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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires the connection of the modular 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 yet 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+). The examiner will address such issues within the respond to argument section hereinafter.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 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 filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejection under 35 USC 112b
Applicant stated that such limitations, as the modular members can be vertically offset by ½ of the modular members’ height while the respective corners are within respective female coupling, are shown in Figs. 25A (remarks page 1).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figs. 25A, the modular members coupled one on top of the other, via the claimed four corners with the male female coupling posts, are clearly not offset by ½ of the modular height, as they are placed one on top the other. In Fig. 25A there is an offset modular member, however it positioned between the claimed first and second set of modular members that are being position one on top the other. Accordingly, further clarification is require regarding the claimed 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+); yet, 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+).
In regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant stated that the prior art does not disclose the claimed invention, and stated ”In fact, the examiner points to the entirety of the Jirele cube to be either the male or female coupling. But this is not what it is claimed.” (remarks page 2). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the examiner construed Jirele’s four sides modular members with corners having male female connecting means as feet 26-to inserted within recesses 24; and also male connector 32 to be fit within female connector 34, and not to the entire cubes of Jirele as asserted by applicant. More specific, Jirele in [0024] states “The recesses 24 each preferably have a substantially similar rectangular shape that is slightly larger than the foot 26 so that each recess can receive one of the feet 26 while restricting lateral movement of the foot 26 in the recess 24. The recesses 24 are each oriented at an angle of about 45.degree. with respect to one of the edges 30 of the stepping surface 12.”. Also, note the examiner’s markings hereinafter in conjunction to Jirele’s Figs. 1 and 2
PNG
media_image1.png
807
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, Jirele in [0025] states “The stepping surface 12 preferably includes a locking mechanism having at least one male connector portion 32 and at least one female connector portion 34 to facilitate attaching multiple modular stage props 10 to each other.”
PNG
media_image2.png
677
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, applicant’s assertions that the examiner construed Jirele’s entire cubes as the male or female coupling, is not the case.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 5/26/2026
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights