen teaches:
The toy water ball according to claim 19, wherein the first connecting rib is located at a middle position in a width direction of the mounting frame (the connecting ribs of 291/293 with fixing cases 41 are all placed at the middle of the width of the mounting frame to hold the magnet in a centered width portion of the mounting frame).
Further, the exact position or location of the mounting ribs is merely a matter of obvious design choice as numerous arrangements would achieve the same function of holding the magnetic member in a centered position within the mounting frame and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) and it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in addition to the other claim limitations, the specific limitations of wherein the mounting frame is further provided with a gap groove, the gap groove is arranged on a periphery of the magnetic member, and the water pocket is provided with an embedded part embedded in the gap groove and the details of the gap groove (of claims 4, 7-8) is not anticipated by or found obvious by the cited prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Potential Double Patenting Warning
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Though the claims are not currently rejected under double patenting as claim 1 contains new subject matter that the previous patents do not contain, the applicant should keep in mind that the claims should continue to differ from the parent applications enough to avoid any potential double patenting rejections (statutory or non-statutory). Claims 1-21 could potentially be rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,835, 12,257,521, and 12,311,278.
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Kraft (4,212,460), Tao (2025/0041750), Chen (2025/0090973), Huang (12,708,861), and Chen (12,752,210) teach similar toy water balls.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights