Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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, 4, 7 and 10-12 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.
As now amended claim 1, require the connection of the modular members as the members being one on top of the other while the four corner posts inserted within the four corner post receptacles (e.g., lines 17+). It is unclear how at the same time the modular members can be vertically offset by ½ of the modular members’ height while the male and female coupling are creating a connection fit between the coupled members at such offset height (lines 13+).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 4, 7, and 10-12 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jirele US 2004/0221517 (“Jirele”) in view of Fort US 2,892,340 (“Fort”).
As per claim 1, Jirele discloses connectable modular members (connectable modular members 10, 110, and 210)(Figs. 1-12; paragraphs [0020]-[0044]) , comprising: a first set of modular members, wherein each member of the first set of modular members is generally cube-shaped, with four sides, a top end comprised of four corners and a bottom end comprised of four corners, and wherein one of four sides includes a female coupling and wherein each of the four corners of the bottom end comprise a post, and wherein each of the four corners of the top end comprise a post receptacle (construed as any one of multiple cube shaped modular props 10 (Figs. 1-2) and/or modular props 110 (Fig. 4) and/or modular props 210 (Fig. 5); each includes bottom end with four corner posts (feet 26) and a top end with four corner post receptacles (recesses 24) (Figs. 2 and 8; [0022]-[0024]); in addition, the modular props, each includes a male coupling (male connector 32)-to-female coupling (female connector 34); Fig. 3; [0025], [0027] and [0030]-[0034]; the examiner construed any one of the modular props 10-110-210 with the female connector, as the claimed “female coupling”);
a second set of modular members, wherein each member of the second set of modular members is generally cube-shaped, with four sides, a top end comprised of four corners, and a bottom end comprised of four corners, and wherein one of the four sides includes a male coupling, and wherein each of the four corners of the bottom end comprise a post, and wherein each of the four corners of the top end comprise a post receptacle (construed as any one of multiple cube shaped modular props that is not construed as the first modular members 10 (Figs. 1-2) 110 (Fig. 4) and 210 (Fig. 5); each includes bottom end with four corner posts (feet 26) and a top end with four corner post receptacles (recesses 24) (Figs. 2 and 8; [0022]-[0024]); in addition, the modular props includes a male coupling (male connector 32)-to-female coupling (female connector 34)(Fig. 3; [0025], [0027] and [0030]-[0034]; the examiner construed any one of the props, that are not the first modular members set, 10-110-210 with the male connector, as the claimed “male coupling”);
whereby the male coupling of each member in the second set slides into the female coupling of the members of the first set of modular members, creating a friction fit between coupled members, wherein the coupled first and second connectable modular members connect in a linked position (Fig. 3 and [0025], [0027] and [0030]-[0034] the male connector-to-female connector that facilitate attaching multiple modular props 10-110 -210 to each other), wherein a plurality of coupled modular members from the first set of modular members and the second set of modular members are vertically connectable on top of one another by inserting the posts of the four corners of the bottom end into the post receptacles of the top end (Figs. 6-12 and [0022]-[0024] as adjacent modular props attached to each other as the corner posts at the bottom end thereof (feet 26) inserted within respective recess at the top end thereof (recess 24) to form a first vertically aligned column comprised of modular members from the first set of modular members and a second vertically aligned column adjacently coupled to the first vertically aligned column (Figs. 9-11), where the second vertically aligned column is comprised of modular members from the second set of modular members, and wherein the two vertically aligned columns define a system of descending pathways between coupled modular members in the first vertically aligned column and the second vertically aligned column (Figs. 9-11; also note [0038]+ as the props can be positioned in different vertical column arrangements). With respect to “define a system of descending pathways between coupled modular members”, as no structure was claim to define “descending pathway”, in the broadest and most reasonable manner, the examiner consider the vertical connections of columns formed by adjacent modular props, to define such “descending pathway” as shown for example in Figs. 9-11.
Jirele is not specific regarding such that the first and second coupled modular members are vertically offset by ½ of the modular members' height.
However, Fort discloses such connection between adjacent modular members, in at least Fig. 12; and 2:36+.
Therefore, 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 to form Jirele’s male-to-female connection such that the first and second coupled modular members are vertically offset by ½ of the modular members' height for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known mechanical connection that facilitates a firm and a sturdy connection between adjacent modular members as the modular members are in a vertical construction.
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein the dimensions of the modular members from the first set of modular members is substantially the same as the dimensions of the modular members from the second set of modular members, note at least Figs. 1, 5, 7 and 8; as the modular props are substantially the same; that is any first set of modular props 10 (to include female connector 34) that is not the second set of modular props 10 (with the male connector 32); or same modular props 110 and modular props 210; within the plurality of any one of the modular props 10 and/or 110 and/or 210, the first set of modular props is substantially the same as the second set of modular props. In addition, it is noted that mere size of a device, by itself, is not patentable because having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device; limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably
distinguish over the prior art. 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 In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, 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 to form Jirele’s modular members that substantially the same for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated merely as an obvious size of the modular device that would have perform the same as modular props.
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein each of the modular members from the first set of modular members is vertically connectable to each of the other modular members from the first set of modular members by snap-fit joinery, the vertically connected adjacent modular props (e.g., Figs. 9-11) utilizing the feet 26 of each prop to fit within respective recess 24 ([0025], [0027] and [0030]-[0033]) as taught and suggested by Jirele construed as the claimed “ snap-fit joinery”.
As per claim 10, with respect to wherein each member of the first column is vertically offset by ½ of the height of the member it is linked to in the second column, note Fort’s Figs. 9-11 in conjunction to Fig. 15 (3:7+) as the plurality of blocks 201 and 301 are connected in such manner; also 2:52-56.
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein each of the modular members from the first set of modular members is vertically connectable to each of the other modular members from the first set of modular members by friction fit joinery, the vertically connected adjacent modular props (e.g., Figs. 9-11) utilizing the feet 26 of each prop to fit within respective recess 24 ([0025], [0027] and [0030]-[0033]) as taught and suggested by Jirele, as well as Fort’s Figs. 9-11 in conjunction to Fig. 15 (3:7+) as the plurality of blocks 201 and 301 are connected in such manner; also 2:52-56, as the connection of adjacent modular members, construed as the claimed “friction fit joinery”.
As per claim 12, with respect to wherein the connectable modular members are arranged to form, from a top view thereof, a rectilinear grid, note Jirele’s Figs. 6, and 9-11 as plurality of modular props are arrange in vertical manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the reference to Fort, although the examiner relied upon the teachings of Fort, but not to teach or suggest the current amendments as “each of the four corners of the bottom end comprise a post," and "wherein each of the four corners of the top end comprise a post receptacle”, which as set forth above such limitations were relied by Jirele.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 10/27/2025 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711