DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification filed 1/2/26 is entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. For claims 24, 31, and 32, all of the alternative combinations need to be shown in the drawings. For example, claim 31 claims that a laundry list of possible toys can be connected to the body component. All of those toys and subsequent combinations of those toys as being used to connect to the body component need to be shown in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 36 should read as a “method of using” much like claim 40. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degner (US Pat. No. 6,000,984).
Regarding claim 1, Degner discloses a removable posable bendable toy (Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 1-6; noting “flexible” make obvious “bendable”), comprising: a posable component having a length (Fig. 1; noting a length is inherent; also noting, that if is “flexible”; it can be functionally posed), the length of the posable component comprising a first terminus and a second terminus (Fig. 1; noting a first terminus and a second terminus would be inherent, see specifically col. 2, lines 57-67); a first plastic end component permanently molded about the first terminus (col. 2, lines 57-67; specifically disclosing “plastic”); and a second plastic end component about the second terminus (col. 2, lines 57-67; specifically disclosing “plastic”) so that a portion of the length of the posable component between the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component is exposed (Fig. 1). The above rejection is given under a 103 as it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a material that is “flexible” would .
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degner (US Pat. No. 6,000,984) in view of Schleich (US Pat. No. 3,918,196).
Regarding claim 21, Degner disclose that the first plastic end component is molded about a first portion of the posable component that is the first terminus or is adjacent the first terminus and the second plastic end component is molded about a second portion of the posable component that is the second terminus or is adjacent the second terminus (col. 2, lines 25-30 and 57-67; noting this is obvious). It is noted that Degner does not specifically disclose that each of the first portion and second portion of the posable component being either bent, deformed, twisted, formed with an orifice, or a combination thereof. However, Degner discloses the ability to place the flexible component in the mold, and overmold the end construction elements (col. 2, lines 25-30 and 57-67) and wherein the flexible element may be a wire (col. 3, lines 51-53). In addition, Schleich discloses a similar coupling with a flexible wire (Fig. 4 and Fig. 1, item 1) wherein each of the first portion and second portion of the posable component being either bent, deformed, twisted, formed with an orifice, or a combination thereof (Fig. 2, item 2 and col. 2, lines 25-33; noting “deformed’ as defined by dictionary.com as “having the form changed”, and the shape of the wire is changed by the notch). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degner to make each of the first portion and second portion of the posable component being either bent, deformed, twisted, formed with an orifice, or a combination thereof as taught by Schleich because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a notch to deform the end of a wire, end components injection molded around it) to improve a similar product (a flexible connection element having ends injection molded around it, the flexible connection element being made of wire) in the same way (using a notch to deform the end of a wire, end components injection molded around it and the notch helping to retain the end component - see Schleich: col. 2, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 22, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that the first portion and the second portion are deformed (Schleich: Fig. 2, item 2 and col. 2, lines 25-33; noting “deformed’ as defined by dictionary.com as “having the form changed”, and the shape of the wire is changed by the notch).
Regarding claim 23, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that the first portion is the first terminus and the second portion is the second terminus (Degner: Fig. 1; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 24, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that each of the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component is configured to connect with one or more of: (i) building block toys; (ii) action figurines; (iii) action figurine accessories; (iv) dolls; (v) doll accessories; (vi) magnetic building block toys; (vii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys; (viii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys having at least one cylindrical stud extending upwardly from a surface and at least one cavity dimensioned to frictionally fit and hold geometry having dimensions like the at least one cylindrical stud (Degner: Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 9-15; noting this is obvious); and the posable component being configured to be anchored at a first position while simultaneously and independently suspending both the exposed portion of the length of the posable component and one of the following against gravity at a second position that is spaced away from the first position: (a) the first plastic end component, (b) the second plastic end component, or (c) a second exposed portion of the posable component adjacent the first plastic end component or the second plastic end component (Degner: Figs. 1 and 2 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, lines 30 to col. 2, lines 6; noting Degner specifically discloses a “flexible element” in the form of a “wire” in col. 1, lines 4-12 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, lines 30-68 make obvious that the wire is flexible and able to maintain its posable shape, such that this latter functional language is possible given the combined structure).
Regarding claim 25, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that first plastic end component is different from the second plastic end component (Degner: col. 3, lines 42-50; Fig. 1; noting specifically stating that “Coupling studs as well as coupling skirts may also be provided in may [sic] other ways than the one shown which is rotationally symmetrical”; also noting the element can be made without “couplings”; making obvious that other types of end components may be used). In the alternative, regarding the first toy being different than the second, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)(see applicant’s par. [0064]; applicant giving no criticality to using “different” bricks over that of the “same”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that using a different second toy from the first would not be significant: that is, the first and second toy would attach to another object regardless of their exact shape.
Regarding claim 26, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component is a different type of toy from the second plastic end component (Degner: col. 3, lines 42-50; Fig. 1; noting specifically stating that “Coupling studs as well as coupling skirts may also be provided in may [sic] other ways than the one shown which is rotationally symmetrical” also noting the element can be made without “couplings”; making obvious that other types of end components may be used). In the alternative, regarding the first toy being a different type than the second, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)(see applicant’s par. [0064]; applicant giving no criticality to using “different” bricks over that of the “same”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that using a different type of second toy from the first would not be significant: that is, the first and second toy would attach to another object regardless of their exact shape.
Regarding claim 27, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component are each configured to frictionally fit within an opening in the snap-fit interconnecting building block toy (Degner: Figs. 1 and 2; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure).
Regarding claim 28, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component comprises at least one surface configured to snap-fit or friction fit with another surface located on or in the second plastic end component (Degner: Fig. 1; noting this is functionally possible given the structure).
Regarding claim 29, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that each of the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component is a snap-fit interconnecting building block toy having at least one cylindrical stud and at least one cavity dimensioned to frictionally fit and hold geometry having dimensions like the at least one cylindrical stud (Degner: Fig. 1; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 30, the combined Degner and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component are the same snap-fit interconnecting building block toy (Degner: Fig. 1; noting this is obvious).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US Pat. No. 6,213,839 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Pedersen discloses a removable posable bendable toy (Fig. 1, clearly showing that it is bent), comprising: a posable component having a length (Fig. 1; noting a length is inherent; and noting that if the “elongate element is flexurally flexible” as per col. 2, lines 31-41; the toy may be functionally “posable”), the length of the posable component comprising a first terminus and a second terminus (Fig. 1; noting this would be inherent); a first plastic end component permanently molded about the first terminus (col. 2, lines 31-42); and a second plastic end component about the second terminus (col. 2, lines 31-42) so that a portion of the length of the posable component between the first end component and the second end component is exposed (Fig. 1). The above rejection is given under a 103 as it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that a material that is “flexurally flexible” would .
Claims 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US Pat. No. 6,213,839 B1) in view of Schleich (US Pat. No. 3,918,196).
Regarding claim 21, Pedersen disclose that the first plastic end component is molded about a first portion of the posable component that is the first terminus or is adjacent the first terminus and the second plastic end component is molded about a second portion of the posable component that is the second terminus or is adjacent the second terminus (col. 2, lines 31-42). It is noted that Pedersen does not specifically disclose that each of the first portion and second portion of the posable component being either bent, deformed, twisted, formed with an orifice, or a combination thereof. However, Pedersen discloses the ability to place the flexible component in the mold, and overmold the end construction elements (col. 2, lines 31-41) and wherein the flexible element may be a wire (col. 2, lines 31-35). In addition, Schleich discloses a similar coupling with a flexible wire (Fig. 4 and Fig. 1, item 1) wherein each of the first portion and second portion of the posable component being either bent, deformed, twisted, formed with an orifice, or a combination thereof (Fig. 2, item 2 and col. 2, lines 25-33; noting “deformed’ as defined by dictionary.com as “having the form changed”, and the shape of the wire is changed by the notch). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pedersen to make each of the first portion and second portion of the posable component being either bent, deformed, twisted, formed with an orifice, or a combination thereof as taught by Schleich because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a notch to deform the end of a wire, with end components injection molded around it) to improve a similar product (a flexible connection element having ends injection molded around it, the flexible connection element being made of wire) in the same way (using a notch to deform the end of a wire, end components injection molded around it and the notch helping to retain the end component – see Schleich: col. 2, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 22, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that the first portion and the second portion are deformed (Schleich: Fig. 2, item 2 and col. 2, lines 25-33; noting “deformed’ as defined by dictionary.com as “having the form changed”, and the shape of the wire is changed by the notch).
Regarding claim 23, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that the first portion is the first terminus and the second portion is the second terminus (Pedersen: Fig. 1; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 24, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that each of the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component is configured to connect with one or of: (i) building block toys; (ii) action figurines; (iii) action figurine accessories; (iv) dolls; (v) doll accessories; (vi) magnetic building block toys; (vii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys; (viii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys having at least one cylindrical stud extending upwardly from a surface and at least one cavity dimensioned to frictionally fit and hold geometry having dimensions like the at least one cylindrical stud (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 5-13; noting this is obvious); and the posable component being configured to be anchored at a first position while simultaneously and independently suspending one of the following against gravity at a second position that is spaced away from the first position: (a) the first plastic end component, (b) the second plastic end component, or (c) ac second exposed portion of the posable component adjacent the first plastic end component or the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, lines 30 to col. 2, lines 6; noting Pedersen specifically discloses a “flexible element” in the form of a “wire” in col. 2, lines 31-41 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, line 30 to col. 2, line 5 make obvious that the wire is flexible and able to maintain its posable shape, such that this latter functional language is possible given the combined structure).
Regarding claim 25, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component is different from the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 1, items 4; noting they are physically “different” toys). In the alternative, regarding the first toy being different than the second, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)(see applicant’s par. [0064]; applicant giving no criticality to using “different” bricks over that of the “same”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that using a different second toy from the first would not be significant: that is, the first and second toy would attach to another object regardless of their exact shape.
Regarding claim 26, it is noted that the combined Pedersen and Schleich do not specifically disclose that the first plastic end component is a different type of toy from the second plastic end component. However, regarding the first toy being a different type than the second, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)(see applicant’s par. [0064]; applicant giving no criticality to using “different” bricks over that of the “same”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that using a different type of second toy from the first would not be significant: that is, the first and second toy would attach to another object regardless of their exact shape.
Regarding claim 27, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component are each configured to frictionally fit within an opening in the snap-fit interconnecting building block toy (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 5-13; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure).
Regarding claim 28, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component comprises at least one surface with dimensions that snap-fit or friction fit with another surface located on or in the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 5-13; noting this is functionally possible given the structure).
Regarding claim 29, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that each of the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component is a snap-fit interconnecting building block toy having at least one cylindrical stud and at least one cavity dimensioned to frictionally fit and hold geometry having dimensions like the at least one cylindrical stud (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 5-13; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 30, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component are the same snap-fit interconnecting building block toy (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 5-13; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 31, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that at least one body component coupled to the posable component along the length of the posable component between the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 1, item 3), wherein the at least one body component configured to be spaced from at least one of the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 3, multiple items 3), the at least one body component being further configured to connect with one or more of: (i) building block toys; (ii) action figurines (Pedersen: Fig. 3; noting only one is required; but noting the use of two or more figurines is a mere duplication of parts); (ii) action figurine accessories; (iv) dolls; (v) doll accessories; (vi) magnetic building block toys; (vii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys; (viii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys having at least one cylindrical stud extending upwardly from a surface and at least one cavity dimensioned to frictionally fit and hold geometry having dimensions like the at least one cylindrical stud; and the posable component being further configured to be anchored at a first position while simultaneously and independently suspending both the expose portion of the length of the posable component and one of the following against gravity at a plurality of positions that are each spaced away from the first position: (a) the first plastic end component, (b) the second plastic end component, (c) the body component, (d) a combination of the first plastic end component and the body component, or (e) a combination of the second plastic end component and the body component (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, lines 30 to col. 2, lines 6; noting Pedersen specifically discloses a “flexible element” in the form of a “wire” in col. 2, lines 31-41 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, line 30 to col. 2, line 5 makes obvious that the wire is flexible and able to maintain its posable shape, such that this latter functional language is possible given the combined structure).
Regarding claim 32, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that a plurality of body components coupled to the posable component along the length of the posable component between the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 3, multiple items 3) wherein each of the plurality of body components is configured to be spaced from one another and at least one of the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 3, multiple items 3), each of the plurality of body components being further configured to connect with one or more of: (i) building block toys; (ii) action figurines (Pedersen: Fig. 3; noting only one is required; but noting the use of two or more figurines is a mere duplication of parts); (iii) action figurine accessories; (iv) dolls; (v) doll accessories; (vi) magnetic building block toys; (vii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys; (viii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys having at least one cylindrical stud extending upwardly from a surface and at least one cavity dimensioned to frictionally fit and hold geometry having dimensions like the at least one cylindrical stud; and the posable component being configured to be anchored at a first position while simultaneously and independently suspending both the expose portion of the length of the posable component and one of the following against gravity at a plurality of positions that are each spaced away from the first position: (1) the first plastic end component, (2) the second plastic end component, (3) the body component, (4) a plurality of body components, (5) a combination of the first plastic end component and the body component, (6) a combination of the first plastic end component and a plurality of body component, (7) a combination of the second plastic end component and the body component, (8) a combination of the second plastic end component and a plurality of body components, (9) the first plastic end component, the second plastic end component, and at least one of the plurality of body components, or (10) the first plastic end component, the second plastic end component, and each of the plurality of body components (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, lines 30 to col. 2, lines 6; noting Pedersen specifically discloses a “flexible element” in the form of a “wire” in col. 2, lines 31-41 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, line 30 to col. 2, line 5 make obvious that the wire is flexible and able to maintain its posable shape, such that this latter functional language is possible given the combined structure).
Claims 33-35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US Pat. No. 6,213,839 B1) in view of Schleich (US Pat. No. 3,918,196) in further view of Hohrmann Pedersen (herein “Hohrmann”; US Pub. No. 2013/0210315 A1).
Regarding claims 33 and 37, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose that a plurality of body components coupled to the posable component along the length of the posable component between the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component, wherein each of the first plastic end component, the second plastic end component, and plurality of body components is cylindrical in shape and is at least configured to connect with at least one building block toy using a friction fit connection or snap-fit connection (Pedersen: Fig. 3, items 3; noting the action figure can be considered “at least one building block toy”). It is noted that the combined Pedersen and Schleich do not specifically disclose that the body components have a maximum diameter between 3.2 mm and 4.8 mm. However, the cylindrically shaped bodies in Pedersen would have some inherent diameter that is used to connect the body to another LEGOTM type toy (Fig. 3, item 3). In addition, Hohrmann makes obvious similar LEGOTM style bricks that have cylindrical studs, wherein the distance between two adjacent studs is 3.2 mm (par. [0019]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Pedersen and Schleich to make the cylindrical bodies have a diameter of 3.2 mm as taught and suggested by Hohrmann because doing so would be combining prior art elements (cylindrical bodies that have some inherent diameter and connect to another LEGOTM type toy and a LEGOTM type toy have a distance of 3.2 mm between studs) according to known methods (making the cylindrical studs to have a diameter of 3.2 mm to fit in between the studs) to obtain predictable results (making the cylindrical studs to have a diameter of 3.2 mm to fit in between the studs, the cylindrical body able to connect to another LEGOTM type toy as intended).
Regarding claims 34 and 38, the combined Pedersen, Schleich, and Hohrmann disclose that the maximum diameter is 3.2 mm (Hohrmann: par. [0019]; noting this would be obvious to fit between adjacent studs).
Regarding claims 35 and 39, the combined Pedersen, Schleich, and Hohrmann disclose and at least one toy selected from the group consisting of: (i) building block toys; (ii) an action figurine(s) (Pedersen Fig. 3; noting the figure can be considered an “action figurine”; noting only one is required and noting the use of more than one figurine is a mere duplication of parts); (iii) action figurine accessories; (iv) dolls; (v) doll accessories; (vi) magnetic building block toys; (vii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys; (viii) snap-fit interconnecting building block toys having at least one cylindrical stud extending upwardly from a surface and at least one cavity dimensioned to frictionally fit and hold geometry having dimensions like the at least one cylindrical stud; and (ix) a combination of groups (i)-(viii).
Claims 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US Pat. No. 6,213,839 B1) in view of Schleich (US Pat. No. 3,918,196) in view of Hohrmann Pedersen (herein “Hohrmann”; US Pub. No. 2013/0210315 A1) and in further view of Jan (US Pat. No. 10,343,080 B2).
Regarding claims 36 and 40, it is noted that the combine Pedersen, Scheich, and Hohrman do not specifically disclose frictionally fitting the removable posable bendable toy to the at least one toy while the posable component of the removable posable bendable toy is in a first configuration and the at least one toy in in a first position; and bending the posable component of the removable posable bendable toy into a second configuration to move the at least one toy into a second position, wherein the first configuration is different than the second configuration and the first position is different from the second position. However, the combined the combine Pedersen, Scheich, and Hohrman make obvious that the toy is made of a wire that is flexible (i.e. bendable) and retains it bent shape (Pedersen: Fig. 1 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, lines 30 to col. 2, lines 6; noting Pedersen specifically discloses a “flexible element” in the form of a “wire” in col. 2, lines 31-41 and Schleich: Fig. 4 and col. 1, line 30 to col. 2, line 5 make obvious that the wire is flexible and able to maintain its posable shape, such that this latter functional language is possible given the combined structure). In addition, Jang makes obvious frictionally fitting the removable posable bendable toy to the at least one toy while the posable component of the removable posable bendable toy is in a first configuration and the at least one toy in in a first position (Fig. 1, item 56 as attached to top blocks, items 100; noting the wire, item, 56, may be originally straight as seen in Fig. 5 and frictionally connected to middle item 200); and bending the posable component of the removable posable bendable toy into a second configuration to move the at least one toy into a second position, wherein the first configuration is different than the second configuration and the first position is different from the second position (Fig. 1, middle item 200, noting item 200 may be attached to wire 56, wire 56 may be bent from straight to curved so that a double arc to middle item 200 is created)(see also Rudell et al., US Pub. No. 2007/0178799 A1, Figs. 3 and 5 making this obvious; specifically noting the wire supporting offshoot flower can be bent from straight to upward as shown and/or Kunz et al., US Pat. No. 6,461,215 B1, Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 5, see also Fig. 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of filing that the combine Pedersen, Schleich, and Hohrmann could be used as claimed above as taught and suggested by Jan because doing so would entirely consistent with the prior arts ability to use a bendable and posable wire to move a frictionally attached toy suspended from a posable wire from one configuration to another second and different configuration.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US Pat. No. 6,213,839 B1) in view of Schleich (US Pat. No. 3,918,196) in view of Kennard et al. (herein “Kennard”; US Pat. No. 5,205,772) and in further view of Hohrmann Pedersen (herein “Hohrmann”; US Pub. No. 2013/0210315 A1).
Regarding claim 41, the combined Pedersen and Schleich disclose seven plastic body components coupled to the posable component along the length of the posable component between the first plastic end component and the second plastic end component (Pedersen: Fig. 1, items 3 and 4 make nine and col. 2, lines 31-41) and each of the seven body components is cylindrical in shape (Pedersen: Fig. 1, items 3). It is noted that the combined Pedersen and Schleich do not specifically disclose eight body components that each of the first plastic end component, the second plastic end component, and each of the eight body components is cylindrical in shape. However, Pedersen discloses the use of seven cylindrical body between the two end components and clearly shows that these connectors provide engagement with other toys. In addition, regarding using eight body components over that of seven, it has been held that the duplication of parts is not given patentable weight unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, regarding using the cylindrical bodies as the first and second plastic end components, the use would have been a mere duplication of parts and a simple substitution of one element (item 3 being the cylindrical shape) for another (item 4 being the traditional LEGOTM coupling) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to have end components that engage with LEGOTM elements, the end components being cylindrical in shape). Furthermore, Kennard discloses a bendable wire (col. 4, lines 1-40) having the cylindrical components as claimed (Fig. 15, including eight body components and two end cylindrical components). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Pedersen and Schleich to use eight body components and make the end components cylindrical like the body components because doing so would be a mere duplication of parts and a simple substitution of one element for another, or alternatively, because doing so as taught by Kennard would be combing prior art elements (an attachment toy having cylindrical body components, and a bendable spine toy have all cylindrical components) according to known methods (making the attachment toy to have all cylindrical components, including eight middle body components, and two end components) to yield predictable results (making all of the connecting components to be cylindrical components, all of the components still allowing for connection with another construction block). Finally, it is noted that the combined Pedersen, Schleich, and Kennard do not specifically disclose that the body components have a maximum diameter between 3.2 mm and 4.8 mm. However, the cylindrically shaped bodies in Pedersen would have some inherent diameter that is used to connect the body to another LEGOTM type toy (Fig. 3, item 3). In addition, Hohrmann makes obvious similar LEGOTM style bricks that have cylindrical studs, wherein the distance between two adjacent studs is 3.2 mm (par. [0019]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Pedersen, Schleich, and Kennard to make the cylindrical bodies have a diameter of 3.2 mm as taught and suggested by Hohrmann because doing so would be combining prior art elements (cylindrical bodies that have some inherent diameter and connect to another LEGOTM type toy and a LEGOTM type toy have a distance of 3.2 mm between studs) according to known methods (making the cylindrical studs to have a diameter of 3.2 mm to fit in between the studs) to obtain predictable results (making the cylindrical studs to have a diameter of 3.2 mm to fit in between the studs, the cylindrical body able to connect to another LEGOTM type toy as intended).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US Pat. No. 6,213,839 B1) in view of Schleich (US Pat. No. 3,918,196) in view of Kennard et al. (herein “Kennard”; US Pat. No. 5,205,772) and in further view of Hohrmann Pedersen (herein “Hohrmann”; US Pub. No. 2013/0210315 A1) as evidenced by Wells (US Pub. No. 2014/0134917 A1).
Regarding claim 42, it is noted that the combined Pedersen, Schleich, Kennard, and Hohrmann do not specifically disclose that the plastic in each of the first plastic end component, the second plastic end component, and each of the eight body components is polycarbonate. However, Pedersen clearly discloses the use of plastic for the ends (col. 2, lines 31-41) and specifically discloses using ABS plastic (col. 3, lines 14-23). In addition, regarding using a material of a different tactile property on another post, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)(see applicant’s spec, par. [0094]; listing a number of materials suitable to make the toy, and no criticality to the specific use of polycarbonate). In addition, Wells specifically evidences that polycarbonate (i.e. PC) is a known substitute for acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (i.e. ABS) when it comes to toys (claim 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use polycarbonate as the plastic because it is a well-known substitute for ABS.
Response to Arguments
The response receive 1/2/26 is generally not persuasive.
Drawing Objection
The drawing objection is not overcome. All of the potential toys that can be connected to the body component of claims 24, 31, and 32need to be shown in the drawings. In addition, applicant does not state with any specificity why they think the drawing objection is overcome.
112 Rejection
The previous 112 rejection is overcome by way of the amendments. Any subsequent discussion is moot.
103 Rejection
As a matter of “common sense”, the Examiner gives the rejection of claim 1 under a 103 rejection. Degner makes obvious that the “flexible element” may be in the form of a “wire” or a “string” (col. 1, lines 4-12). The Examiner has corrected the typographical error of “also” to read “allow” in the rejection of claim 1, but the rejection has not changed.
The Rejection is Conclusory and Bereft of Evidence
Applicant argues that the prior art does not make obvious the limitation “posable”. What does it mean to be “posable”? “Posable” as defined by merriam-webster.com as “capable of being posed in various positions”. “Posed” is defined by the same website as “to put or set in place”. Is not a solid fork “capable of being posed in various positions” based on is viewing angle in which it is set on a horizontal table? Even assuming arguendo that the wire toy is rigid, could not the same apply? As such, the only questionable condition in claim 1 is “bendable”. However, Degner specifically states that the element is “flexible”. This makes obvious the limitation “bendable”. As such Degner makes obvious both “bendable” and “posable”.
Going a step further, cannot a wire that can be bent (because it is flexible) be posed (i.e. to put or set in place) in various and different positions because a user can bend the wire (even if manual pressure is still applied)? With all due respect, applicant appears to read limitations from the specification into the claims as to what it means to be “posable”. The Examiner does not.
Couple the above discussion with the fact that the above rejection is given under a 103, and that a POSA would understand that a normal wire that is “flexible” can functionally be posed (much like a flaccid “string”), and applicant’s position is unreasonable. For example, Degner specifically discloses the use of a “string”. Applicant actually calls the flexible element in Degner a “flaccid pull string” (see bottom of page 14; noting “string” is only one of the actual types listed, see col. 1, lines 4-12, listing “string, a wire, or a chain”). A POSA would understand that a “flaccid pull sting” or “chain” could be bent into many configurations. Why would this same teaching not applying to the other structure of a “wire” that is also listed and disclosed by Degner? Respectfully, this is common sense.
Also, where does claim 1 claim anything about “holding itself in position against the force of gravity” as argued by applicant (see Remarks, page 14). It does not. This language is not claimed until claim 24.
The Record Evidence Refutes the NFOA's Assertion
Applicant argues that “In other words, Degner clearly teaches a POSITA away from rigidifying the pull element by modifying it as a ‘posable’ wire since doing so would cause a pull that may exceed the tensile strength issues identified by Degner in the prior art discussed in that disclosure”. This argument might be compelling but for the fact that Degner specifically states that the element may be a “wire” (col. 1, lines 4-12). So, Degner clearly discloses to a POSA that the flexible element may be a “wire”. Next, Degner does not disclose that it is “rigid” as argued by applicant. Degner specifically discloses that it is “flexible”. As such, a “posable” wire would be obvious and consistent with the explicit teachings in Degner. Applicant argues that Degner has a “clear teaching away” from a “posable component” because it does not what the “flexible element to deform more than necessary”. However, this position is completely inconsistent with Degner specifically stating that the “flexible element” may be a “string” (to be exact, a “flaccid string” as argued by applicant).
The NFOA Engages in Speculation about Degner's Flaccid Pull Element
This section has been addressed above. Again, the argument goes back to what does it means to be “posable”. As noted above, the Examiner’s position is that even a rigid element can be “posable” in multiple positions depending on its placed orientation. However, the Examiner also believes that a POSA would understand that a “wire” element that is a “flexible element” can functionally be “posable”; regardless of the exact definition. Also, the Examiner would assert that this position is not based on “mere speculation”, but on the clear disclosure of Degner and what would be obvious to a POSA given the fact that the element can be “flexible” and also a “string” or “a chain”.
Applicant argues the plain definition of “wire” and cites to a reference for support of this argument. Merriam-webster.com defines “wire” as “metal in the form of usually very flexible thread or slender rod” (emphasis added). A POSA would understand that if a wire, by definition, is very flexible, it would also be functionally “bendable” and “posable” (in many different positions; although this is not specifically claimed in claim 1).
Also, applicant cites to many different sources as “evidence” to what is considered “a wire”. The Examiner simply needs to cite to Schleich (i.e. the secondary reference) as “evidence” for the proposition that a POSA would understand a “flexible element” being a “wire” could be both bendable and posable; although the Examiner does not think claim 1 needs further “evidence”.
Furthermore, the Examiner will not withdraw his 103 rejection. The Examiner specifically rejects claim 1 under 103 because it would have been “obvious” to a POSA what a “flexible element” that is a “wire” may functionally perform (i.e. that it may be both bendable and posable).
Applicant Distinguished Degner in the Specification
Simply because applicant referred to Degner in the specification as background does not mean that it is patentable over it; especially in light of an obviousness rejection. It appears that applicant is arguing a new precedent for patentability. That is, simply referring to a reference in the background section makes the reference no longer applicable to a rejection on the merits. Respectfully submitted, the Examine declines to take this position.
The USPTO Previously Considered Degner to Disclose Flaccid and Non-Self-Sustaining Flexible Members Respectfully submitted, US classification is in no way indicative as to the content of the disclosure or what is considered analogous art (see specifically MPEP 2141.01(a)(II) stating ‘the court has found "the similarities and differences in structure and function of the inventions disclosed in the references to carry far greater weight”’ than classification).
Claims 21-30 Are Not Obvious over Degner and Schleich
Schleich Fails to Cure Degner's Defects with respect to Claim 1
Respectfully submitted, applicant’s arguments with regards to Schleich are what the Board refers to as In re Keller arguments. Restated, applicant argues the specific structure (and incorporation) of Schleich instead of what the prior art would teach a POSA. Schleich teaches the ability to use a deformation or notch at the end of a wire for retaining overmolding terminus ends. It also teaches a wire that is specifically posable against gravity (i.e. may be posed in numerous configurations and retain its shape).
Schleich Contradicts Degner’s Principle of Operation
Respectfully submitted, Schleich teaches a “flexible element” that is in the form of a “wire’ just like Degner. There is no inherent teaching away or rendering inoperable by the combination.
The NFOA Provides No Motivation to Modify Degner in View of Schleich
Simply put, this argument is completely inaccurate. The Examiner has given a KSR rationale to combine above. This rationale is given in claim 21. The Examiner would also like to state that once a reference is correctly combined, if it is “obvious for one reason, it is obvious for all” (see In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1971)).
It is also interesting that applicant argues that “the NFOA speculates that Schleich's use of a notch in its core wire would be the use of a known technique to modify the flaccid string in Degner in the same way” (emphasis added). Once again, Degner specifically discloses the use of a “wire”. This is very clear. Along those lines, if applicant is categorizing Degner as showing a “flaccid” element, would this not make obvious “bendable” and “posable” wire? This seems to be a contradiction in arguments. Restated, if Degner is disclosing a string that is bendable (because it is “flaccid”), would it not logically follow that a wire would also be bendable?
Along those lines, applicant has argued from the beginning (and continues to argue) that the Pedersen and Degner references are essentially limited to the “flaccid string” embodiment. They are not. Both references specifically disclose the use of a “wire” (see MPEP 2123; specifically stating “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments”). As such, even assuming arguendo that a “string” is a preferred embodiment, it does not teach away from the use of a “wire” as explicitly stated.
Again, applicant argues “Therefore, the NFOA never considered that POSITA had no reason to modify Degner in view of Schleich since Degner had already solved the adhesion problem by using the course surface of its fabric string”. The problem with this position is that Degner also specifically discloses that the “flexible element” can be a “wire” as noted above. The question becomes how would the overmolding of the ends be accomplished if a “wire” was used? Schleich specifically solves this problem.
Claim 1 is not Obvious over Pedersen
The Rejection is Conclusory and Bereft of Evidence
The same arguments are also applied to the Pedersen reference. These arguments have been addressed above with regards to Degner and applies equally to Pedersen.
The USPTO Disagrees with NFOA's Hindsight Re-Interpretation of the Pedersen Reference's Disclosure
The argument with regards to classification has also been addressed above with regards to Degner and applies equally to Pedersen.
POSITA Were Motivated Not to Modify Pedersen to Meet the Limitations of Claim 1
Again, the generally arguments have been addressed above. In the Examiner’s opinion, Degner and Pedersen disclose very similar inventions. Both also allow for a “flexible” elongate element. Both disclose that the element may be specifically a “wire”. Applicant cites to references about “breaking wire”. The problem with this position is that Pedersen specifically discloses that the element may be “wire”. As such, the argument is not compelling because even assuming arguendo that it is a non-preferred embodiment, there cannot be a teaching away.
For the record, the Examiner has specifically review the Dowd declaration previously submitted. The Examiner had previously consider the declaration but does not finding it compelling to provide patentability. That is, Pedersen specifically discloses that the element may be a “wire”. It also discloses that it may be “flexible”. A POSA would understand from merriam-webster.com that “wire” is defined as a “metal in the form of usually very flexible thread or slender rod” (emphasis added). If the Examiner found the Dowd declaration compelling, he would have to completely ignore the explicit statement in Pedersen that the element may be a ”flexible” “wire”. He would also have completely ignore the fact that a POSA would understand that “wire”, by plain definition, is inherently “metal” and “very flexible”. Respectfully submitted, the Examiner declines to take such an extreme position.
POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Avoid Using Metal Wire in Snap-Fit Interconnecting Building Blocks like Degner and Pedersen
Again, the Dowd declaration has been considered, but is not compelling. Once again, Pedersen specifically discloses that the element can be a “wire”. As noted on page 25 of the Remarks, the declaration is simply Mr. Dowd’s opinion that “the skilled toy designer would have avoided doing such a thing [using a metal wire] at all costs to avoid making a product that was so obviously a danger to children”. However, and once again, Pedersen specifically states that the flexible element could be a “wire”. As noted above, a POSA would understand that “wire”, by definition, encompasses the use of a “metal” that is “very flexible”. Applicant is correct that a previous Pedersen rejection was used. However, the Examiner also points applicant and the Board to the footnote on page 9 of the Board decision handed down on 3/27/25 wherein the Board appears to imply that a rejection based on Pedersen is warranted.
Claims 21-32 are not Obvious over Pedersen in view of Schleich
Claims 21-30
Schleich Fails to Cure the Defects of Pedersen With Respect to Claim 1
Schleich is not brought in to reject claim 1, so the Examiner is unsure why it is argued. The Examiner would reiterate that much like in the Degner rejection discussed above, the Schleich reference could be potentially used to evidence what a POSA would consider to be a “wire”.
With that said, applicant’s argument with regards to Schleich have been addressed above. Applicant argues the specific structure (and incorporation) of Schleich instead of what the prior art reference would teach a POSA. The Examiner would also circle back to In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1971). That is, claim 24 brings in Schleich to make obvious the ability to deform ends of a wire so that it retains overmolded terminus elements. Once that combination is validly created, Schleich is obvious for all that it discloses.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is obvious because it is functionally possible given the combined references. That is, “configured to” denotes functionally language that is possible given the structure. Again, applicant argues the specific structure of Schleich instead of what it teaches a POSA.
Claims 31 and 32
As for these claims, both claims 31 and 32 depend from claim the previous claims 21-30. Claim 21 is a correct combination of Pedersen in view of Schleich. A rationale to combine is present. The requirements of claims 31 and 32 are functionally possible because again, they use the language “configured to”. As such, the functional language is possible given the combined structure.
Claims 33 and 37 are not Obvious over Pedersen in view of Schleich in further view of Hohrmann
Applicant has no specific arguments with regards to Hohrmann.
Claim 41 is not Obvious over Pedersen in view of Schleich and Kennard and
in further view of Hohrman [sic]
Applicant again argues the classification of Kennard. Again, classification is not indicative of what is described and analogous art. The Examiner does not find applicant’s arguments with regards to Kennard compelling. Kennard specifically discloses “a deformable wire” (col. 4, lines 1-40) and not a “flaccid connector” as argued by applicant (see Remarks, page 31, applicant stating that the reviewer “clearly determined that Kennard disclose a construction toy that used a ‘flaccid connector for joining plural elements’”; but noting Kennard never disclose “flaccid”). Furthermore, the Examiner has never found applicant’s argument that Degner teaches away from the use of a posable wire a compelling argument (see discussion above). Finally, Kennard is never used with Degner, it is used in combination with Pedersen. So to argue the combination of Degner and Kennard is completely moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
2/17/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711