PTAB

IPR2024-01213

NxtGen Toys LLC v. ZIPSTring LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: String Shooting Device and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’774 patent relates to a string shooting toy that propels a continuous loop of string. The purported invention centers on using a "fuzzy" string with a plurality of fibers extending from its axis to increase air friction, thereby generating aerodynamic lift to keep the string aloft.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Yeany - Claims 1-3, 12, and 15 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Yeany.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yeany (a YouTube video published June 11, 2014).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Yeany video, which demonstrates a homemade string shooter, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Yeany showed a device with a body (wooden blocks), a housing (plastic tubing), and two motor-driven wheels that propel a continuous loop of string. Critically, Petitioner contended that close-up shots of the string in Yeany clearly show a "fuzzy" or "hairy" texture with visible fibers extending from the string's axis, which directly reads on the key limitation for allowance ("a plurality of fibers extending away from the axis"). Petitioner further argued that the generation of a turbulent boundary layer and lift (recited in dependent claims 2 and 3) are inherent physical properties that necessarily result from propelling such a textured string at high speed through the air.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Abello and Yeany - Claims 1-3, 12, and 15-17 are obvious over Abello in view of Yeany.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abello (a research article published January 14, 2020) and Yeany (a 2014 YouTube video).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Abello, a scientific paper analyzing the physics of string shooters, disclosed a device with all claimed structural elements but did not explicitly require a string with extending fibers. Abello's research involved testing strings of varying smoothness (e.g., polyester vs. wool) and concluded that strings with rougher surfaces had lower takeoff speeds, a desirable characteristic.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Abello explicitly cited Yeany as an inspiration for its research. Since Abello taught that increased air drag from a rougher string surface is beneficial for performance (i.e., reduces the required launch velocity), a POSITA would be motivated to look to the specific string disclosed in the inspirational Yeany reference. Implementing Yeany's visibly "fuzzy" string in Abello's device would be a logical step to achieve the stated goal of increasing drag and improving operational efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining the references involved applying a known string type (Yeany's) to a known device (Abello's) to achieve a predictable result (increased drag and lower takeoff speed) based on fundamental aerodynamic principles discussed in Abello itself.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Wagner, Yeany, and Scorch - Claims 4 and 16-17 are obvious over Wagner in view of Yeany and Scorch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wagner (Patent 6,537,126), Yeany (a 2014 YouTube video), and Scorch (a YouTube video published July 4, 2018).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Wagner (a patent for a handheld string amusement device) and Yeany (providing the "fuzzy" string with radiating fibers), which Petitioner argued rendered claims 1-3, 12, and 15 obvious. The additional reference, Scorch, was introduced to teach the "loading slot" limitation required by independent claim 16 and dependent claim 4. Scorch's video explicitly demonstrated a string shooter with a 3D-printed housing that featured a side slot, allowing for the quick and easy replacement of the string loop without disassembling the device.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Scorch's loading slot to the Wagner/Yeany device to improve user convenience. The Wagner patent described a device where replacing the string required removing a friction-fit cover, an inconvenient process. Scorch taught a well-known and simple design modification to solve this exact problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in this simple mechanical combination. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that Wagner's design, which already included flanges on its wheels to guide the string, would inherently mitigate a potential issue mentioned in Scorch—the string inadvertently exiting through the loading slot—thus ensuring the successful operation of the combined device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 1-3, 12, and 15 based on Wagner in view of Yeany, relying on a similar motivation to improve the performance of Wagner's device by using a string with increased air friction as taught by Yeany.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • "Hairiness" is Not Novel: Petitioner contended that the patent's central limitation—a string with "a plurality of fibers extending away from the axis"—is not an inventive feature but is merely a description of "hairiness," a common, ubiquitous, and well-understood characteristic of many conventional types of yarn and string made from natural fibers.
  • Recitation of Natural Law: Petitioner argued that the functional limitations recited in the claims, such as the generation of a "turbulent air boundary layer" and "lift" resulting from increased air friction, are not patentable features. Instead, they are simply statements of inherent and fundamental laws of physics and aerodynamics that naturally occur when any object with a textured surface moves through a fluid like air.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 12, and 15-17 of Patent 11,674,774 as unpatentable.