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 § 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 7 & 12 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.
Claims 7 & 12 recite the term “resembles” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “resembles” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, both claims 7 & 12 have been rendered indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites the limitation of “the first, second, and third squeakers are lined up horizontally along the pet toy” however, claim 14 from which claim 15 depends recites the limitation of “the first, second, and third squeakers are lined up vertically along the pet toy.” As such, claim 15 fails to include all limitations of the of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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 & 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Di Lullo, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0146116 A1; herein Di.
Re claim 1, Di discloses a pet toy (400; the pull toy, fig. 4) comprising:
a surface (406 & 408; the top sheets, fig. 4) and a body (404; the body, fig. 4);
a pocket underneath the surface (para 41, wherein there is a pocket formed in each end portion of the limb elements);
a sound-producing apparatus disposed within the pocket (para 41, the squeakers as specifically shown in the lower second limb end, fig. 4; 414);
wherein the sound-producing apparatus comprises a bladder (para 41, the squeaker functions when a bladder is compressed, the end will squeak via the air being forced out);
a backing (502; the filling, fig. 5 and para 37) within the pet toy body (fig. 5 and para 37, the body is shaped via fiberfill);
wherein when external pressure is applied to the pocket, sound is produced by the bladder (again see para 41).
Re claim 3, Di discloses the invention of claim 1, Di further discloses wherein the pocket forms a raised area on the surface of the pet toy (para 41, via the shape of the squeaker between the limbs).
Re claim 4, Di discloses the invention of claim 1, Di further discloses wherein the pocket contains a filler material (para 41, the squeaker).
Re claim 5, Di discloses the invention of claim 1, Di further discloses a second sound-producing apparatus encapsulated in a second pocket (see the rejection of claim 1 and para 41, there is a squeaker in each limb end).
Re claim 6, Di discloses the invention of claim 1, Di further discloses a second, third, and fourth sound-producing apparatus (see the rejection of claim 1 and para 41, there is a squeaker in each limb end, a total of four), encapsulated in a second, third, and fourth pocket, respectively (para 41, wherein there is one squeaker in each end portion as shown by the squeak device; 414 in fig. 4).
Re claim 7, as best understood, Di discloses the invention of claim 1, Di further discloses wherein the toy resembles an animal (fig. 1-4 and para 32, wherein the design is similar to an animal).
Re claim 8, Di discloses the invention of claim 6, Di further discloses wherein the sound-producing apparatus are lined up incrementally along the surface of the pet toy (para 41, wherein there is one squeaker in each end portion as shown by the squeak device; 414 in fig. 4, there are four lines of two squeakers).
Re claim 9, Di discloses a pet toy (400; the pull toy, fig. 4) comprising:
a body (404; body, fig. 4) and a surface (fig. 4 and para 27 & 45-46, formed of the top and bottom sheets of the first and second limb elements; 406, 407, 408, 409) surrounding the body (para 45, the limb elements surround the body);
a first chamber (the lower limb end, between 406 & 407; the top & bottom sheet of the first limb, fig. 5 and para 41) sized to contain a squeaker (fig. 4 and para 41, wherein there is a second pocket within the first limb end as shown by way of example in fig. 4; 414);
a second chamber (the lower limb end, between 408 & 409; the top & bottom sheet of the second limb, fig. 5 and para 41) sized to contain a second squeaker (414; the squeaker, fig. 4) wherein the second chamber is isolated from the first chamber (para 41, wherein there is a pocket holding a squeaker in each limb which are separate structures, see para 46);
wherein the first chamber and the second chamber are disposed underneath the surface (para 41, wherein the squeaker pockets are formed between the top and bottom sheets of each limb end), adjacent to the surface of the pet toy (see the squeaker; 414, fig. 4);
wherein the first and second chambers are each sized and contain a material that provides compressible reaction that activates the first and second squeakers when pressure is applied onto the surface of the toy adjacent to where the first and second squeakers are located (para 41, thus the compression and squeak take place as described).
Re claim 10, Di discloses the invention of claim 9, Di further discloses wherein the first and second chambers each form a raised area on the surface of the pet toy (para 41, via the shape of the squeaker between the limbs).
Re claim 11, Di discloses the invention of claim 9, Di further discloses wherein the body contains a filler (502; the filling, fig. 5 and para 37) of sufficient density to create a firmness such that sound is produced by the first and second squeakers when pressure is applied onto the surface of the toy adjacent to where the first and second squeakers are located (para 41, thus the compression and squeak take place as described).
Re claim 12, as best understood, Di discloses the invention of claim 9, Di further discloses wherein the toy resembles an animal (fig. 1-4 and para 32, wherein the design is similar to an animal).
Re claim 13, Di discloses the invention of claim 9, Di further discloses a third squeaker within a third chamber (the upper limb end of the first limb, see para 41).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watts, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0354122 A1.
Re claim 16, Watts discloses a toy (20; a tug toy, fig. 1) comprising;
a pocket (26; the first pet handle, fig. 1-1A & 5, 7, & 9A-C), having a front side (fig. 1-1A & 5, 7, & 9A-C, adjacent the gripping end) and a back side (fig. 1-1A & 5, 7, & 9A-C, adjacent the collar or band; 34);
a squeaker (68; the bladder, fig. 5 & 7) that is disposed within the pocket (fig. 5 & 7), wherein the squeaker has a hollow cavity (fig. 5 and para 37 & 39, the bladder is hollow);
a backing (para 8, the poly-fill within the rear side of the first pet handle) adjacent to the back side of the pocket (fig. 5, as depicted), wherein the backing comprises a filler of sufficient density and firmness such that when the toy is against a surface, and external pressure is applied to the front side of the pocket, the squeaker is activated by air moving through it, into and out of the hollow cavity, as external pressure is applied and released (para 8 & 39, the poly-fill provides for increased compression of the squeaker/bladder).
Re claim 17, Watts discloses the invention of claim 16, Watts further discloses wherein the pocket forms a raised area on the toy (fig. 1-1A & 5, 7, & 9A-C).
Re claim 18, Watts discloses the invention of claim 16, Watts further discloses a second squeaker (68; the bladder, fig. 5 & 7) disposed within a second pocket (28; the second pet handle, fig. 1-1A & 5, 7, & 9A-C) and a third squeaker (72; the squeak bladder, fig. 6 & 8) disposed within a third pocket (36; the first user handle, fig. 1-3C, 6, 8, & 9A-C).
Re claim 19, Watts discloses the invention of claim 16, Watts further discloses wherein the pocket contains a filler material (again see para 8 & fig. 5).
Re claim 20, Watts discloses the invention of claim 18, Watts further discloses wherein the first, second, and third squeakers are disposed incrementally on the toy (fig. 1-1A & 9A-C, as distributed throughout the tug toy).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di as applied to claim 1 above.
Re claim 2, Di discloses the invention of claim 1, Di further discloses wherein the backing is comprised of fill in the toy body (para 37, the body is filled with fiber fill), adjacent to the pocket (fig. 5).
Di discloses the claimed invention except for the fill being polyester however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize poly-fill as it is well known for filling pet toys, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Salyer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0306607 A1; herein Sal.
Re claim 14, Di discloses the invention of claim 13, Di fails to disclose wherein the first, second, and third squeakers are lined up vertically along the pet toy. However, Sal discloses an appendage (120; the appendages, fig. 1-4) with a hook and loop closure (128; the hook closure, fig. 3 & 10-11) which would allow for the first, second, and third squeakers to be lined up vertically along the pet toy.
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the first, second, and third squeakers are lined up vertically along the pet toy however, Sal discloses a mechanism which allows for such positioning. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the hook and loop sections as taught by Sal to the limbs of the prior art to yield the predictable result of allowing for the arrangement and simulated destruction of the toy. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 15, as best understood, Di discloses the invention of claim 13, Di fails to disclose wherein the first, second, and third squeakers are lined up horizontally along the pet toy. However, Sal discloses an appendage (120; the appendages, fig. 1-4) with a hook and loop closure (128; the hook closure, fig. 3 & 10-11) which would allow for the first, second, and third squeakers are lined up horizontally along the pet toy.
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the first, second, and third squeakers are lined up horizontally along the pet toy however, Sal discloses a mechanism which allows for such positioning. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the hook and loop sections as taught by Sal to the limbs of the prior art to yield the predictable result of allowing for the arrangement and simulated destruction of the toy. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0251190 A1 which discloses a pet toy with squeakers in each leg. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0073514 A1 which discloses a snake toy with a plurality of squeaker pockets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642